I'm in a show hole, need suggestions

[Day2]

Is that a prop from the set or something?

I’m not sure, I’ve never seen the movie. I think Blanc was just filibustering.

BTW, 2010’s director, Peter Hyams, went to SU.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I’m not sure, I’ve never seen the movie. I think Blanc was just filibustering.

BTW, 2010’s director, Peter Hyams, went to SU.

I'm just going to continue believing that in the Knives Out universe aliens are real.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

The sound is distorted on it but that's the clip. 2010, the year we made first contact.

Oh, yeah, no—that’s funny... A few days before I saw Glass Onion I made a joke about something on another forum, where I quoted that line. It’s from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 2010 is the sequel.

My God, It's Full of Stars

“My god, it’s full of stars” is a phrase associated with a scene from the 1968 film “2001: A Space Odyssey” in which the protagonist David Bowman is traveling through the star gate created by the monolith orbiting Jupiter and the awed expression face that he gives.

knowyourmeme.com

 

[chugg21]

You’re not supposed to like most of the characters.

I guess if the point is to make you want to turn the movie off then sure.

 

[chugg21]

Just watched Glass Onion.

I began not liking it. Too much ‘self-aware’ stuff about social media/culture, but not done cleverly.

Then one of the characters changed my attitude. The film became much more fun and entertaining. And I guess I had gotten used to the obnoxious stuff. I was all set to recommend it to my mother….

Then it concluded by being absolutely stupid and ridiculous.

Spoiler: Spoiler

1) Not sure I understand the detective’s instruction to take the ‘courage.’ Why would he want that result? 2) We have seen in the past few months a slew of protesters of various causes throwing paint on masterpiece artworks in museums. And every time, I think WTFF? I now hate you and your cause. Art is magnificent. It’s ’love.’ It should be eternal… etc., etc.—whatever. Point is, they’ve demonized themselves by defacing something that should be untouchable. So, in this film, the supposed hero/victim does the unspeakable? Ugggh. And provoked/inspired by the man who is supposed to be the smartest man in the room/world? No. Does not compute. 3) To compound the stupidity… all that glass, and all those sandals? Does not compute.

Guessing the 1st one had too much success so they made another one to directly appeal to the masses which probably meant it had to be dumbed down so the dummies could understand what was going on.

 

[Day2]

I guess if the point is to make you want to turn the movie off then sure.

They’re called villains. A lot of movies have them.

 

[chugg21]

They’re called villains. A lot of movies have them.

They were caricatures who didn't bring anything to the table.

 

[Day2]

They were caricatures who didn't bring anything to the table.

That’s a new complaint. You said you didn’t like the characters, which is fine, because that was precisely point.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

I guess if the point is to make you want to turn the movie off then sure.

I get that. You’re not supposed to dislike any of the characters in any significant way, except one. That’s why it’s a ‘mystery’ in this particular formula. Their roles in the scheme and resolution don’t present themselves until the last act. If they‘re off-putting and an at a level that makes you not want to watch the film, that’s not by design. They were supposed to be a bit ‘fun.’

I think they’re supposed to be sympathetic caricatures, skewering pop culture, but they weren’t well-executed.

Spoiler: Spoiler

Sympathetic, because even the tough guy is vulnerable in that his life/love is being stolen from him. The former star is ’old’ and dumb and washed up. Not sure what the scientist’s deal was. Such a non-character. The ‘dumb girl’ was actually sweet and considerate. Etc. Only one character was painted as a villain.

 

[Day2]

I get that. You’re not supposed to dislike any of the characters in any significant way, except one. That’s why it’s a ‘mystery’ in this particular formula. Their roles in the scheme and resolution don’t present themselves until the last act. If they‘re off-putting and an at a level that makes you not want to watch the film, that’s not by design. They were supposed to be a bit ‘fun.’

I think they’re supposed to be sympathetic caricatures, skewering pop culture, but they weren’t well-executed.

Spoiler: Spoiler

Sympathetic, because even the tough guy is vulnerable in that his life/love is being stolen from him. The former star is ’old’ and dumb and washed up. Not sure what the scientist’s deal was. Such a non-character. The ‘dumb girl’ was actually sweet and considerate. Etc. Only one character was painted as a villain.

I disagree…

Spoiler

They all turned out to be awful people. Look at what they did to Andie. And they were all dumb, too. Who solved most of the puzzle at the beginning? Duke’s mom.

Speaking of Duke, he wasn’t sympathetic for long because he put Whiskey up to it.

I thought Birdie was funny, because Hudson’s performance was terrific. I didn’t find her likable, though.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

I disagree…

Spoiler

They all turned out to be awful people. Look at what they did to Andie. And they were all dumb, too. Who solved most of the puzzle at the beginning? Duke’s mom.

Speaking of Duke, he wasn’t sympathetic for long because he put Whiskey up to it.

I thought Birdie was funny, because Hudson’s performance was terrific. I didn’t find her likable, though.

