Wow, obviously I haven’t been back to this thread in a couple pages!
I have a history of finding men with typically-jewish facial features very attractive, even guys like Ari Fleischer, who wouldn’t be considered traditionally attractive. That’s what I meant.
Sorry to weave out of topic. In order to justify it I’ll say that I’ve always found Jane Austen books to be shallow and smug and thoroughly unappealing.
People have already mentioned The Eagles, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Neil Young, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Rush. I’ll say that the whole genre of Classic Rock sucks big sweaty donkey balls. It sucked back in the 70’s; that’s why we had Soul, Disco, Reggae and Punk Rock. Yeah, there were a few good songs back in the day, but none of them were good enough to get continuous airplay for 30 to 40 years. Boomers listening to their tired old BTO and ZZ Top and Grand Funk Railroad remind me of my grandfather listening to Sinatra and watching the Lawrence Welk show. And young hipsters listening to it aren’t clever or ironic, they’re unoriginal twats rehashing the same old tired corporate shit that was mass-marketed to their parents.
Uh, since when is the science fiction/fantasy literature genre a “sacred cow”? I see a lot more popular derision of this genre than people tiptoeing around insulting it.
Yes! (to a point)
I loved No Country For Old Men, but this constant yapping about how
Tommy Lee Jones is the main character is just pretentious critical wankery. And I’m sorry, but the ending with
Jones and his father/uncle chatting about nothing was a moronic way to end what was otherwise a great movie.
Seconded. Not only is it boring as hell, it’s a waste of valuable oil.
Also seconded. There’s a big difference between a geniune elder and an old person.
Hi, Illuminatiprimus, nice to meet you.
Said the guy with a tattoo he’s had for ten years and likes it just as much now as he did when he got it
Blade Runner. Average movie with a weak ending, entirely made up of unlikeable characters.
And another thing - why do fans scream bloody murder every time George Lucas changes a single frame of** Star Wars**, yet Ridley Scott can put out a new version of **Blade Runner ** every six months or so to rapturious applause?
Mainly two reasons. First of all, when George Lucas released his first changed versions in 1997 and called it “Special Edition”, there was rapturous applause. It wasn’t until he stopped calling it Special Edition, stopped releasing the original versions, and started pretending the new versions was Star Wars as he originally envisioned it that people turned sour. Second of all, none of Scott’s changes suck balls.
P.G. Wodehouse’s Jeeves is not a genial, paternal, and caring character. He is sly, manipulative and evil, and goes out of his way to make sure that Bertie’s reputation gets trashed on a regular basis.
Hasn’t Scott done the exact same thing?
YMMV. To me, it isn’t *Blade Runner * without Ford’s voiceover and the original happy ending.
And he is NOT a replicant.
I hate the theater.
I trained as an actor, and sat through about three plays a week for three years, and enjoyed precisely two of them. One of them was a kid’s show with lots of special effects, that my friend was in. The other one starred Anthony Hopkins.
While good theater does, very rarely, exist, the vast, vast majority of the medium is overly slow, badly performed, interprets the stage direction “pause” as “pretend to be significant for as long as you can endure it”, and serves as nothing more than a mutual backrub for the pretensions of the actors and directors - and indeed much of the audience, who endure this drab nonsense just to be seen doing it. The rest of the audience are either weird people who enjoy tedium, or possibly use it as a time to meditate or sleep.
I haven’t been to see a professional play for fifteen years. I have grudgingly attended two or three amateur productions that friends or family have been in, and hated them too. The worst hours of my entire life were during a production of Waiting for Godot. I genuinely tried to leave during the interval because I didn’t think the play could possibly be longer than the first act.
In my book, the only good theatrical stage production is one with me in it, wanking my own ego.
Despite my criticism of it and thinking it was overrated and not the Best Picture, I enjoyed parts of it… the action parts with Moss and Chigurh. I love a deep, underlying plot with all sorts of implications for blah blah blah as much as the next person, but in this case, there were too many glaring incongruities and mismatches of style and plotting. So, if it had just been a chase movie, or had just been a movie about an old guy meditating about his own mortality, it might have worked. Those two themes were not melded together organically or effectively, IMO, in this case. The whole is less than the sum of its very cool parts. And that’s too bad because the acting was really great, it was visually interesting, and there were moments when I was on the edge of my seat.
PS-- Whether or not Deckard it a replicant is unknowable… and that’s the point of the movie!
Is.
Totally is.
Whether or not Deckard is a potted cactus is also unknowable. Anything is unknowable if you think about it too much. All I know is that the question of Deckard being a replicant never came up (at least that I ever heard) until 20 years after the movie came out. I suspect Scott pulled the whole question out of thin air to whip up sales for his latest edition.
Not to my knowledge, no. Possibly the “pretending it was what he envisioned all along” part, which in his case isn’t pretending, as is clearly shown by the already existing footage, whereas Lucas had to add and edit to show us what he supposedly intended all along.
then we’re a trio! Heck, there was one old lady that was distantly related to me even that talked trash about me since I was like fuckin’ 10! When I went off to the army she spread a rumor around town that I had gone to jail for some contrived reason. Seriously. (A friend’s grandmother heard it from her, told my friend who in turn told me when I got back from the freakin’ Gulf War).
and they wonder why I never come home on leave anymore…fuck 'em all.
Thank you for that. As I said in my first post in this thread, I can’t stand live theatre either. I thought it was just me and my non-pretentious upbringing, and that everyone else was seeing something in live theatre that I don’t see and have no interest in learning to see. You would have to pay me A LOT of money to get me to sit through a live performance of “Waiting for Godot.” Lots of zeroes.
You two should read a book by Josephine Tey titled, Miss Pym Disposes. It’s a murder mystery, but in it is a character who loathes the theater. You all remind me of her. She’s got some pithy, snarky remarks re live theater you might enjoy.
And can I have your opening night tickets? 
jollyroger--I don’t hate all old people. But a more infantile, selfish, self-centered group of people you’ll never meet. I’m sure there are some really nice old people out there, but overall, they are to be put up with. What you describe is bizarre as hell–maybe that old lady had some mental issues? The worst thing I’ve put up with is my husband’s godmother calling him day or night, expecting him to drop everything and drive an hour to take care of it for her. Of course, he irked me too, since he never put a limit on her behavior. She lived to be 99, complaining about life, her health, her family and us to the end, bless her heart.
My adopted dad’s mother was a mean, hateful, self-centered old bitch who buried 4 husbands and lived on their pensions. She disowned and disinherited most of us adopted kids and about half of her genetic grandchildren. The funny thing was that she died broke; my dad had supported her and her last husband for the last 10 years of her life. She ‘owned’ some properties and business assets that my dad put in her name for tax purposes. She lived to be 90 too.