Cameron H.

"Cameron H: Second Place...as Always"

I'm sure Paul will post one as soon as he can, but it is Father's Day weekend and his wife has been out of the country. I don't know if June is back from Bangkok yet, but I think we can all give him a pass for being a little late on the mini-ep. By the way, Happy Father's Day to Paul and all the father's out there in forum land! Suggestions for things to watch in the meantime: Watch TMNT2, since we all know it's coming up Watch the Rifftrax for Dreamscape (w/ Janet Varney and Cole Stratton) or Rock and Roll Nightmare. Watch Innerspace and Gremlins 2, for no good reason other than that's my reality for today, and I couldn't be happier

Ah, so a war of attrition it is then. Have at thee! Yeah, I was more or less teasing about the telescope, but that was a pretty good answer. My only problem with it is there is nothing I love more than my own son. Saving a "thing" would never even enter my mind as I would be more focused on protecting him. Fuck it. They can take everything I have as far as I'm concerned. But I do have to agree with you...Padme is the worst.

The funny thing about this is I was just re-listening to the Junior episode and Jason makes almost the exact same comment on the S.O. theme as he did in this episode. Apropos of nothing...I really wish they would do more episodes with just the three of them. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the guests, but there is something about just the three of them discussing a movie that is really charming.

Dammit, Nonesuch! Thwarted again! I'm not going to rest until I get you to say you don't like this movie! Although, I did notice you didn't have an answer for the "death for telescope" scene. Interesting....although it does bring to my mind another Star Wars parallel... Who is the shittier parent? The father that allows himself to be killed for a telescope he could easily replace or the mother who dies after giving birth to twins because she's given up the will to live? Discuss...

The "illegal alien" angle is an issue that still bugs me. I suspect the official answer comes down to it being a narrative device, which, to me, is just not a satisfying explanation. I feel like the Wachowskis are saying, "She was born at sea, so technically, no matter where she lives on Earth, she's an alien too. Mind-blower, huh?" And I guess that's fine, albeit a little heavy handed for my taste. I guess I just don't get, seeing as her father was a British citizen, why her mother wouldn't just take her to England. Yes, they may have family in America, but her mother is a highly educated, well-to-do mathematician. I just feel like it shouldn't have been too difficult for her to move (legally) to England, get a decent job, and later, if they wanted, immigrate to America. I mean, if her father's death was politically (or Alien) motivated, and not just because he wanted to protect his precious telescope (again, ridiculous), then I could see them trying to leave the country as quickly as possible by whatever means. But, since none of that is presented in the movie, the entire foundation the movie is built upon is unstable and murky. I mean, I get the symbolism of her being an "alien" on her own planet and the Power of Myth-ness of her Cinderella upbringing, I just found it little too trite and cloying. It's just one of those things I think could have handled better with more nuance.

While I agree that is polite (and important) to correctly pronounce a name when presented to you, I don't think that is what happened here. I mean, Jason politely corrected Paul when he mispronounced Rooney Mara's name and Paul corrected himself, but they never said anything to Razzle. What this tells me is that they either didn't notice, didn't care, or weren't comfortable correcting their guest, and put in their position--if I did notice--I'd probably let it slide as well: courtesy for my guest being more important than courtesy to the movie star who is not in attendance. So although I respect how it might be annoying to some, no, I don't think it's as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be. People frequently mispronounce words and names, but I don't think it's necessary to correct them all the time--I just feel that's kind of douchey. Maybe it's something he picked up somewhere that he can't shake, maybe it's his accent, I don't really know and I simply don't care. I mean, I guess it's nice if people want to get worked up about it and... protect Ms, Kunis' name(?), I just think it's a waste of energy. And I am sorry, my tone was a bit acerbic on that post. I stand by what I said, but I could have phrased it better.

Nonesuch, I just wanted to say, sincerely, you've had the unenviable and Herculean task of defending this movie from us curmudgeonly naysayers. I admire your passion for this movie, and although I can honestly say that I don't think I will ever like it, I will say that I do respect it for the ambitious disaster I feel it is based solely on your arguments. You've kept your composure throughout and made many articulate arguments in it's favor. I really do hope, once this movie is done with, you'll return to the forums to discuss future movies with us. I tip my cap to you!

