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

Cameron H.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    7731

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    471

Posts posted by Cameron H.

  1. Posted

    My favorite part is the owner saying "good job" after the snake bellyflops. She sounds just sarcastic enough that I want to dub in Christian Bale going "OHHHH GOOD FOR YOU!" from his

    .

     

    LOL! I've never actually listened to Bale's rant before. My favorite part is when he's like, "Do you want me to kick your ass?" there's some noise like he's struggling to get to the offending party, then suddenly he's like, "Do you want me to break all your lights? I'm sure you're a nice guy..." It's like he got over to the guy and suddenly realized, Uh-oh, this guy looked a lot smaller from over there...I'm not sure if I can beat him up...How can I get out of this without appearing to be backing down? I know! "Your LIGHTS! I'm gonna beat up your lights, you nice guy you...grrrr."

    • Like 3

  3. Posted

    I actually enjoy this movie, but the implausible story plot is what I believe can lead to great laughs.

     

    Examples:

    Kid is adopted by movie studio and forced to live in a reality show, with no knowledge of the world around him.

     

    A dome that probably cost billions of dollars to create to hide the outside world from Truman.

     

    They try to kill him on live TV with lightning that they have managed to control with great accuracy.

     

    It's a very far-fetched story, enjoyable, but out there.

     

    Granted, I haven't seen this movie in years, but I have to agree with Lando. I think that the best types of movies for this show to poke fun at are movies that generally fail at their intent and in their execution. While I see your points, they all work within the world the film makers were creating. They set out to make a movie about reality television carried out to extreme and absurd lengths, and that's what they delivered.

     

    To be clear, I'm in no way a fan or advocate of Jim Carrey, or even this movie for that matter (I think I may have seen it once), but to me, suggesting The Truman Show would be akin to recommending The Naked Gun for the show because it doesn't provide an accurate portrayal of police work.

    • Like 2

  4. Posted

     

    Off topic, but every time I see your Real Genius icon, I smile.

     

    For some reason, it's been on cable A LOT the past two years, & I swear, I have to watch it every time.

     

    I'm like that about Kindergarten Cop, too.

     

    Something is wrong with me.

     

    No, Samantha, the people who don't watch Real Genius and Kindergarten Cop every time they're on are the ones who are wrong.

     

    You and I are gold.

     

    original.jpg

    • Like 4

  6. Posted

    Cameron H, you can also try that trick yourself if you have perfect abs. next time your at best buy and the sales person doesn't go down on the price. just start taking your shirt off and asking him what the price is now.

     

    "Perfect" is such a subjective term, but I will say I tried this and they couldn't wait to get me out the door. The trick is to never drop eye contact.

  12. Posted

    Since it hasn't been brought up yet, I just wanted to give Paul a big pat on the back for how he handled the whole Robyn Lively C&O section. I was happy to hear him shoulder most of the blame--even though I don't really feel he had to. I do think it's a shame that the episode will be edited from here on out, mostly because I don't think what they said was really all that big of a deal, but I understand the need for some diplomacy in these sorts of situations. If nothing else, it's certainly preferably to the whole episode getting Smurf-ed or Green Lantern-ed.

     

    Bravo to Mr. Scheer for being one classy dude!

     

    giphy.gif

    • Like 3

  13. Posted

    I really hope they talk about why the fuck this movie is called "The Covenant." A covenant is a contract or agreement. I guess you could argue that willing powers is a type of contract, so maybe that's a covenant. But otherwise, I feel like they just chose the name because it's like "coven," but longer.

     

    I thought "the covenant" was the agreement the five families had about keeping their secret from the Muggles and Mudbloods. Granted, that doesn't seem to be the major issue in the movie, but that's what I got from it.

    • Like 2

  15. Posted

    I hope Sebastian Stan sings a song with Rob Zombie at the end about being a witch.

     

    Funny you mention that...

     

    Please tell me I'm not the only one who was singing ridiculous lyrics ("Witch Fiiiiight! Two dudes are having a Witch Fiiiight!") every time the distorted guitars kicked in...

    • Like 2

  16. Posted

     

     

    Hasn't stopped Stan Lee yet...

     

     

     

     

    Yeah, but those are relatively quick, one and dones. Assuming that these are just cameos in a reboot rather than appearing as their characters from the original movies, this would be like Stan popping up once every 24 minutes or so, or five Stan's appearing in a single scene. It feels like it would be too much. I mean....IS THIS A SEQUEL? It's driving me crazy--lol. If it's a sequel, then they are all welcome to be there, but if it's a reboot, I'd say two cameos max.

