Jump to content
Wil Dride

Episode 238 — Bloodshot (w/ Adam Scott)

Recommended Posts

I said to my wife and son (both big F&F fans, I am not) that I was sure he would punch a rock like character, bigger, strong than himself. And who is he first seen beating up, why a concrete pillar (i.e. Rock). He's got a real big chip on his shoulder. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, zotts said:

I said to my wife and son (both big F&F fans, I am not) that I was sure he would punch a rock like character, bigger, strong than himself. And who is he first seen beating up, why a concrete pillar (i.e. Rock). He's got a real big chip on his shoulder. 

 

 

Yeah Diesel's ego has become really something over the years since Fast 5 brought him back to movies that turn a serious profit, with Fast 8 and XXX 3 being just big long love fests for himself. I can't remember where I read the review but it was for this movie and it basically boiled down to the reviewer being amazed at Diesel's career now being one of two things, franchise films that succeed in spite of him being involved or solo vehicles that nine times out of ten flop because studios forget that people aren't lining up to see the F&F films for the acting chops of Vin Diesel but rather the whole group of characters who work and the awesome action set pieces, and unfortunately even Diesel doesn't realize it. I go back to the Fast 5 episode of the podcast and remember the clip of him talking about fighting the Rock on screen the first time and him saying people wanted it because it was "great for cinema," as if that fight was what was needed to take the art form to the next level. Then his recent interview with The National, Diesel said he talked to Steven Spielberg recently who told him it would "be a crime against cinema" if he never directed a film again, which even other new sites who picked up the story were openly expressing their suspicion of this actually happening.

As for this movie, I have zero interest in watching it as I was never a huge fan of the comic and the movie honestly looked terrible, but hearing the discussion about the ending I looked up how it ended and was bummed it didn't end in a Repo Man-type twist. I mean when you're whole marketing campaign gives away the films twist within 30 seconds, why not have a bigger twist in the wings ready to blow viewers' minds? Just imagine how great it would have been if Diesel takes out Guy Pierce and walks away with KT and the hacker, only for it to pause and cut Pierce's control room where the whole movie was a simulation to see what possible errors could arise if they went through with bringing Diesel back and treating him how they do to get their end result, the whole movie ending with Pierce just saying something like "okay try simulation attempt 42," to really bring home how long they've been screwing with his consciousness. It could still lead to a sequel or crossover with other Valiant characters while also giving an unexpected end to what is a very cookie cutter film otherwise.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

Should...we come up with our on 90’s superheroes?

I know you're joking, but I love "Shreadnaught." LOL. But you need all caps to really get the effect, like **SHREADNAUGHT!!!** (best if read in a Steve Austin voice)  All of those are awesome  

Closer to home, what about the code names for the other characters in the movies? Forklift Arms just doesn't have the same ring to it. 

Instead how about: DEATHARMS or KILLGRIP or STRIKEFIST or  to keep the theme BLOODSTRIKE (wait, is there a Bloodstrike? Sounds like there should be a Bloodstrike already.) Really, tho, is there any better name here than Cameron's Shreadnaught? 

The Eye Guy I can't even remember, but if he had a codename like DEADAIM or EYEPIERCE or KILLGAZE I would most definitely remember. It's all about branding, right?! So might as well go with BLOODHAWK in this case.

KT is more difficult because *of course* a woman should only have passive if not solely defensive powers.  AIRSTRIKE seems a given, but maybe WINDKILL or DEATHWIND. Leaning into the gas-based attacks we could easily have BLOODSMOKE.  

I would suggest Bloodshot, Bloodstrike, Bloodhawk, and Bloodsmoke all join in a Right Stuff-slo mo walk under the team name BLOOD BROTHERS, but even for me that's a bridge too far.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, DannytheWall said:

Did I miss something? Because my question is, did Ray Garrison ever get called Bloodshot at all during the movie? Is it a codename for the process or some other thing? Would anyone who comes into this movie and doesn't know that it comes from a comic book called "Bloodshot" know what the movie title was referring to?

And what kind of name is Bloodshot? Because his blood is ... shot with nannites? Because he ... shoots people with guns and they bleed? I kid 'cause I love. I was a comic book fan in the 90s. This was coming from same era when a very common satire was to make a compound word for a hero name taking something randomly from column A and column B. After all, this was the decade that gave us names like Hellboy, Witchblade, Shadowhawk, Shatterstar, Ripclaw, Bloodwynd, etc etc. And, yes, even Deadpool.  

Was wondering if he was called Bloodshot due to his eyes being red i.e. "bloodshot,"  but then looked around online and it's because of what you said, he had nanites shot into his bloodstream, receiving the titular blood shot.

Share this post


Link to post

One more thing that's been bugging me, or at least one thing that I was really disappointed in, and that's the tropes with the POC being so token. Once again, the only black actor has to fill multiple checklists -- the sidekick, the techie, the hapless funnyman. He is *literally* sidelined into his own room for pretty much any scene he is in-- was he even scheduled with other actors for more than one day? Come on, 2020, we're supposed to be better at this by now.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

It makes sense that The Rock allows for/encourages formidable antagonists in his movies. He’s a wrestler!