Spoiler: Spoiler

The question isn’t about whether they turned out to be awful. The comment I was responding to concerned them being ‘unlikeable.’ Finding out in the last ten minutes that they are and why they are unlikeable doesn’t excuse them from their characters in the first 90% of the film, which I’d why chugg wanted to stop watching. The rationalization that they were all villains doesn’t pertain. They weren’t villains in the linearity of the play until chugg already hated them.

Saying that (successful) films often have multiple villains is an irrelevance. That wasn’t the formula here. There are mysteries where everyone is shown as ‘good‘ and you have to figure out who the criminal is and there are mysteries where everyone is bad, which is just a different type of obfuscating device. I’m this case, it was the former. No one was portrayed as a villain, except for misleading clues about Andi. Even the guy with the gun was made sympathetic by having his girl cheating on him.

 

[Day2]

Spoiler: Spoiler

The question isn’t about whether they turned out to be awful. The comment I was responding to concerned them being ‘unlikeable.’ Finding out in the last ten minutes that they are and why they are unlikeable doesn’t excuse them from their characters in the first 90% of the film, which I’d why chugg wanted to stop watching. The rationalization that they were all villains doesn’t pertain. They weren’t villains in the linearity of the play until chugg already hated them.

Saying that (successful) films often have multiple villains is an irrelevance. That wasn’t the formula here. There are mysteries where everyone is shown as ‘good‘ and you have to figure out who the criminal is and there are mysteries where everyone is bad, which is just a different type of obfuscating device. I’m this case, it was the former. No one was portrayed as a villain, except for misleading clues about Andi. Even the guy with the gun was made sympathetic by having his girl cheating on him.

Spoiler

Except it wasn’t the last 10 minutes, it was the halfway point. And by then, it was already clear that they were terrible people. That you managed to find Duke - the misogynist douchebag with the gun - and Birdie - the ignorant, walking gaffe in the fishnet face mask - sympathetic is a testament to your own level of tolerance. If I had to guess, I would say Rian Johnson was going more for chugg’s feelings about the characters than yours. Johnson is the closest we have to a modern day Jean Renoir and Glass Onion is about class warfare. These characters were intentionally written to represent the worst of today’s wealthy:

Miles - Elon Musk
Duke - misogynist influencer
Birdie - ignorant celebrity
Claire - phony politician
Lionel - bought-off “scientist”

We’re not supposed to like them. That’s why the movie works. You spend the first half of the movie not liking these obnoxious snobs, wondering why you should care about their stupid murder mystery weekend, only to have the rug pulled out so Johnson can let you in on the joke. I’ve now watched it four times.

Anyway, for every Siskel there’s an Ebert.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Spoiler

Except it wasn’t the last 10 minutes, it was the halfway point. And by then, it was already clear that they were terrible people. That you managed to find Duke - the misogynist douchebag with the gun - and Birdie - the ignorant, walking gaffe in the fishnet face mask - sympathetic is a testament to your own level of tolerance. If I had to guess, I would say Rian Johnson was going more for chugg’s feelings about the characters than yours. Johnson is the closest we have to a modern day Jean Renoir and Glass Onion is about class warfare. These characters were intentionally written to represent the worst of today’s wealthy:

Miles - Elon Musk
Duke - misogynist influencer
Birdie - ignorant celebrity
Claire - phony politician
Lionel - bought-off “scientist”

We’re not supposed to like them. That’s why the movie works. You spend the first half of the movie not liking these obnoxious snobs, wondering why you should care about their stupid murder mystery weekend, only to have the rug pulled out so Johnson can let you in on the joke. I’ve now watched it four times.

Anyway, for every Siskel there’s an Ebert.

Spoiler: Spoiler

You’ve gone 100% along the slider in characterizing each of those people. Which doesn’t represent the film at all. Yes, those are the broad strokes we were supposed to infer, but the Duke wasn‘t that offensive. He wasn’t even at Dice Clay levels, and it as all tempered by the joke of rhino horn(?) and by having his gf defend him. A clown, not an a**hole. Birdie was laughably dumb. And we were still supposed to let her slide past her gaffes because she wasn’t an a**hole. Lionel was nothing. In the grand scheme of “phony politicians,” Claire was hardly a bad guy.

None of this matters, though. These little character synopses aren’t why I/we didn’t like the characters. And we didn’t like the characters way before their truths were revealed, whether it was at the half-point or later or whatever.

Tonmake this all simpler:
imagine we are watching the film in the same room. It begins, and chugg and I don’t like the movie because we think the characters are lame. We maintain this for the first “half” of the movie. Chugg says, “That’s it—i’m out.“

You reply: “You’re not supposed to like them. Movies have villains. Deal with it.“

Ten minutes later, those characters are revealed to be ”villains.“

—

They were all just lame characters. Nothing to do with the reveals of their criminality or complicity. More than that, the directing/editing exacerbated the awkwardness. Those feelings were elicited early, as I said originally. And as I said, I started to change my opinion of the film because I enjoyed Janelle’s turn, as the sister. She essentially took over my attention, and the other lame characters didn’t matter as much. Janelle entertained me. Until the ridiculousness….

