|
Snapchat A Titty posted:There's a lynching by airlock in one of the early battlestar galactica seasons for what it's worth. Roslin would happily airlock all ya'll even if you took the last of the air with you. Because gently caress you, that's why. God, that woman ruled. I miss that show.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:That reminds me of an irritating moment in pretty much every movie I watch: how come most movies are about more-or-less successful, well-off people who have one tiny little problem that their movie is based around? Same goes for TV as well, where the gently caress are the poor people? People want to identify with a character and not many people recognize they're poor. That person walking to third shift at Wendy's still identifies more with some corporate type than an accurate representation of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:That reminds me of an irritating moment in pretty much every movie I watch: how come most movies are about more-or-less successful, well-off people who have one tiny little problem that their movie is based around? Same goes for TV as well, where the gently caress are the poor people? Louis CK's Lucky Louie has that quality, that you can actually tell that the main characters are poor working class. It's not one hundred percent successful as a show, but it has its moments and it's overall a good season. The early episodes in particular reuse bits from his standup, so if you've seen his specials it might be repetitive at first, but I think all in all the show is worth watching. Apparently the whole thing is on Youtube. First ep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFvkVKR39f4 (edit: I guess some shitbird letterboxed it, and badly. wtf) Carthag Tuek has a new favorite as of 02:57 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
It's sort of irritating how fast characters find jobs in movies/tv shows. Like they haven't worked in 5 years but are able to get a decent job immediately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Danger Mahoney posted:People want to identify with a character and not many people recognize they're poor. That person walking to third shift at Wendy's still identifies more with some corporate type than an accurate representation of themselves. I don't know, I've yet to see a good movie or TV show with an accurate representation of poverty that wasn't a drama, and even dramatized poverty is usually cleaner and nicer than actual poverty. You'd think there'd be more shows that used it as a backdrop -- Roseanne and Married with Children almost did it, but then Married with Children got cartoonish and Roseanne... well, it was Roseanne. Y'know, I think I might actually be inspired to write something myself with that as an inspiration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Gaunab posted:It's sort of irritating how fast characters find jobs in movies/tv shows. Like they haven't worked in 5 years but are able to get a decent job immediately. lot of the time I put that down to movies getting worse at showing the passage of time, in my opinion. Used to be they'd put in a montage or something to show okay six months, one year, whatever, just make some weather outside the window while the characters are inside doing some number of different things. I had a really good example but as I was writing this, it went away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
"Good Times" actually had story lines about the family having a hard time making ends meet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Screaming Idiot posted:I don't know, I've yet to see a good movie or TV show with an accurate representation of poverty that wasn't a drama, and even dramatized poverty is usually cleaner and nicer than actual poverty. You'd think there'd be more shows that used it as a backdrop -- Roseanne and Married with Children almost did it, but then Married with Children got cartoonish and Roseanne... well, it was Roseanne. Roseanne was actually pretty unironically great until the Tom Arnold years. I still think it's one of the most accurate representations of the average modern American's life I've seen on TV, at least where lower class suburban white people are concerned. It was definitely the closest to the way I grew up anyway. Mom and dad aren't perfect, they work hard at unglamorous jobs for not a lot of money, they yell at their kids but love them anyway, they all try hard and still usually fail, and nobody's pretty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
And no one was living in massive houses or apartments. It was all rundown, small and exactly what you'd expect. I hate movies where you see someone like a waitress go home to a huge ten bedroom apartment with tonnes of furniture and stuff everywhere. It's one of the things where all I can think is just how out of touch the makers of the movie must be to think normal people live like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Imagined posted:Roseanne was actually pretty unironically great until the Tom Arnold years. I still think it's one of the most accurate representations of the average modern American's life I've seen on TV, at least where lower class suburban white people are concerned. It was definitely the closest to the way I grew up anyway. Mom and dad aren't perfect, they work hard at unglamorous jobs for not a lot of money, they yell at their kids but love them anyway, they all try hard and still usually fail, and nobody's pretty. I can't remember the last sitcom about a middle or lower middle class family set in a one-story house. Even the families that are ostensibly poor like Roseanne and the Simpsons have a huge two-level, generally also with a spacious garage, basement, and yard to boot. Oh and there's never been any drama about having to share the one family car. Like there's always jokes about kids wanting to take a car, but there's never "well, you have to drive me to work before you go because of the drat headgasket."