The biggest ingredient for a good guy to get over with the fans is a solid bad guy. Good guys have to get kicked around, cheated, and beaten almost to their demise so their comeback is sweeter. The best good guys don’t just kick ass—some don’t kick ass at all—they get their asses kicked and manage to find a way back. 
 

It seems why Dave Batista is cool getting beat up by Kumail in Stuber and John Cena is cool playing the butt of jokes in comedies. Hell, Roddy Piper took getting the shit beat out of him to legendary levels in *They Live*
 

Why Vin has to be so precious about winning fake fights? Who knows...

Share this post


Link to post

I don't want to start a war or anything but was anyone else a little put off by the whole conversation about June and Paul buying the movie twice because they don't share accounts.    Not sure if it was a bit or not so maybe I am reading to much into it but right now a lot of people are struggling really hard to make ends meet and it just doesn't seem all that funny to hear that two married people living under the same roof(and stuck there because of Shelter-in-place) apparently bought a movie twice because "reasons".    I get that people like to be independent and many couples don't combine their finances even when they get married but there is a difference between independence and being wasteful.  I know its only $40 dollars, I know its just silly and I know its not really our business but it just came off as a bit tone deaf right now.  

Also for Paul and June,  look at setting up an Apple family sharing.  Two adults can have their own accounts but share purchases between each other(I think you can even choose what to share and not share),  once your kids get older you can create child accounts as well for their devices.  

  • Like 2
  • Hedgehog 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Thebuttstartswherethetaintends said:

I don't want to start a war or anything but was anyone else a little put off by the whole conversation about June and Paul buying the movie twice because they don't share accounts.    Not sure if it was a bit or not so maybe I am reading to much into it but right now a lot of people are struggling really hard to make ends meet and it just doesn't seem all that funny to hear that two married people living under the same roof(and stuck there because of Shelter-in-place) apparently bought a movie twice because "reasons".    I get that people like to be independent and many couples don't combine their finances even when they get married but there is a difference between independence and being wasteful.  I know its only $40 dollars, I know its just silly and I know its not really our business but it just came off as a bit tone deaf right now.  

Also for Paul and June,  look at setting up an Apple family sharing.  Two adults can have their own accounts but share purchases between each other(I think you can even choose what to share and not share),  once your kids get older you can create child accounts as well for their devices.  

I haven't listened to the episode yet, but I hear you. The $20 price tag on this movie has been something I've been discussing since the mini. I even tried texting Paul on that app thing about maybe postponing the episode until it was at least available to rent (literally this coming Tuesday!!!). I didn't get an answer. Of course, schedules being what they are, who knows? I think they were trying to do something special by doing "newer" movies with a big guest like Adam Scott, but I also feel like picking a movie that can only be bought at this time wasn't a fantastic idea. And if they joke about buying it twice in an economy where millions of people are out of work, then, yeah, that feels pretty tone deaf. Hell, in my neighborhood, three houses went up for sale just this week! This is the reality we are living in right now. People are struggling.

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, twenty, or even forty dollars, isn't all that much. We all get that. And it's not like they are asking people to *buy* the movies. It feels super out of touch, though. And at any other time I probably wouldn't really care. It's their show and they can do what they want. I even think it would be different if it were a *big* legacy type movie for them like a Fast and Furious movie. But for fucking Bloodshot? Really? I guess good on them that they spent $40 on a shitty Vin Diesel movie and it be nbd, just know that the rest of the country is pretty stressed the fuck out regarding finances right now. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Thebuttstartswherethetaintends said:

I don't want to start a war or anything but was anyone else a little put off by the whole conversation about June and Paul buying the movie twice because they don't share accounts.    Not sure if it was a bit or not so maybe I am reading to much into it but right now a lot of people are struggling really hard to make ends meet and it just doesn't seem all that funny to hear that two married people living under the same roof(and stuck there because of Shelter-in-place) apparently bought a movie twice because "reasons".    I get that people like to be independent and many couples don't combine their finances even when they get married but there is a difference between independence and being wasteful.  I know its only $40 dollars, I know its just silly and I know its not really our business but it just came off as a bit tone deaf right now.  

Also for Paul and June,  look at setting up an Apple family sharing.  Two adults can have their own accounts but share purchases between each other(I think you can even choose what to share and not share),  once your kids get older you can create child accounts as well for their devices.  

There have to be gradations here. They’re not complaining about good-for-nothing renters skipping out on rent or bragging about access to testing. 
Times are tough, but slagging people for $40 meaning less to them than it does to you (when they were talking about how steep $20 is in the first place) is the wrong kind of class nitpicking. 
Also, it wasn’t a live show. This was a candid convo between friends who are all well-paid. I’m sure this would have gone down otherwise. 
They bought the same movie twice, but I don’t think they used PPP Loan funds to do so. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, LaBamba.ComBa said:

There have to be gradations here. They’re not complaining about good-for-nothing renters skipping out on rent or bragging about access to testing. 
Times are tough, but slagging people for $40 meaning less to them than it does to you (when they were talking about how steep $20 is in the first place) is the wrong kind of class nitpicking. 
Also, it wasn’t a live show. This was a candid convo between friends who are all well-paid. I’m sure this would have gone down otherwise. 
They bought the same movie twice, but I don’t think they used PPP Loan funds to do so. 