Yeah, you, Nonesuch, and Seanotron are probably right. I think I may have been using his comment to make the macro-point that I think it is shitty when actors crap on their own movies, which really wasn't fair to Tatum, as I don't know for a fact that was what he was doing. The more I think on it, which granted hasn't been a lot, I think it was him dismissing (in a diplomatic way) what was obviously a troll-ish question. It really isn't my place to apply intention or meaning in his (or any person's) words. So I do apologize, I spoke out of turn. I do stand by my point overall that it's obnoxious when actors actually do bag on their own films when, in the grand scheme of things, being able to be an actor successful enough to make a living at it is something a lot of people would kill for so just be grateful. However, it was not right of me to take his offhand comment and use it as a soapbox to air my own personal agenda. That was my bad. I'll try to keep it positive from here on out.

While I do think that's funny, it also bugs me when actors put down their own movies. I mean, you read the script, right? Are you telling me you didn't know about floating roller skates before you signed on? Fuck that, man! Either you knew what you were getting into or you were just taking the project for selfish reasons (i.e. money, exposure, etc.) Stand by your work! Say something like, "It was a good script, but I guess it just didn't work. I thought Mila did really well in it..." Shit, I'd have more respect if he just owned up and said, "I didn't really get it when I signed on, but I needed the money/wanted to work with the Wachowskis/really like wearing pointy ears." This kind of dismissive attitude some actors have over their "flops" is so disingenuous, it's ridiculous. It's all "Hey guys, I'm one of you. That was a real clunker, huh? Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. Say no more." The problem is, no one will be you Channing, because you were the one person who said "yes" to acting in this movie. This is on your resume, deal with it. The funny thing is I have been listening to old HDTGM episodes this week and heard two examples of this same thing--one I thought was handled quite well and the other was just godawful. When Halle Berry accepts the Razzie for Catwoman it could have been good, could of been cute, but she never once takes any ownership of her part in it's awfulness. During her speech she blames the director, her agent, and the screenwriters, but never once says, "Yeah, I guess I could have been better." Again it's that, "I had no control over this. The world conspired against me to act in this movie. I'm with you cool people..." The second interview, and the one I think gets it right, is when Nic Cage is talking about the Wicker Man. He just says, "Hey it is what it is, and it did what it did." He doesn't knock the movie or anyone involved in making it. Furthermore, he does it without poo-pooing his role in it. I think in this way he is able to save some degree of face, which is what I believe Channing and Halle were trying (unsuccessfully) to do. Nic Cage rulez!

Oh Christ, yes! (The Glitter debacle of 2014 springs immediately to mind.) I just don't get that attitude at all? What do they even expect the outcome of that kind of negativity is going to be? Fortunately, as you said, those people don't tend to stick around (although they just announced some live shows so I'm sure they'll be back soon). I mean seriously, how about we not direct our ire at the hosts, engineers, moderators, and guests who make this show possible. Instead, let's direct it where it should be--at these shitty, shitty movies. In my opinion, I think the people around here are pretty great. I don't think there is anyone around here where I'm like, "That guy. Fuck that guy." I don't know if HDTGM/Earwolf fans are just better people in general or if the moderators are even more badass than they seem.

I appreciate the kind words, but we're cool, Souprman! If you were to do it, or any of the other regular posters, I'd be cool with it. The funny thing is, the people who do do it, are the people who register an account, make that one post, and are never heard from again. Honestly, I really shouldn't have bothered. If they can't take the time to read if someone has already posted on something, they certainly aren't going to read what I wrote. I just get annoyed when I see the same thing brought up again and again and I'm like "Yes, BeingAllFishes already said that! It's the fifth goddamn post!"

Damn, that's some next level shit. I just wonder, now that they've achieved "Jeopardy" status, will the fame go to their heads? First it will be the parties, then the drugs--and the next thing you know--they'll start in with the "experimental" episodes--which will be critically acclaimed and considered some of their best work, but alienating and enigmatic for their longtime fans. Then come the fights. Jason thinks they should get back on the road and get back to their roots. Paul and June, exhausted from the limelight, refuse. Eventually, they come to a compromise and do one final episode on the roof of the Earwolf offices. People in the streets will look up with joy, little knowing that this will be the last time the three of them will be in the same place ever again. It's all very sad really... But, in the meantime, let's celebrate!

