Cameron H.

100% agree with you. I took "the other one" the same way. Her character was only in the movie to be a prop for Mariah's character. She was just a friend for the sole purpose of being lost and show the audience how Mariah's character was losing her way. I did not feel that calling her "the other one" was a slam or slight against her ethnicity at all. If anything it was a slam against the writer. Kind of like, "Why should I look up this character on IMDb, when you don't make her a character worth looking up." I said this in a previous post, but--unless I am missing something--Temptation does not have anything to do with race, so I do not see how the podcast will be racially insensitive. They have no reason even to bring it up. At no point does a character in the movie say anything like, "Being a black man in America..." or anything like that. It is the one thing I probably do like about the movie. Even at its worst, it is about people, their race is inconsequential to the story. Even the old white lady at the pharmacy isn't racist, just homophobic. Which isn't better of course, but I hope you get my meaning. I guess I am saying, I don't think they should avoid talking about a crazy, fucked up movie, with TONS of horrible things happening, just because the cast is primarily Black. If anyone cares, I see Harley as "Sexy Satan," Brice as "Nerdy Jesus," and Judith as "the Incompetent Counselor."

At least they didn't call her Roach Bag over and over

I'd give it a shot and just turn it off or skip to the end when you can't take it anymore. Obviously, the subject matter isn't funny. What is funny is Tyler Perry's ham-fisted, dogmatic screed. It seriously feels like it was a first draft. Everyone is so one-dimensional as to be merely dots on the screen. Mr. Men and Little Miss books have more depth, subtlety, and character development.

Wasn't "Try a Little Tenderness" in Roadhouse as well? Man, that song was oddly popular in the 80's... Also, which role should Duckie have played or would he just be in there as himself? Either way...awesome!

Not only that, but apparently she has only been on the job for like three weeks. Yeah, let's put that person in charge of a multi-million dollar deal with no oversight. Great idea! Then again, she did just graduate college with a degree in marriage counselling, so yeah, she's probably got that.

I doubt it. For the most part they are pretty sensitive to those kinds of things. Besides, race didn't even seem to be an issue in the movie, so I am not sure why it would be brought up. Even with an all white/aborigine/Inuit cast, it would still have been bonkers.

If you have never watched a Tyler Perry movie this one is pretty a pretty good representation of the rest of his oeuvre. Honestly, they are all basically the same movie. The only thing I was bummed about in this one is we didn't get to see him in drag as Medea. I would say it was due to the subject matter, but that has never stopped him before.

I hope Aukerman is the guest since he got Sharknado-ed twice on Tyler Perry movies. Also, this movie is crazy. I took a guess at the twist, and if I'm right, this will be a flawless movie. I have about 15 mins to go...we'll see. Edited to add: Nope. I was wrong. If anyone pays attention to the dialog at around 1:17 you'd probably guess what I was thinking. I won't spoil it here. Besides, I think everyone needs to watch this one. It is worth it. That ending...wow...

I know nothing about this movie, but with a title like Action USA, I now HAVE to watch it. It can't be anything but good!

I have to agree with this. In my opinion, as crazy as Chronicles is, it is equal parts boring. I think either Pitch Black or Riddick would be more entertaining for HDTGM.

Absolutely, I would have been disappointed if someone hadn't.

How many copies did you get? Also, you should recommend for them to put a display by the poultry. That's just good cross-promotion.

Wow, I never heard of this movie. Just watched the trailer. How many keyboards do you reckon the writers went through? You know, on account of the heavy-handedness. This is the type of movie I am convinced was written with a near constant erection.

Ah! I see what you are saying, however for this particular shit sandwich (Glitter) YouTube was acting the fool on me. So I rented it for $4 on Amazon, then found and bought it for $5 the next day at a used DVD store, then purchased the Rifftrax for $4 so I could have seconds. In this case, my shit sandwich cost me $13 dollars and worth every penny! If anything, HDTGM was the delightful digestif I drank afterwards to sooth my stomach.

Apparently so... I mean, someone on this forum may or may not have said something like, "Hey, it's free, the sound's not that bad (at all, even before whatever July did), just enjoy it." And someone else may or may not have blown a fucking fuse, and may or may not have said such nuggets of wisdom like, "A kick in the balls is free too, doesn't mean I have to like it."* This person then may or may not have gone on to verbally abuse nice people for just doing their job of making this a fun place to visit. Allegedly, of course. This may or may not have happened. And just to explain something to anyone lame enough to use the specious "A kick in the balls" argument, the difference will always be intent. Was the sound being ever-so-slightly bad a personal attack on you? Did the good people at Earwolf wring their hands and say, "Fools! We shall give them pain instead of laughter, and thus the world shall be ours! Bwa-Ha-Ha." No? Then shut the fuck up. A better analogy would be if Person 1 was hungry (doesn't even have to be starving) and Person 2 offers them free food. If P2 hands P1 a shit sandwich, then by all means, shove that right back in their fucking face. Their intent is to mock or to hurt you. On the other hand, if P2 offers a delicious turkey sandwich, but maybe it doesn't have as much mayonnaise as you usually like or something, it is not okay to fly into histrionics, spit it back in their face, and scream that it's poison. That's really all I have to say on that subject. Complaining that the free entertainment you are being offered isn't up to your ridiculous standards is both douchey and entitled--kind of like Dice in Glitter (That's right, bringing it back to the movie! BAM!)--and I have little patience for either . Of course this is all hypothetical, it may or may not have happened... *This may or may not be a quote from another site this person may or may not have been posting on. Who fucking cares? All I can say is that some people deserve a kick in the balls much more than others

I think all the mods have been great, as have all the other people I have encountered on this site. Just a bunch of friendly, funny people as far as I can tell. As for LOL, check out the subforum "Bad Movie Recommendations." Trust me, we've talked about it. Lots of funny stuff there!

