MovieChat Forums > NotASpeckOfCereal > Replies
NotASpeckOfCereal's Replies
Most of the actors are wearing wigs. Do you really think those kids of those hair styles in real life? Or the actress who plays Mom Wheeler?
Here's a promo shot of actor Noah Schnapp, sans the 80s-era bangs of Will Byers:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6907855/mediaviewer/rm679387905?ref_=nm_ov_ph
I for one was annoyed when I first started watching Season 4, but it surprisingly got a lot better by the end AND it showed that they had put some thought into the full story arc of all 5 seasons. So what you're seeing in Season 1 is just the beginning of the story. I for one was glad I finished S4 and am looking forward to S5.
This season definitely leaned hard into the bully tropes, all the way from the mean girls (FAFO - finally got clocked at the skate rink) to the bullies in the lab (#2 and the other mean powerful kids); and yes, right down to the jock and his mindless followers.
It was too much, kind of annoying, but that jock character basically was the figurehead for all (most) of the population of Hawkings. Take the newsclips in the finale episode talking about the satanic cults. And how about those feckless Hawkins cops that did nothing to stop the fear mongering.
While it was painful to watch, it was good to include it for the younger watchers so they can hopefully learn to avoid those boneheads in school. If you don't give them the power of following them, they can't thrive.
Jesus Christ, spoilers much?
And don't give me any of that "you shouldn't be here if you didn't see the film" bullshit, I'm hear to find out why (see your title).
It's completely different. For one thing, GoT had GRRM with them on the scripts (Crichton is long dead), who promised he would get the last book done "any year now", but never did (still hasn't).
This show is based off of a single completed book and deviated from it (and the 70s film) right from the beginning. It was clear in the first season they weren't just following the source material.
And as R_Kane said above, the show was planned as a 5 year story from its inception, which means they could very well have had a 5-year story arc already written up (which is not unusual with series pitches these days), in at least a skeleton form.
AND more to the point (of this thread title), they probably knew from the get-go that the story wasn't going to stay in the park. I for one am glad it didn't.
^ This.
He's talked like this for a long while, though it's certainly gotten more pronounced in his last few performances (True Grit, yes, and also Hell or High Water).
Someone on one of these movie boards who claimed he was doctor in the area of dentistry (orthodontics or something, I don't remember) who said that it's something Bridges has had for a long time.
I noticed that the actor playing the younger Dan Chace was doing a good job with way he moved his mouth (even when not speaking, he was doing that thing that Jeff Bridges sometimes does with his mouth).
Sorry, no. If they had stayed in the parks, it would be a really stale show by now.
Going out into the world was inevitable and was possibly even in Ford's design (perhaps even those of Arnold Weber).
Westworld isn't about the parks or the host technology / renegade robots—it's about humans first and foremost, their evolution in ways far beyond behavior found in the parks. And it's also a story of the host AI evolution, which obviously had to go somewhere else (out of the park) after the events of S1.
Christina's roomy is in no way a normal human or host. Hale would have placed someone there very specifically (and yes, someone not having her story written by Christina). If it turns out that she's an outlier, I'm going to be disappointed (or maybe that would just point out how defective Hale is in her ire and demented stated, starting with the death of her family last season, as we see from continued scratching / disfigurement in S4/E5).
There was. See the other threads in this group about the time-line not being clear. And besides, it was a personal relationship--there was no sex. There was no skeezy.
<blockquote>No one seems to be troubled by the affair between a fifteen year old and someone who is ten years older. Sure, the twenty-five year old is immature for her age. </blockquote>
Nah, they handled that properly: nothing happened while he was a minor. In fact, no sex seems to happen even by the end of the film, when Gary was no longer 15 and seemingly no longer in school.
<blockquote>Had the genders of the two protagonists been reversed would there have been an outrage?</blockquote>
Nah, see Brad Pitt and Margaret Qualley in 'Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood'. In this case, she literally offers herself to him sexually (he declines). This time, it literally was about sex, but there was no outrage there either.
<blockquote>Kind of a Nabokov thing. Now, that story "Lolita" was meant to be and is creepy. Yet this is presented as joyous and fun. </blockquote>
You've really got your genres in a twist. This film wasn't about the tortured adult seeking their redemption from (yada yada, go read Lolita). Licorice Pizza was about relationships from the heart, not the loins.
<blockquote>The Emperor has no clothes. </blockquote>
Okay.
<blockquote>The praise this film is getting is puzzling. 7.9 on IMDB...really! On RT the critics have it at 91% and the audience score is 69%. It is like everyone will not admit this is a bad film because they fear going against an auteur. And being labelled as unsophisticated. </blockquote>
In other words, "I think it's not such a great film, so everyone giving it better scores are wrong / must have some other motive other than actually liking the film".
