Wathcya watchin'?

For the discussion of Movies, Television, Comics, and other existential distractions.

Moderator: Moderator

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby cynic » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:43 pm

again, one of my favorites
Groucho Marx 7 Cent Nickle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avUUVeq35bg
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby Steve Evil » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:39 pm

Priceless. Just priceless. . .

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby Ezra Lb. » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:47 pm

Steve Evil wrote:In the end, I think I really didn't want to know what it all meant, because no explanation would seem adequate after all that. I like to think no.6 did win some kind of victory at the end, even if he's really just exchanging one prison for another.

Maybe that's why I could never re-watch it: slowly realizing we would always be prisoners of one sort or other.


Now that's interesting. I've always interpreted the ending of the show as essentially optimistic. If you surrender your self-worth and autonomy then whoever you surrender to becomes No #1. If you preserve your worth and autonomy then you are. Maybe it's cause I'm an American but I see that as a hopeful message. Of course it'll always be a fight but there's something worth fighting for.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby cynic » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:43 pm

the last time i saw it ('09 ?), i was struck by what could be seen as part of a freudian-like interpretation.

#1's first reveal as the ape (the ID), then actually as #6; more likely an "other" aspect of the main character seldom seen or expressed openly.

the "prison" being the constraints society's moral and cultural structures and necessities, loss of some freedoms, as the super-ego can be described.

and we have been following #6 as he shows the struggle of the ego to reconcile the conflicts posed by the various aspects we all face as part of the "village" .


certainly the enigmatic nature of the treatments are what make them so much fun to revisit.
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:31 pm

Mike, just don't blow that cigar smoke my way. :mrgreen:

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby cynic » Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:20 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Mike, just don't blow that cigar smoke my way. :mrgreen:
i would never do that

this is not a picture of a pipe:
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l99r0 ... o1_500.jpg

this is not just sort of odd and a bit sad:
http://jootix.com/upload/DesktopWallpap ... 24x768.jpg
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby Steve Evil » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:17 pm

Ezra Lb. wrote:
Steve Evil wrote:Now that's interesting. I've always interpreted the ending of the show as essentially optimistic. If you surrender your self-worth and autonomy then whoever you surrender to becomes No #1. If you preserve your worth and autonomy then you are. Maybe it's cause I'm an American but I see that as a hopeful message. Of course it'll always be a fight but there's something worth fighting for.


It is the interpretation I prefer. Which I would prefer to maintain than see swept away by some definitive "answer" that might go som other way.


The Fruedian take completely works.

User avatar
Ben W.
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:07 pm

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby Ben W. » Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:54 pm

DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK. Troy Nixey, 2010.

This remake was clearly made by people who loved the original 1973 TV movie (which I've seen and also enjoyed), but there are times when being overenthusiastic can be a problem in itself. Guillermo Del Toro renovates the spacious house from the first film into a full-blown Gothic mansion, complete with its own vast grounds where anyone could get lost for days. In the original, no one would expect that house to be occupied with evil catacomb-dwelling gnomes; in the Nixey/Del Toro iteration, I'd be surprised if there weren't any.

It seems to be a pervasive style these days to make things bigger, more explicit, spelled out in giant Sesame Street letters. I guess it's ironic on my part, since I was complaining about the overly subdued tone of MONSTERS a few posts back. There's a precious balance to horror filmmaking, an almost sensitive understanding of when to play it subtle and when to let all hell break loose. DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK 2010 is too hot, MONSTERS is too cold, and it's getting increasingly rare to find the porridge that's "just right".

Del Toro (he was one of the screenwriters this time around), for whatever reason, also forced his characters to commit flat-out STUPID moves that become more aggravating as the film wore on, to the point where you're ready to take a damn axe to these people yourself. Thank heaven I didn't watch this in a theatre; I would have been quietly but quickly escorted out after the ninth time I shrieked at the screen "Get her out of the $@&#ing mansion, you morons!!"