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
theironjef posted:I can't remember the last sitcom about a middle or lower middle class family set in a one-story house. Even the families that are ostensibly poor like Roseanne and the Simpsons have a huge two-level, generally also with a spacious garage, basement, and yard to boot. Malcolm in the Middle
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
poo poo would be depressing in a sitcom unless they had a really good foundation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Rysithusiku posted:Malcolm in the Middle Ooh, good pull.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Malcolm in the middle was cartoony as hell, but they really nailed that small-time Americana vibe. The situations they dealt with weren't always realistic, but the tone was very real. They were struggling to make ends meet, and it showed. I also think Hal is one of the most identifiable characters in sitcom history. I was a huge Bryan Cranston fan throughout that show's whole run. It's good to see him finally attain the level of fame he deserves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
"The Middle" could also fit into this. Poor family, nice loving foundation. This past season the parents picked up additional jobs to deal with unexpected expenses and the middle child about to graduate high school started saving for higher education (but wound up surrendering some of her cash to help with a family crisis and had a heart to heart with her parents about how she knows she won't get to go to an ivy league school but she's doing to SOME school, dammit). It has gotten kind of cartoony over the years but remains an awesome show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
My Name is Earl, Trailer Park Boys. Squidbillies
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
I definitely remember one of the reasons Roseanne stuck with me was because it was something I could relate to when I was growing up. (Malcom in the Middle and My Name is Earl came much later, but they definitely still appealed to me partially for that reason that I noticed.) It took me a while to realize, but other shows struck me a bit differently with ultra-clean modern homes and kids getting their own cars at age sixteen and whatever. theironjef posted:I can't remember the last sitcom about a middle or lower middle class family set in a one-story house. Even the families that are ostensibly poor like Roseanne and the Simpsons have a huge two-level, generally also with a spacious garage, basement, and yard to boot. To be fair, there are a lot of really old neighborhoods where you can find large two-story houses for relatively cheap, although they're usually not in great condition. It's something that varies by area, but I definitely remember knowing low-income friends and relatives who had big but aged houses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Django. I know Tarantino loves his over the top gun play bit the closing scene stands out as a bit much when Django shoots Candy's sister from the staircase. The angle he shoots from couldnt have her fly backwards the way she does. Even if being shot made you fly through the air she just go in that direction drat it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:And no one was living in massive houses or apartments. It was all rundown, small and exactly what you'd expect. As far as movie poor goes this is the second worst symptom for me. The worst has to be poo poo like Forgetting Sarah Marshall where Jason Segel apparently has the money to gently caress off to Hawaii and book hotel rooms without notice. Sarah and Aldous have celebrity money to do that poo poo but he's supposed to be an unemployed studio musician that lives in a one room and shops at Costco. I want to watch popcorn flicks about Seth Rogan missing a date because he couldn't wrangle twenty bucks for gas and he doesn't get paid until Thursday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Walking Dead: It's a Goon tradition to poo poo all over this apocalypse soap opera but I love it. That being said the scene in the latest finale just killed my interest and showed how lazy the writing can be. Of course, I'm talking about Beth stabbing the cop for no good reason just to be shot in the head so they could write that actress out of the show. That and Bob freaking out the cannibals by saying he was "tainted meat" as if that follows the logic of these types of zombies. Go hogwild, cannibal jerks. You're all going to turn into zombies when you die because everyone is a carrier even when alive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