<blockquote>The Emperor has no clothes.</blockquote>
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Even though there were no words spoken, communication was made. The fact that she called him back immediately after he first hung up meant that she knew who it was (rather than Lance), that he was unhappy about the Lance thing; and also that while he didn't know how to put it in words, neither could she when she called back.
Words might have caused dialog to dissolve into questions about stalking or betrayal or anything else than the fact that she understood why he was upset and that meant something to her. Neither could really express these things to each other until the very end of the film.
The best he could manage a bit later was to complain about her willingness to show her boobs on film when she hadn't shown them to him yet. This was a good example of saying the unsaid and not doing it well—the phone call didn't have the problem of poorly chosen words.
Adding to all the responses you've already had: this film is in a large part about nostalgia of that period, and in that locale.
I was there, then, and when I heard PTA was coming out with this film, I instantly knew what it was. I didn't know why it was titled that yet, but wasn't surprised to learn that it was just a trigger thing from the era/locale.
To me, this film is (aside to it's story) is paying a homage to the times and places much in the same way Quentin Tarantino did with some of his films, especially (but not limited to) 'Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood'.
Some folks here are comparing Licorice Pizza to the big chains, such as Tower and Wherehouse records (remember the other chains of the period also, Peaches and Platterpus Records).
While Licorice Pizza was a chain, it was more local or west-coast than national. Compare it to Eucalyptus records.
While I eventually worked at a few of these named stores, I never worked at Licorice Pizza. I did however buy my first bunch of LPs there with my first paycheck.
I was noting the same things and basically thought it was PTA making his own personal choices, and also seemingly picking songs for their lyrical meanings relative to the store rather than known hits of the times.
I was around back then--in High School in early/mid '70s LA and having been a patron at the Licorice Pizza stores--but a lot of the cuts played here were not known to me. Their vibe, however, was spot on for the times. It's just music I didn't hear because I didn't have the full-length LPs. There is always too much music out there to know it all, same as it is today.
If he had this film in his head well before principle production started, he was likely listening to music for many weeks to months, at the home, in the car, etc. I like how he takes this on himself--other directors would farm it out and give only final yeas or nays to certain selections.
Chris
When was any Star Trek not woke?
Wait, don't tell me--I'm sure you have your own personal definition of the term that's basically white, male, cis, and most at home while hanging around under bridges.
You mean that you don't consider Phids to be clutching to his tunnel-vision convictions? Weird, that.
Good points, but: this is a show largely created / conceived of by one person, who also wrote a lot of it (though he shared the responsibility). So at most, one can say "HE's at it again". And yeah okay, the producers (including Amazon) are okay with it, or at the very least they don't object to that ones person's vision and story (and character selections) as long as the sci-fi neo-country show has good ratings.
But is it a Hollywood agenda with an objective to influence viewers? Nah.
Actually, what they did was put in a diverse set of characters reflective of actual society and did not squelch that character set to align with the paper-thin sensitivities of people that think we should still live in the Leave it to Beaver era.
Having a group of people in your story that represents the real-life diversity of your viewership is not a leftist sociopolitical agenda. It just makes you angry because even though society is not all white and straight in the real world, you don't want to see it on your television set. It has you imagining conspiracies as a means of explaining things that make you feel squeamish inside.
If you think the wide spectrum of sexual orientation and identity is not real or even "normal", then it's clear that you steered away from all of that liberal indoctrination, which would have shown you history that this has been going on for a very long time.
They're attempting to influence viewers as an objective? If you ever get medication for your delusions, you might come to the realization that nobody is trying to turn anybody gay. If they're trying to influence viewers in any way, it's to show that you can have a gay family that's loving and healthy, even in the face of Wyoming-based neo-country scrutiny (such as the scene where they went to church and were admonished by some people there).
You could also use a dictionary. Sexual orientation is not behavior.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/behavior
You're mercifully free of the awareness that bandying around the term 'woke' so much is like wearing a badge on your shirt that says "small and scared" for all to see. And now we see one reason why: you're afraid of lesbians. I mean, they're still not portrayed on television nearly as much as they exist in society (and they've been around for a long, long time), but a single kiss on a cable show and you're out here screaming WOKE!
That character (non-maie, non-white, non-straight, in a position of power in Wyoming) is there in the story to point out that people who are afraid of diversity, such as yourself, are a dying breed. And what do you do? Come to a social media group for the show on and cry THIS IS SO WOKE! We're not laughing with you.
You have my pity.