To bring it back to the movie, and I apologize in advance for this being my 4th or 5th post on it (I keep thinking it's been purged only to get a full bukkake blast of it's stupidity on my mind-face.) Does anyone else want to talk about what a bitch Glitter is to her friends? They are in a limo and Dice calls one of her friends a fat ass and the other a Rat Bag. These are her oldest friends in the world and have shown her nothing but unconditional support since the moment they found out she was "mixed." Yet, when Dice verbally assaults them, aside from trying--in an extremely feeble manner--to apologize for his being drunk, she does nothing! They get out of the limo and she just looks at them like, "I guess you bitches are gonna be walking tonight." Frankly, I am relieved they made it home safely... What would it have hurt her to show them a little solidarity? It has already been established that the label is ready to drop Dice, so it isn't like her success is riding on him. He's got a safe ride home in the limo, so there is no risk of him getting a DUI or being in an accident. If she had just gotten her stupid, apathetic ass out and gotten a cab with her friends, one of two things would probablyhave happened: 1) She meets him at home later and they talk about his behavior, y'know like mature adults would, at which point he would apologize (on or off screen, I don't care) to her and her friends. This might not exactly be riveting entertainment, but then again, what about this movie was? Or... 2) They break up and she loses the producer of her single song. This of course wouldn't be a huge loss as the record company already thinks his other songs are garbage and they have already taken the liberty of hiring her a new lover. And I don't want to hear that she punks out on her friends because she and Dice are "in love" as there is literally nothing in the movie to support this.

But Dan, might I remind you as the person whose post was quoted in the original deleted Fervel post (you're all welcome-btw), that this, the Official Earwolf forum for the podcast, is merely "redundant" to the subreddit.

Bravo!

I was going to say that maybe we should get off the chicken, but I think she does that in the movie--BOOM! **CameronH=Keeping it classy**

So I was in bed last night thinking about Terrance Howard (not the first time, won't be the last), and I came up with what I think is a legit question. Maybe I missed something.... So T-How sells Glitter's nebulous contract to Dice for 100k. Why did he do that when he knew empirically that Glitter was 1000x better than Silk? Wouldn't he stand to make considerably more money keeping her under him? It can't be based solely on looks (i.e. Silk is prettier, ergo she will sell more records) as they are pretty much on par with one another in terms of attractiveness (even if I do personally believe Mariah kind of looks like Christopher Mintz-Plasse in drag). Then he gives Dice MONTHS! to pay up--which is pretty stand-up if you ask me. Finally, fed up, he confronts Glitter and says, "Dice owes me 100k," to which she replies, "We can get the money from the label." T-How then tells her, "I don't want money from the label, I want it from Dice." First of all, the label is basically Dice's employer at this point so where else would he get the money? Secondly, if you weren't waiting for him to get the money from the label or from her success, why wait at all? Why didn't he say to Dice at the initial conversation, "Where's your checkbook, Lucky Seven? Let's do this thing. Oh, you don't have the money? Get the fuck out of here, son." Regardless, I think we can all agree that Dice was both a douche and a deadbeat, and T-How was totally justified in shooting him in the shoulder with the magic, trajectory-changing bullet that led to his death.

Nope, not really.

Before. The current conversation on this thread started on the 3rd of September and they recorded LOL with Glitter on the 20th.

I don't know, I like the "in studio" episodes, but I also like the energy and audience participation of the live shows. I am not trying to be intentionally contrary, but the way I see it, they are offering us free entertainment every week. Live shows are a way for them to make some money and keep us with the laughs. So if that means once in a while the sound isn't perfect, so be it.

As for the anachronistic feel of this movie, I have a few thoughts. First, I really feel that this movie was intended to take place in the late eighties/early nineties. According to IMDB, Mariah Carey was shopping this story for a few years and was writing songs for it prior to it getting the green light. If that's the case, and she was trying to sell a fictionalized account of her own rise to fame, why would she set it at a time when she was only about 12 or 13 years old? If you bump the timeline 6 or 7 years, the movie makes (a little) more sense. Instead, and I think correctly, the movie should have begun in 1983. The clothes the characters wear (except her mother, but I think she may have been high on cigarettes) fit more in line. This way when the "action" of the movie takes place, it would have been around 1990, the year Mariah Carey released her first album. To set it in '83 is just bizarre. What I truly believe happened is the studio said, "Hey, sit down guys, we got Mariah. We're doing her life story. Not only that, she is doing all the music! This. Is. Going. To. Be. Huge! We'll make money on the movie, we'll make money on the soundtrack. Guys, we are going to be sleeping on mattresses made of golden hookers stuffed with cocaine." When the music came in, and they realized it was garbage and it wouldn't be tearing up the charts, they decided to retroactively set the movie in 1983 to save face. This way they could say, "Well, the music isn't supposed to appeal to current musical tastes. It's a period piece." If it was set in 1983, it actually makes the movie more depressing because it leaves the viewer saying, "Well, I guess that's it for Glitter. No other hits, huh?" But, if it is set in 1990, then you could assume Glitter's career trajectory followed Mariah's own. You would think doing a piece like this you would want to showcase how cutting edge an artist is/was, and not say that her music is better suited for a previous decade. Then again, I think it just as plausible that the editor messed up and put the year up on the wrong scene of the movie, everyone shrugged, and said, "Fuck it, I guess it's an eighties movie now."