The 100 again. The double-standard that the characters apply to each other is so ridiculous as to be jarring. In the most recent episodes I've watched we have Kane arresting Bellamy for socking Murphy in the mouth, then helping Murphy up and brushing him off and then giving a speech about how Bellamy shouldn't behave like that. Yet he knows Murphy murdered two other kids and its implied he was sent to the ground in the first place for murder. But nooo, it's Bellamy who needs to be roughed up and put in cuffs, not the psychopath. And Kane gets on my nerves. The guy can't decide if he's a troubled good guy making the tough calls for the good of the people, or just a dick. And then later boyscout Finn, who has spent the entire series so far trying to win an award for most angelic character who does no wrong, straight up slaughters half a village of unarmed women, children, and old timers for no logical reason. Which even Murphy thinks is royally hosed up. And yet Finn's massacre is brushed off as war collateral and everybody goes back to dogpiling on Murphy, who at least only revenge killed people who had tried to kill him. Executing a large group of innocent civilians in a fit of rage? Totally cool. Killing two kids who tried to kill you? Unforgivable. It's also fun to see this show embrace the redshirt trope with such gusto. If any main characters wander outside of camp and have an extra in tow, not only is that extra not coming back but no one is going to bat an eyelash when they bite it. I kind of love this show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
dpack_1 posted:Django. I mean, I know this is Irrationally Irritating Movie Moments, but that's part of the joke. It's like a half step removed from her being yanked out of the door jamb with a giant shepherd's cane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:My experience of the show was that I enjoyed the writing, but they DESPERATELY needed (better) scientific consultants. And given that I'm a scientist, and an avid reader of hard SF, I really noticed the fuckups. I enjoyed the political tensions and felt like the characters were well written and developed, but the wild inconsistencies bothered me too much to keep watching.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:It couldn't get past how they handwaved away the food issue. A bunch of teenagers that have lived their entire lives on a fkn space station land in a forest, sharpen some sticks and easily feed themselves. Food is a complete non-issue - they eat nothing until half-way through the first season and then it's a massive feast. Somehow. I guess it would have been boring to watch them struggle to learn how to survive? Even better was the first episode: "We have zero food. We know where some is, let's all go get it." "Nah, we're too good to follow orders now  You go get it.""  Uh, ok? We just carry back enough food for 100 people to eat indefinitely?"And they come back empty-handed too, sooooo~
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Just an age consistency issue with Six Feet Under, which may qualify as rationally irritating (major final season spoilers ahead): At the beginning of the series, Nate is 35 and Clair is in high school (probably 17, I don't remember if they give specifics). I believe it's stated that he left LA at 17 to escape Fisher and Sons. After Nate dies at age 40, we see a flashback to Clair finding him on the day Kurt Cobain died in 1994, crying and smoking pot in his room while listening to In Utero. This would put him at 29, with Clair being maybe 10 or 11. If the dude has been making his life in Seattle all this time, why is he at home in childhood bedroom in April? I suppose it's possible he was coincidentally visiting at the time, but they also make him look and act younger than 29. It's weird (at least to me) to be breaking down over a musician at that age. Then again, Nate is kind of immature and has been living in the hometown of grunge so it could be affecting him more. Also he offers Clair some weed and she takes it, which is weird for someone her age, but I can write that off as Nate being unsure of how to handle someone that age--he did lose his virginity to a 32-year-old at 15. It also might explain Clair's chemical dependency issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:It couldn't get past how they handwaved away the food issue. A bunch of teenagers that have lived their entire lives on a fkn space station land in a forest, sharpen some sticks and easily feed themselves. Food is a complete non-issue - they eat nothing until half-way through the first season and then it's a massive feast. Somehow. I guess it would have been boring to watch them struggle to learn how to survive? Basically once it is shown that they can competently hunt and gather its not really all that necessary to beat it into the ground. Especially as the main characters aren't really all that involved with it. Also, as to how they go about it, it is mentioned that they took Earth survival lessons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Just an age consistency issue with Six Feet Under, which may qualify as rationally irritating (major final season spoilers ahead): That never occurred to me but it is pretty weird. I was 14 and living in the Pac NW when Kurt died and didn't really feel one way or the other about it. Lot of girls crying about it at school that day though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:That never occurred to me but it is pretty weird. Teenage girls cry every time any famous and mildly potentially attractive guy dies, even if they only barely knew who they were. It's just a fact of life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Just an age consistency issue with Six Feet Under, which may qualify as rationally irritating (major final season spoilers ahead): Six Feet Under gets a pass on everything just because the final episode was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Gasoline explosions everywhere... If you are going to blow some poo poo up in a movie, please use some high velocity explosives, unless ofc it really is a bunch of gasoline being blowin up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