At the risk of calling forth a cold and ruthless Internet, could we please have a moratorium on posts correcting the hosts/guests on their usage of the word "nonplussed?" We get it. After one post, we got it. Besides, according to a two second Google search I just tippy-tapped out, the North American usage of nonplussed can mean: not disconcerted; unperturbed. Look, I get it, I was an English Major (yes, I have tons of typos in my posts, whatever). Words--they mean something, man! But the battle is over on this one. Nonplussed purists, you lost. I'm sorry. But seriously, could you not understand what they meant at least contextually? Did it really affect your enjoyment of the podcast or did your brain just shutdown as if they were screaming gibberish? And while I'm at it, Mila vs Myla? I didn't really notice. I don't give a fuck, and unless your name actually is "Mila," neither should you. #biggercrimes (That's my first hashtag, guys. You see what you've driven me too?) Anyway, sorry for the rant. Won't happen again. EDITED TO ADD: Sorry, I just told a fib, one more thing. If you are writing a post, especially if it has been a couple of days after an episode drops and it begins with the phrase, "I'm not sure if someone has already brought this up..." chances are somebody already did. Feel free to peruse the comments first, it only takes a couple of minutes. People say a lot of interesting and funny things here that deserve to be read. If someone already brought up your point, feel free to expand on it, but otherwise, do the work. Okay, now I'm done. Once again, I apologize. Won't happen again...probably.

Hey, I aim to please!

Wow, thank you for the response. While I don't agree with you completely, I totally respect your opinion. Here are some of my thoughts in regard to your well-thought out reply. I do see how this can happen. In the mini-sode thread, I mentioned that I had a similar experience when I re-watched this movie. Now, to be clear, I wasn't re-watching out of amazement, curiosity, or befuddlement, but simply because I try to watch HDTGM's a couple of times before the episode. In this case, I definitely got more out of it on the second viewing, which isn't to say that I liked it, just that I understood it better. Since I was already aware of what I was in store for, a lot of the things that were lost on me due to murky storytelling made much more sense. So while I agree that watching it multiple times can be illuminating, I would also agree with your other point that I shouldn't be required to watch any movie multiple times just to "get it." In my mind, this movie could have been pretty good. To me, a good movie should be a pretty simple story that rewards people if they choose to revisit it, but re-watching should never be mandatory. In my opinion, the Wachowskis' problem is that, although I think they are decent writers in a technical sense, they really suffer as storytellers. I think they need a little less, "Look at this super cool, intelligent sounding thing I just wrote" and a little more "kill your darlings." I don't know if I'd call this a "girls" movie. I'm not even sure I subscribe to the idea of a "girls" movie or a "boys" movie. I am more of a "good" movie or "bad" movie kind of guy (I know, that sounds horribly black and white of me. I assure you, I believe there are shades of gray [at least 50, or so I've heard], otherwise I wouldn't be listening to this podcast). I want to say that she has no agency, but that is not entirely true as she does have some agency by the end. I want to say she spends the whole movie being rescued by Tatum, but realistically, if put in the same (ridiculous) situations, wouldn't we all, regardless of gender, need a roller skating werewolf to save us? I don't know, I'm just another guy and probably not the best person to answer the question of whether her role in this movie is empowering for women or not... In my gut, I feel like it's not, but I may very likely (most likely) be wrong. Who am I to say? However, I 100% agree with you that this episode could have used a female's perspective. I always enjoy it more when they have as many different perspectives as possible, but I think it is almost crucial when the movie being discussed is being told exclusively from a woman's point of view. Otherwise you just have four dudes sitting around a table discussing what they think a woman might be thinking or feeling in any given situation without the firsthand experience to know whether they are right or wrong. Don't get me wrong, I did love the episode, but I think June's input was sorely missed. Ideally, if June isn't available, it would be nice to have a female guest to cut the nearly overwhelming testosterone in the room. This way, if someone says something kind of ignorant like, "She makes mistakes--she donates her eggs," hopefully someone will call them out on how coo-coo that sounds. Anyway, thanks for the response! Again, I'm not turned around on my feelings for it, but it is interesting to hear a non-crazy person's response to why they liked this movie.