I don’t think @Thebuttstartswherethetaintends was attacking them in a classist sense. No one is accusing them of being malignant plutocrats that we should all “eat.”. It’s more the optics, or whatever the audio equivalent of optics might be. It’s the timing of the joke, not the content of the joke or the people telling it. You can joke about a plane crash all you want, but it might be a bit crass to do so when you’re safely on the ground while you’re on the phone with someone who’s currently 30,000 ft in the air, you know? 

That being said, none of this is a “big deal” in any way that actually matters. No one is hating on anyone. It’s stinks a little bit of “let them eat cake” but nobody is sharpening the guillotine just yet. At most, it’s a sigh and an eye roll; we whistle “Imagine” and move on. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

I don’t think @Thebuttstartswherethetaintends was attacking them in a classist sense. No one is accusing them of being malignant plutocrats that we should all “eat.”. It’s more the optics, or whatever the audio equivalent of optics might be. It’s the timing of the joke, not the content of the joke or the people telling it. You can joke about a plane crash all you want, but it might be a bit crass to do so when you’re safely on the ground while you’re on the phone with someone who’s currently 30,000 ft in the air, you know? 

That being said, none of this is a “big deal” in any way that actually matters. No one is hating on anyone. It’s stinks a little bit of “let them eat cake” but nobody is sharpening the guillotine just yet. At most, it’s a sigh and an eye roll; we whistle “Imagine” and move on. :) 

But it strikes me more as them talking about flying first class and someone grousing because they can’t afford to fly to their vacation this year. 
They weren’t making light of any part of the virus or its economic ramifications, weren’t making a plane crash joke. 
I HATE it when someone counts my money. Once again, If I were buying up prescription patents to drive up prices, then get that guillotine. But if you’re going to tut at me buying a second copy of a movie or album, you can tut right off. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, LaBamba.ComBa said:

But it strikes me more as them talking about flying first class and someone grousing because they can’t afford to fly to their vacation this year. 
They weren’t making light of any part of the virus or its economic ramifications, weren’t making a plane crash joke. 
I HATE it when someone counts my money. Once again, If I were buying up prescription patents to drive up prices, then get that guillotine. But if you’re going to tut at me buying a second copy of a movie or album, you can tut right off. 

That’s fair, and maybe we’re reading the post differently. The OP wrote that it’s “only $40” and that “it’s silly” which doesn’t suggest to me that they are jealous over comparative bank accounts, or even angry. Just “put off,” as they said,  by the idea of making light of wasting even a little bit of money when 25-plus million people are currently out of work in America. They aren’t even saying that they themselves are out of work or that they couldn’t also cover that price tag if they wanted to. 

How I read their post was, given the current economic climate, any joke about wasting money on something as trivial as a bad movie comes off as a bit gauche when a sizable percentage of their listenership might be having to tighten their belts or are worried about how they’re going to cover rent/mortgage next month. It doesn’t seem to me that anyone is faulting them or jealous of their success, just pointing out that for right now, relatively speaking, $40 could potentially mean a lot to someone who is struggling. Yes, anyone can spend their money however they so choose, but you can also choose how, if, and when you talk about spending it.

Again, it’s a timing issue. Everyone farts. It’s neither right nor wrong. But when and where you fart makes a difference. For instance, farting in a crowded elevator is more rude than farting by yourself in your shame closet (Which is something I assume everyone does).    

That being said, as I said earlier, I haven’t even listened to the episode yet so I can’t even speak to the context. I was more responding to how it made the OP feel, which I feel is entirely valid. I think your opinion is entirely valid too. I just wish everyone well, and I hope everyone is getting through these crazy times okay. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, LaBamba.ComBa said:

But it strikes me more as them talking about flying first class and someone grousing because they can’t afford to fly to their vacation this year. 
They weren’t making light of any part of the virus or its economic ramifications, weren’t making a plane crash joke. 
I HATE it when someone counts my money. Once again, If I were buying up prescription patents to drive up prices, then get that guillotine. But if you’re going to tut at me buying a second copy of a movie or album, you can tut right off. 

Like Cameron.H said,  I was not really being jealous and was more put off by the optics of it.    I am lucky that my family and I are not in a bad financial situation right now but I know many that are not so lucky.  I also not a big fan of seeing people waste money needlessly.  You are right, its not really my business though and they can spend their money how they like.  I just hope they consider looking into ways they can keep separate accounts but share purchases in the future(Like Apple, Google or Amazon family share).  THen maybe throw that extra $20 over to a food bank. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/24/2020 at 6:31 AM, Wil Dride said:

Basically, this is Memento, but Guy Pearce is John G (Joey Pants). The protagonists of both are amnesiacs who murder people based on manipulated memories of a murdered wife.

thank you!!! I spent the entire episode waiting to hear someone mention Memento. The moment the movie revealed this plot twist I basically checked out. It was like a dumb Memento.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×