ladron posted:Six Feet Under gets a pass on everything just because the final episode was amazing. I think I did cry at that. I didn't even know who Sia was but Breathe Me was a good song.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
ladron posted:Six Feet Under gets a pass on everything just because the final episode was amazing. That's fair. I'm finishing the series either tonight or tomorrow. Been dealing with death a lot in the past year (I started watching it in June) and it's been simultaneously difficult and cathartic. Awesome show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
ladron posted:Six Feet Under gets a pass on everything just because the final episode was amazing. Yeah, after reading it referenced a couple of times as a great show I went into it blind, deliberately knowing nothing except the title, and I ended up binge watching it over the holidays. It's rare a show has a solid ending that leaves you satisfied like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Maze Runner was pretty cool but it had probably the dumbest twist ending I've ever seen. Plus one bit I didn't get. The maze is full of monsters that only come out at night which no one has ever seen. They have a stinger that causes some sort of sickness. No one has seen a monster because no one has survived a night in the maze once the doors close. But they have seen people get stung in the maze during the day and get sick. At one point someone even mentions it's strange that someone got stung during the day but again no one ever spent a night in the maze so what are they even talking about and what else is stinging everyone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Watched the finale earlier today, and while I enjoyed it and found it to be a great cap for the series (especially the final montage), I didn't really see why it's such a legendary episode of television. Loved the series as a whole, though. Honestly I think it's underrated in the grand scheme of "prestige" TV.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Watched the finale earlier today, and while I enjoyed it and found it to be a great cap for the series (especially the final montage), I didn't really see why it's such a legendary episode of television. Loved the series as a whole, though. Honestly I think it's underrated in the grand scheme of "prestige" TV. The final montage is what did it for me like, here's what happened to everyone else. david and keith get married, one of their sons is apparently gay, brenda and her crazy brother are still together and still being crazy, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
ladron posted:The final montage is what did it for me like, here's what happened to everyone else. david and keith get married, one of their sons is apparently gay, brenda and her crazy brother are still together and still being crazy, etc. The best thing in that final montage was It looked like Brenda died due to being tired of her crazy brother ranting about Claire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
When they use the same stock "machine gun" sound effect for some hyped up super weapon like a minigun. Put some effort into it, in Terminator 2 they layered a loving cannon on Arnold's shotgun with several shotgun blasts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:I want to watch popcorn flicks about Seth Rogan missing a date because he couldn't wrangle twenty bucks for gas and he doesn't get paid until Thursday. I think it's Half-Baked where the main character has a date but only has like 78 cents to his name, and so he carefully plans out his entire date to both avoid spending as little money as he possibly can AND not let on to his girlfriend that he is broke. I can't really recall ever seeing that in another movie, it was quite neat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I think it's Half-Baked where the main character has a date but only has like 78 cents to his name, and so he carefully plans out his entire date to both avoid spending as little money as he possibly can AND not let on to his girlfriend that he is broke. I can't really recall ever seeing that in another movie, it was quite neat. He had like five or ten bucks and argued against his date getting relish on her hot dog. Then the vendor up sold her on a drink and Dave mean mugged the hell out of him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:04
|
|