Nonesuch, based on the level of detail with which you are able to respond to some of these questions, I'm starting to get the distinct vibe that you actually enjoyed this movie (perhaps, you may have even had a hand in writing it...) If so, I'd be very interested to know why you liked it so much. Granted, some of the questions you're answering do have clear in-movie answers, but some of your responses seem to be coming from the kind of intimate familiarity--with both the characters and story--that I can only imagine would have to come from a person who has devoted intense, philosophical thought to the themes and plot of this film. For me it was just a giant, goofy mess, but I'm open to a constructive argument in its favor.

Despite Mr. Tompkins impassioned monologue regarding his love for the Brussels sprout, I still can't get behind any food that does not follow the proper rules of grammar. Shouldn't it be Brussels' sprout, or if someone wants to be a complete dumb-dumb, Brussels's sprout? It's a sprout from Brussels, right? Therefore, Brussels has ownership of the sprout so the word should connote possession. You wouldn't say, "America flowers," you would say, "America's flowers." Of course this is all my roundabout way of saying, it's all bullshit and I ain't putting one in my mouth! Ugh...gross! Get it together, Brussels!

I think her issue was with the "Abrasax" part, not the "Titus" part.

And then the movie took your job, kicked your dog, and shit in your bed. But seriously, I'm with you. Good stuff. Embrace that shit.

Off Topic Question This probably isn't the correct forum to ask this (I'm not on FB or Twitter, guys), but seeing how Nate* and possibly Paul will be checking this thread for C&O's over the next couple of days, I thought it I might go ahead and ask here. Is there going to be a 2nd Annual Howdies this year? Obviously, schedules allowing... I thought last year's was pretty fun and would love for them to do another! Of course, last year's episode had the benefit of 3 1/2 years of material, but I think another episode would be fun--especially considering they've had so many issues this year getting everyone in the same place. I think it might be fun to hear Jason and June's reactions to bits/movies/other weirdness that occurred while they were out. Again, I know last year's episode was difficult to put together and I would hate to put more work on the good folks at Earwolf, but I would love it if it could be put together. Just curious. Nate-- I just wanted to say thank you for the love (probably not "love," more like "not-dislike" ) you've given my posts over the past year. I'm not sure if I'm always deserving, as I often find other people's posts more insightful/funny/interesting then my (usually) meandering, stream-of-conscious ramblings, but it's always pretty cool to hear them read on-air during the mini-episodes. So I just wanted to say thank you for that and all the work you do for HDTGM and Earwolf!

I have a couple of points of dialog that have bugged me to no end and I hope someone can help clarify them for me. When Jupiter is getting exposition dumped by Stinger she tells him, "[Caine] seems different since we got here." Based on what, Jupiter? Based on what??? You have only known this guy for about 24hrs--12 of which you were unconscious for! How do you know if he is acting differently? You met him and he was terse and brooding. You drove to the country and he was terse and brooding. You get to the Stinger's farm, and guess what, the dude is still terse and brooding! How is he any different from any of the interactions you have had with him up to this point? Is it just that he's not currently space-skating through the city shooting at alien bounty hunters? Guess what, Dumb-dumb, I'm willing to bet he has a life outside of damsel saving and space adventuring. And also, while we're at it, teachers don't live at the schools where they work. Stinger then goes on to tell her all about the brave and unstoppable werewolf species: "[Caine] is a Lycantant without a pack....a Lycantant needs a pack. It's their center of gravity. Alone, usually they waste away and die, unless they become like him. Fearless. Relentless." So, unless my Wachowski to English dictionary is failing me, he is basically saying, "These guys are pretty tough and heartless. Unless of course something bad happens to them, at which point they will either get really, really sad or continue to be just as they are: tough and heartless." Are the Wachowskis telling me that when a tragedy occurs a person will either wallow in their misery or find a way to move on with their life? Wow! Way to go Jupiter Ascending! You really broke open the human condition for me. Consider my mind thoroughly blown.

I didn't get the vibe that the bath was actually necessary or that was the prescribed amount of youth goop needed for the "de-ageification." I took it more as a frivolous person showing off their wealth in a decadent and vulgar display. Something like this:

Well, at least you're setting a good example for your teenage daughter in what qualities are important to look for in a potential boyfriend/girlfriend.

Thank you, Paul! It was very kind of you to answer my question. If it makes any difference, you have at least one loyal, lifelong listener in this faceless, Internet non-person. So congratulations and here's hoping for your continued success! And, if I may be so bold to ask one last question, is there any chance we'll be seeing Jen Kirkman on the show either as a guest or participant?