 

[Day2]

Spoiler: Spoiler

You’ve gone 100% along the slider in characterizing each of those people. Which doesn’t represent the film at all. Yes, those are the broad strokes we were supposed to infer, but the Duke wasn‘t that offensive. He wasn’t even at Dice Clay levels, and it as all tempered by the joke of rhino horn(?) and by having his gf defend him. A clown, not an a**hole. Birdie was laughably dumb. And we were still supposed to let her slide past her gaffes because she wasn’t an a**hole. Lionel was nothing. In the grand scheme of “phony politicians,” Claire was hardly a bad guy.

None of this matters, though. These little character synopses aren’t why I/we didn’t like the characters. And we didn’t like the characters way before their truths were revealed, whether it was at the half-point or later or whatever.

Tonmake this all simpler:
imagine we are watching the film in the same room. It begins, and chugg and I don’t like the movie because we think the characters are lame. We maintain this for the first “half” of the movie. Chugg says, “That’s it—i’m out.“

You reply: “You’re not supposed to like them. Movies have villains. Deal with it.“

Ten minutes later, those characters are revealed to be ”villains.“

—

They were all just lame characters. Nothing to do with the reveals of their criminality or complicity. More than that, the directing/editing exacerbated the awkwardness. Those feelings were elicited early, as I said originally. And as I said, I started to change my opinion of the film because I enjoyed Janelle’s turn, as the sister. She essentially took over my attention, and the other lame characters didn’t matter as much. Janelle entertained me. Until the ridiculousness….

Spoiler

Your analogy doesn’t work because it removes all context from my back and forth with another party, and inserts your own assumptions and conclusions as if they were part of that conversation.

For the sake of argument, obviously I wouldn’t say that. What I would say is, “I’m going to stick it out,” and 10 minutes later both of us would be calling chugg to come back, there’s a twist.

“She essentially took over my attention, and the other lame characters didn’t matter as much.”

You’re essentially agreeing with me.

The only part of the movie where we actually differ is the ending. So I don’t know why you insist on arguing on behalf of someone else.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

Spoiler

Your analogy doesn’t work because it removes all context from my back and forth with another party, and inserts your own assumptions and conclusions as if they were part of that conversation.

For the sake of argument, obviously I wouldn’t say that. What I would say is, “I’m going to stick it out,” and 10 minutes later both of us would be calling chugg to come back, there’s a twist.

“She essentially took over my attention, and the other lame characters didn’t matter as much.”

You’re essentially agreeing with me.

The only part of the movie where we actually differ is the ending. So I don’t know why you insist on arguing on behalf of someone else.

Spoiler: Spoiler

It’s not my analogy. Those were your words.

I didn’t insert anything into your conversation. I didn’t quote or address you. You quoted/addressed me.

For the sake of argument… you’re still not getting the objections.

No, that statement doesn’t agree with you. At all. Saying I was distracted away from my dislike of the characters because one of them became very entertaining—as a completely different character(!)—and took over screen time from the la,e characters… doesn’t make those characters any less lame.

I wasn’t arguing on behalf of anyone else, until You challenged my agreement with chugg. At that point, chugg’s objections coincided with my own and chugg was incidental.

But, whatever. Glad you enjoyed it. I kinda resent it now…. : (
But, I will have to go back and re-watch the first one to remind myself how I felt about that…. I have no memory of it.

Peace. Good night.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

To make up for polluting this thread with the negative, I offer this recommendation as compensation:

Sheng Wang: Sweet and Juicy
Netflix

A standup comedy special. I have not laughed so hard since I don’t know when. So hard and so often that I had to pause the thing three times because my head hurt and I was afraid i‘d laugh myself into a stroke….

 

[CuseTroop]

Just binged the first 3 episodes of The Watcher. I’m starting to feel like the last four aren’t going to be worth it. Should I finish?

 

[donniesyracuse]

Anybody watch and can comment on:

Fleishman is in Trouble (Hulu)
Fakes (Netflix)

I’m liking Mythic Quest on Apple so far. Only 4 episodes in.

Fleishman is in Trouble is excellent.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Haven’t gone through the whole thread, anyone else enjoying Reboot on Hulu?

Reboot is a nice unchallenging show.

 

[MikeSU02]

Fleishman is in Trouble is excellent.

Only read the book. Worth the watch I take it?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Reboot is a nice unchallenging show.

Yeah, when it was done I was ready for a lot more episodes.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Only read the book. Worth the watch I take it?

Definitely

 

[samspann1]

 

[bozophobe]

Party Down season 3 returns in February! After about 13 years later. On Starz. Grabbed Starz for 2 bucks a month until it ends. Signed through Swagbucks, who pay ten bucks after 32 days of not canceling.

 

[Shrmdougluvr]

Party Down season 3 returns in February! After about 13 years later. On Starz. Grabbed Starz for 2 bucks a month until it ends. Signed through Swagbucks, who pay ten bucks after 32 days of not canceling.

The Steve Guttenberg episode is one of my all time favorites ever.