Come to think of it, Del Toro often strikes me as that kind of director; long on style, short on common sense. He seems heavily preoccupied with neat-o high concepts and ideas, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of character development and plot thrust, Del Toro stumbles. He states in a behind-the-scenes feature that he changed the adult protagonist from the original into a child in order to make the skepticism of the supporting cast in regards to her claims of pint-sized demons occupying the house more believable, but I think it backfired. When the husband of the 1973 version ignored his wife's pleas to leave the mansion, the movie had already established that he was a dick early on, so at the very least his dismissal of Sally as a hysterical hen made some degree of sense. But by shifting Sally's age to that of a young child, a child who's very clearly scared shitless no matter if her night terrors are real or imagined, Alex's pig-headedness becomes downright unforgivable, considering this is his own daughter we're talking about. If his career is so damned important, what's the problem with sending Sally back to her mother? Wouldn't that be a better alternative than keeping Sally trapped in an environment that's liable to drive her into catatonic shock?

I'm not trying to sound ungrateful. Plenty of us already know how easily horror remakes can go wrong - THE HAUNTING, anyone? But this strikes me as one of those infrequent occasions when a director's runaway adoration for the material handicaps his ability to step back and say, "Wait a minute, hold it. That won't work. That doesn't make any sense." Try to think of how THE FLY 1986 might have fared if David Cronenberg kept the head-swapping routine from the Vincent Price film. But even the changes Del Toro cooks up seem awkward and clunky. Maybe there's just some ideas that are too old-hat to be updated or reworked, like evil fairies living in the basements of old buildings.

reddragon70
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby reddragon70 » Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:07 pm

Sherlock the TV series made by the BBC. It is bloody stunning. Written by Stephen Moffet the man chap behind Doctor Who.

Dont get me wrong, I hated the idea of Sherlock Holmes being set in the 21st century, and I have always loved the original Doyle stories. I grew up with Basil Rathbone as Holmes and later Jeremy Brett. So the very idea of modern Holmes made my piss boil. By god almighty, shiva, bhudda and satan himself I was fucking wrong.

I watched the first episode of season 2 last night. Ye gods, it was brilliant. The case of Irene Adler, updated and twisted to the nth degree. Bloody astonishingly clever, and trully fun to watch.

If it is on BBC America, please watch it. If you can watch it on the internet streaming, again go for it. I cant guarantee you will like it, but I do think you will. But I promise you will be surprised by it.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:17 pm

Anything is a step up from those horrible movies being made.

reddragon70
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby reddragon70 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:37 am

Frank I didnt think the movies were too bad. Dont get me wrong, they weren't great either. Just kind of average. I will say that I liked the way it almost went into a pause mode, where Sherlock examines an opponent, targetting weak spots, pressure points, analyses the damage it will inflict and recovery times.

I know a lot of people will say that Holmes was not a fighter. Bovine excrement, I seem to remember from the books that he had been a boxing champion at university. Or have I somehow given him attributes he never had? But that is beside the point.

The TV version is very clever. I would give it a try Frank, you may enjoy it as much as me. And as I have said, I am a purist when it comes to Holmes, and even I have been converted. I am now just looking forward to how the Richenback falls confrontation is going to be done. Cos Jim Moriarty is one fucking nutty bastard in this.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:08 pm

The amount of tv I have to get back to would take my whole life. lol

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby Chuck Messer » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:40 am

I seem to remember from the books that he had been a boxing champion at university. Or have I somehow given him attributes he never had?


You are correct, oh vermillion-shaded dragon. In The Solitary Cyclist, Holmes has a barroom fight, which he wins. "A drunken lout against a gentleman's straight left."

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:21 pm

I doubt cocaine is very good at helping juice a good fighter.

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Re: Wathcya watchin'?

Postby Chuck Messer » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:55 pm

Actually, it probably does -- for a while, anyway. Holmes was probably self-medicating for a real condition, perhaps bipolar disorder. When he was working, he didn't partake, at least not so much. Watson eventually weaned him off the stuff.

Doyle was a physician, and he probably wanted to give his hero some kind of weakness and perhaps convey the fact that medicine was souring on the notion of cocaine as a "miracle drug".

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.


Return to “Pop Culture”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests