[psmith2.0]

Steve Martin, in that movie, is funnier as the straight man than anything I've ever seen Jim Carrey, Dane Cook, Martin Lawrence, Will Smith, Jimmy Fallon, etc. do, when they're trying to be funny.

Think about that...that's quite an achievement!

The movie wouldn't - couldn't - have worked if they were both trying to "do funny" the entire time. It needed Martin to be that repressed, hyper-serious and easily-flustered "everyman" to make Candy's antics that much funnier/annoying. But Martin's reactions to it all are hilarious anyway.

I need to watch that movie. Thanksgiving will be here soon...

I may have mentioned this here before, but go find (it used to be on YouTube, but I've not been able to find it lately) Steve Martin's acceptance speech at the Kennedy Center as he is given the Mark Twain prize for humor. He is so funny here. And he barely lifts a finger to do so.

That self-deprecating, but oddly arrogant/unaware at the same time, kind of stuff absolutely puts me on the floor. Anytime I'm feeling a bit low, I go searching for this clip and it does the trick.

EDIT: Ahh, it's back!

You're welcome.

[kscherer]

Thank you for that, and I also need to find Plains, Trains, and Automobiles, because, yeah, I need a gut-buster this weekend.

[psmith2.0]

I just saw a trailer for a new Soider-Man movie coming in December, with the current cast (Tom Holland, Zendaya, Jon Favreau, etc. springing from the current MCU/Avengers/Stark timeline and setting) and there was also Benedict Cabbagepatch as Dr. Strange.

At the end, that octopus/metal tentacles from his back villain shows up, and it’s Alfred Molina, who played the role (Doc Ock?) in that Tobey Maguire Spider-Man move way back in the early 2000’s.

And there was what looked to be a Green Goblin reference as well (the bomb, and laughter, of Willem Dafoe). Are they bridging all those movies somehow?

[Frank777]

Yeah, time travel is played out, so lazy writers have to mine the multiverse concept now.

[psmith2.0]

Hmmm, interesting. In the trailer it looks like Strange is monkeying with time and space so maybe all that gets twisted up and overlapped?

I don’t watch/follow any of this stuff (Marvel, DC) anymore but there was a recent show where all the various incarnations/timelines of Batman seemed to be on display (references to the 60’s Adam West show, the 89 movie, Kevin Conroy playing a live-action Bruce Wayne, etc. I think it was part of those WB/CW(?) shows because Supergirl and Ruby Rose’s Batgirl were in the scene, and there was a cameo from Burt Ward, Robert Wuhl, etc.

It seems a bit stunt-y and “let’s fan-service everyone’s brains out and bring all these eras and actors together!”

Does that mean Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield show up to as other versions of Parker/Spider-Man?

[turtle]

From the trailers I have seen, yes. In fact, the first trailer for No way home included Dare Devil from the Netflix series as Peter's lawyer. I'm trying to find that video now so I can share it. It was posted on an official channel, not some random youtuber channel so I think there is some legitimacy to it.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, I just don't like all that stuff...alternate universes, timelines, realities, parallel this, multi-that, etc. Too easy to undo mistakes (in- and out of universe). Nothing's real or grounded, or earned, you know? Nobody ever really dies, villains are never fully dealt with, mistakes are explained away/undone instantly, etc. They can always say "oh, well Bruce Wayne didn't really die...that was the Bruce Wayne from..." and it all gets magically "fixed".

No real stakes, no real danger or loss hanging over anything. Just like bad soap operas with their endless amnesia/evil twin brother/faked deaths storylines. People will endure a couple of "gotchas!" or rug-pulls, but when you start to make it ongoing routine, you absolutely lose me. And others, I suspect.

They killed Superman, but they really didn't. Captain America too. These companies want to be edgy and subversive but none of them have the guts to fully commit and follow through. So they leave themselves an out or a "do-over" with all this woo-woo stuff so in case things don't pan out like they want ("wow, our readers/viewers really didn't like it when we killed off [fill in the blank]..."), then they just go "Gotcha! He/she didn't really die. You see, what happened was...".

Shut up already...



I know this kind of stuff (comics, superheroes, etc.) is fantasy/fiction, but, to mean something, big picture, it still has to be grounded in some sort of rules. Otherwise why bother? Why all the effort in writing, drawing, filming, etc. if, in the end, it's all subject to "oops, not really!" I just don't like all that stuff in comics, and the TV shows/movies based on them.

It seems...well, gutless.

I know for a fact that Robert Downey, Jr. will return as Tony Stark at some point. Whether it's a full Ironman/Avengers movie somewhere down the road, or a cameo in one of these other things (Disney+ shows or any upcoming MCU movies). And it'll all be "well, when he snapped his finger he was actually in the [proceed with labored bullshit explanation that undoes everything seen/established in Endgame]...and so, actually, he was never really..."

Again, shut up. Commit/stick to your guns and mean it (earn those tears and gasps), or bug off.



Cheap and lazy, that stuff, and leads to too many rug-pulls and "stunts" (and not the good kind).

Just my .03

[turtle]

Apparently this is really just so Sony can keep Spider-man and all related priories without needing to tie into the other MCU titles. Kinda makes sense when you remember Sony doesn't play nice with others the the MCU is a threat to their ticket sales.

This is the trailer my daughter found. It is "fan-made" though it has all the same references as the newest trailer out there.

[psmith2.0]

Well that's business-related stuff, not really tied to anything in-story. Which makes it even goofier.

That comes across more like the suits/corporate suite running things.

Like that Jon Peters idiot with all his awful ideas and guidance/directives on that aborted Nicolas Cage/Tim Burton Superman movie (giant spiders, wisecracking robot sidekick, evil polar bears, Superman inexplicably needing a) guards at b) his Fortress of Solitude , a Superman movie with no flying scenes (and "no faggy suit/cape"), etc.

"Awesome, outside-the-box insights, Jon. While we're at it, can we make a Titanic movie without any ocean/ship scenes too?"

He's one of many in those shot-calling positions, and then we wonder why so many movies, after costing $200-300M to produce, are such steaming piles and a waste of two hours.

I do think Tom Holland has been, by far, the best of the three Spider-Man/Peter Parker portrayers. He's young/believable as a high-schooler (the other two just weren't) and he's closer to that smart-ass Spider-Man from the comics. I think he's done a fine job in the five(?) MCU movies he's appeared in. I hope this upcoming movie isn't the George Clooney Batman of the franchise and deep-sixes the entire thing.

[turtle]

I totally agree with you on that. We can only hope it isn't a total shit show. If nothing else it should be an interesting twist on the live-action multiverse thing. Kinda like the animated into the spiderverse that came out a while ago.

If they can keep Tom happy and well employed we should continue enjoying Spidey. Heck, I didn't even bother watching "The Amazing Spider-man" series at all. Not really planning to watch it either for that matter.

Funny enough, I just realized there are others I've "missed" that I'm not feeling very compelled to watch either. Like Ant-man and Wasp. I'm sure I'd enjoy it... maybe.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, I kinda fell off the Avengers/MCU thing after that Ultron movie. I finally got around to seeing those two last Avenger movies, but I missed the Ant-Man/Wasp one, the third Thor with Jeff Goldblum, Captain Marvel and Black Panther. I'm sure I'll get around to them at some point before I croak, but I just kinda lost interest...it was total Marvel overload there for a while, I remember. I didn't even see Infinity War and Endgame until much later, on Netflix (before everything left for Disney+ pastures).

[Ryan]

So far it seemed like they were just bringing back some of the actors from the Maguire series, but not necessarily in the same continuity? Maybe they pull some multiverse bullshit to explain it, but honestly if Disney just said "look, Willem Dafoe and JK Simmons were perfect in those roles and it'll be fun to have them back" I would have zero issues with it.

Few people play the grouchy boss role as well as JK Simmons. Burn After Reading, Thank You For Smoking and of course running the Daily Bugle in the Maguire Spidey movies.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, he's great. It's funny that they pulled him in to play Gordon in those DC Justice League movies. The man just can't escape this genre. But he was absolutely the best part of those Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire Spider-Man movies! Everything out of his mouth was a hoot.

I love to watch old reruns of Law & Order on WE and Sundance channels. Simmons is sometimes a guest role as Dr. Emil Skoda, a psychiatrist who works for/with the NYPD and D.A.'s office. He's called in to interview victims or perps and then give his assessment/opinion to Jack McCoy and/or the ADAs, and to appear at trial to provide expert testimony for the prosecution. He's great in this role as well. Always solid. He's played the role in 30-40 episodes over the years, and he's also crossed over to the Special Victims Unit and Criminal Intent offshoots of L&O, playing the same role (those shows all exist in the same universe, of course...various characters are mentioned and/or appear on the other shows at times). The lovely Mariska Hargitay popped up on the "mothership" Law & Order once, helping with a crossover investigation, making it the best episode ever. 😍😂

He's on those Farmer's Insurance commercials too.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Okay, here's another oldie but goodie. I rented Salem's Lot from iTunes last night on my AppleTV. This is the original TV miniseries adaptation from 1979, starring David Soul (Hutch!), Lance Kerwin, James Mason and a young, and quite hot, Bonnie Bedelia (probably better known by most as Holly, the wife of Bruce Willis' John McClane in those first two Die Hard movies).

And, right on cue...



I've honestly not heard of any of those actors mentioned (but that doesn't mean anything, and I find that's sometimes a good thing because you're not sitting there going "oh, that's Harrison Ford..." (or Brad Pitt, one of the Jennifers, etc.). It can sometimes make a movie a little more believable if you're not familiar with any of the cast members...no baggage or past performances to think back to. Especially a horror movie...everyone's expendable and nobody's too big/recognizable of a star to automatically be "safe'.

Anyway, it's from the guy who wrote the screenplays to the two recent It movies, which I enjoyed (the first one much more than the sequel), so if it's in that ballpark, it could be pretty solid.

The novel and the 2004 Rob Lowe miniseries portrayed the lead vampire, Kurt Burlow, as a regular "human" (Rutger Hauer played him in the 2004 TV adaptation, with no freaky/scary makeup). It was the 1979 one I recently re-watched above where they deviated from the novel and gave Barlow a horrifying Nosferatu appearance (bald, pale, fangs, pointy ears, blatantly "evil"/monster-like).

Interested to see how they'll go about that in this movie...do they stick to the novel's depiction of just a regular-looking man, or do they go for the scares and creepy approach of an ancient vampire who looks the part?

Even though its (another) remake, something like this is the kind of thing I'd consider paying $9+ to watch in the theater, just because I loved that 1979 miniseries (and enjoyed those two recent It movies). I'm sure, as with It, it'll get updated and set in modern times. There's nothing blatantly 70's or period-necessary in the novel that I'm aware of, I don't think (other than the lack of cell phones, which come in handy in iffy situations).

It's funny to watch movies made, or set, pre-cell phone to see characters running to a phone booth or needing to contact someone, but they're in the middle of nowhere and they just know/accept that they can't. Tech has changed the perception of peril/isolation in movies and TV shows, no doubt. Nobody's ever really "alone" now, and you can easily call the cops (and film the event for InstaFaceTwitTok) if some psycho demon clown or machete-wielding lab experiment is chasing you. In 1978 you were on your own, and just hoping someone heard your screams.

[Ryan]

I read somewhere that cell phones are part of the reason writers are now setting things in the 80s and 90s.

Rewatched Gross Pointe Blank last weekend and got a chuckle out of his gigantic cell phone and in-car fax machine.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Ryan I read somewhere that cell phones are part of the reason writers are now setting things in the 80s and 90s.

I can believe that because it instantly "fixes"/solves too many things.

"This movie is set in 2019...none of these idiots have an iPhone to call the cops/fire department/National Guard/dog-catcher/reptile wrangler/AAA/Catholic priest/ghostbusters?!? That's the first thing I would've done, about 25 minutes ago."

At least if you set it back in the day all you can really say "man, somebody needs a dime!"

Originally Posted by Ryan Rewatched Gross Pointe Blank last weekend and got a chuckle out of his gigantic cell phone and in-car fax machine.

Some of those earlier Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher Batman movies (1989-1997) are a hoot because Batman's tech - in both the car and the cave - is kinda funny to see in that same light.

The all-time tech cringe/laugh movie, on numerous levels, is Sandra Bullock's The Net (1995). If there was ever a movie a bunch of studio execs who've never used a computer or the Internet provided technical consulting on, it's this one. This movie hasn't aged worth a shit. It was already ridiculous by 2000, let alone 2020 and beyond.

If you've not seen it, pop a bowl of corn and get ready to chuckle.

It was the height of Ms. Bullock's fame/charisma/cutie-pie-ness (one year after Speed), but even that can't salvage anything.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Ryan I read somewhere that cell phones are part of the reason writers are now setting things in the 80s and 90s.

My most recent book, The Sixth Angel, is set in eastern Oregon in 1980. My coauthor and I specifically wanted a time in the not too distant past where cell phones were not a thing. It's become too easy for writers (both movie and novel) use cell phones/computers to solve problems they aren't able to solve in their own minds. It's cheap and easy and I hate it.

I remember a TV show form the early 1990's (I think) where a piece of evidence was a bag full of shredded paper. The answer to the crime was in that stuff*, and—get this—they just grabbed a handful of shred and tossed it into a scanner and the computer "scanned" everything and popped out the answer in, like, three seconds.

So, kudos to anyone willing to bypass that lazy-ass approach!

* If you ever want to see how real investigators solve that problem, well, it's a lot of humans painstakingly reassembling one page at a time and it's very, very difficult and time-consuming.

[psmith2.0]

I had to do that once, just to retrieve a phone number/address for someone (long story).

It was shredded into strips from a home-office shredder. This person was distraught and I had nothing better to do so I was Mr. I'll Take Care of It, Don't Worry!

I did, but it was 90 minutes hunched over a coffee table, a bunch of lights turned on and a borrowed magnifying glass. Worst jigsaw puzzle ever!

"Will you please write/enter all this down somewhere, right now? I don't think I have another one of these assemblies left in me!"

If you've got the time, anything is able to be reassembled.

[709]

[psmith2.0]

Exactly! Actually jigsaw puzzles are easier because you've got colors to go by, etc.

A white piece of paper with a bunch of black/grey writing on it...yikes. But I was proud of myself.

"That's almost like some CSI/McGyver/Encyclopedia Brown shit!"

I now know that if a mystery/crime ever hinged on some info on shredded paper, I could be an asset and help crack the case!

[psmith2.0]

Speaking of Penguin, I keep hearing about a new trailer for The Batman that showed at some recent comic/geek/DC gathering? The one they released a year ago(!) looked pretty interesting. I think this movie was originally supposed to come out this past summer, but everyone's friend COVID crapped all over that, and now it's lated for a March 2022 release (odd, for it to not be in the May-June "summer blockbuster" spot, but maybe they're looking to handle this differently and for it to be a Serious Film™ about a guy dressed like a rodent beating bad guys within an inch of their lives?

Anyway, I hope to see some new footage soon. By the time they thing comes out, they will have started work on it a solid two-plus years before!

There have apparently been test screenings in recent weeks, according to many stories on YouTube. It's right at three-hours long, so I know that won't last. Unfortunately they'll take the advice/wishes of random schmoes who see these things, so what is probably a pretty solid three-hour flick will no doubt get dumbed down to a 110-minute, spoon-fed hunk of less-than shit once the Applebee's crowd gets done with their input.

"Where's Robin?"
"Ain't Morgan Freeman supposed to be in this?"
"Wait...no Heath Ledger?! Hard pass!"
"I simply didn't see enough gay. I find this highly problematic!"
"Wow, entirely too much gay! But I still got a semi...I find this highly problematic."
"It's too dark!"
"It wasn't as funny as I would like it to be."
"Why, exactly, do they insist on Batman being a male? I mean, like, WTF?"
"Is he still a vampire in this? He should be!"
"Gordon is black? Since when?! Fucking ni..."
"I need another Batman movie like I need a third ball!"
"His voice should be more gravelly and indecipherable, you know...like that other one had?"
"The car needs to drive up the side of a building at least once!"
"I thought Ben Affleck was Batman now?"
"They should do a crossover with The Avengers...yo, that would be sick, dude!"
"His cape is too short!"
"Two words: bat-arang. Where was it?!"
"He should've banged Wonder Woman. Why wasn't she in this?"
"There needed to be an origin story shown...we've only had that in 11 other movies."
"Did they film this in the real Gotham City? Because it totally looked like it!"
"It needs a red phone!"
"I believe the Batmobile should be electric. A hybrid, at the very least. I find this highly problematic."
"So that's what Andy Serkis looks like? Who knew?"
"The Coke I had was kinda flat and too syrupy!"
"What do you mean I have to sign an NDA? I don't play basketball!"

[Frank777]

Yes, Batman's actually a tragedy about a man who goes crazy after witnessing the murder of his parents.

-------

My personal pet peeve is about the Batmobile. Why doesn't it fly?

We have flying cars right now. They cost about 100K to build.
The reason they're not available is government approval and licensing, which isn't an impediment to a billionaire vigilante.

Especially a fictional billionaire vigilante.

So why have we yet to see a flying Batmobile in the movies?

[psmith2.0]

I figure that’s what Keaton and Kilmer’s Batwing, Bale’s Bat and Affleck’s jet thing or were. Not flying batmobiles, no…but flying vehicles.

Let’s be honest…toys. They’d give the character a batsubmarine or bat space shuttle if they thought the toys would sell.

This upcoming movie is supposedly set during his second year of being Batman, so he’s not going to have the toys/vehicles/weaponry/tech the other ones may have had. Based on his suit scarring/dings and tech, Affleck’s Batman appeared to be the most believable “longest on the job”. I think we’re getting “still figuring things out” with Pattison’s version? When I start something new, I’m okay - but not great - at it after just two short years.

You’re right, though. If he had a car that flew (and that worked on, and below, water), that’s 2-3 separate vehicles he doesn’t have to pay insurance/upkeep on.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I can believe that because it instantly "fixes"/solves too many things. "This movie is set in 2019...none of these idiots have an iPhone to call the cops/fire department/National Guard/dog-catcher/reptile wrangler/AAA/Catholic priest/ghostbusters?!? That's the first thing I would've done, about 25 minutes ago." At least if you set it back in the day all you can really say "man, somebody needs a dime!"

It's apparently one of two reasons the Duffer Brothers set Stranger Things in the late 80s. That and their love of 80s pop culture.

[psmith2.0]

I can see that. It resets things to a time where the world, and everyone in it, wasn’t in out pocket 24/7.

[drewprops]

Last night I watched The Last King of Scotland, starring Forest Whitaker as Ugandan Dictator Idi Amin and James McAvoy as a Scottish doctor.


...

[psmith2.0]

That’s a good movie. Saw it several years ago on Sundance or IFC. Always liked Whitaker. Like Ed Harris or Gary Sinise, always solid/believable work, and often the best part of anything he’s in.

Not gonna lie…I initially sat down to watch because I knew my sweetie-pie was in it, but I wound up liking it, Ms. Anderson or not.

[turtle]

The Matrix Resurrections
https://youtu.be/9ix7TUGVYIo

I'm just being lazy. I saw and heard grumblings that the movie was coming out and apparently there is a trailer now. I'm going to watch the movie... on home video. No way I'm going to pay premium for it. Still, I am looking forward to it being in my home.

[PB PM]

Other than better CGI than the originals, this just feels like a forced reboot, yuck.

[psmith2.0]

I didn’t like, or understand, any of the others (couldn’t even make it through the third one). The only good part, for me, was Carrie-Anne Moss in that outfit of hers.