     

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    Even Paul Feig doesn't sound like he's sure:

     

     

     

    This is further muddled by the fact that Sigourney Weaver, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Annie Potts are confirmed to be in the movie. How the hell is this not a sequel?

     

    Does Kristen Wiig's team open a portal to another dimension to dispose of their trapped ghosts, except the other dimension is the one where the original Ghostbusters took place? And Dan Aykroyd mugs to camera and says "Here we go again!" <CUE RAY PARKER JR.> <ROLL CREDITS>

     

     

     

    According to IMDb Bill Murray also signed on. I feel like if it's not a sequel, then these cameos are just going to take people out of the movie. Here's my guess though, they wanted to do a sequel, but weren't sure if they could get Murray back, so they wrote it as a reboot. Then, later in the process, Murray agreed to be in it so they quickly incorporated that into the script and now it's become this sort of reboot, sort of sequel monstrosity. It just feels like it's going to be a disaster.

     

  19. Posted

     

    i wasnt expecting such a reboot ... i dont like reboots or remakes or whatever they call em. just acknowledge the original and move on from there. theres alot of things taken from the original in this trailer (someone getting slimed, the subway scene, the car gag etc). im just hoping this movie wont be filled with stuff like that.

     

     

    This is actually something I have a problem with as well. I honestly don't get if this is a reboot or a sequel. I saw a headline (didn't read the article) on IMDb that something like, "Why they decided to do a reboot instead of a sequel," but then in the trailer, it says:

     

    "30 years ago, four scientists saved New York City. This summer, a new team will answer the call."

     

    So...is it a reboot or a sequel? To me, a reboot means "we may take some aspects of the source material, but we're basically starting this over from scratch" and a sequel means "This is the next chapter of that story and this all exists in the same universe." Again, I guess we have to wait in see, but I'm thoroughly confused. I feel like they're deliberately obfuscating the matter. It's like their trying to be their own thing, but don't have the confidence to separate themselves from the originals--and that is troubling.

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    I worry that all they're going to let Leslie Jones do is be the loud, angry street-wise black woman. Jones is far too talented to be relegated to that role, so I'm hoping they give her character more to do.

     

    Yeah, l mean, I know this is just a gut reaction thing and I'm just basing it on the trailer, but when I watch it I see, "Okay, you three white women, you'll be the scientists, and you...you're going to be the blue collar, sassy black woman, but don't worry, you'll have "street smarts" and be like really funny."

     

    Considering the whole #Oscarssowhite controversy, it feels really tone deaf. Why can't she be a scientist and McCarthy or someone else be the subway attendant? Granted, maybe there's more to it than I'm seeing from the trailer, but that's how it comes off to me.

     

    Man, I really want to love this movie but…it feels like they've Jurassic World-ed another of my childhood favorites.

     

    That's a perfect way to describe it! It just doesn't feel right. I'll give it a shot when it it comes out, but the whole thing feels too glossy--and not nearly fun or funny enough. It's real a shame too considering the people involved...

    • Like 2

  24. Posted

    Good points. I'm thumbs-upping the posts because they're articulate and normative in a good way.

     

    But between what she said, and what her tone seemed to imply, I'll stand by my original take.

    I know I'm arguing from an outlandish position, not any of you. I've already explained what I heard her tone doing in between the lines.

     

    Elektra, I took Deanna at her word about 'no movies for 5 years' as opposed to 'no movies in theaters for 5 years'. I don't think movies are going to save humanity. I think proudly holding up reality tv compared to them is disgusting.

     

     

     

    It sounds like you're tying together the wrong threads of comparison, here. Drop out the 'someone liking' bit.

    I am comparing reality tv to genuinely hateful jokes in their overall harmfulness.

    The former is subtle and politically undefined, the latter is obvious and politically defined.

     

    First of all, I just want to say, I appreciate a good controversy, and while I don't agree with you specifically on the Deanna thing, I do think you make some valid points about Reality television in general. I agree with you that it is objectively terrible and brings very little to the table from a societal stand point. I certainly don't relish the idea that future generations will look back on this period of time and think that this is our "art." That is utterly embarrassing. The fact that I can refresh my news feed at any time, and without fail, be bombarded by at least one story about a Kardashian is very frustrating.

     

    I just want to let you know that I agree with you that Reality TV, as it reflects our culture as a whole, is not really a great thing, but I do stand by my assertion, that on an individual and personal level, it's relatively harmless and people should be able to consume whatever media they wish. I think Reality TV, as with most things, is fine in moderation, but becomes a problem when it becomes an obsession.

     

    Thank you for the engaging conversation!

    • Like 1
×