MovieChat Forums > whoanelly > Replies
whoanelly's Replies
Thanks again. :-)
Re longest sword fight. Oh, I remember how excruciating that was! Unsustainable. It was downright painful to sit through.
Re Your last paragraph
Back in 1977, I got special Star Wars edition of Rolling Stone Magazine with the cast on the cover and a long piece about the film. And I remember interviews with Lucas on tv, describing his favorite adventure stories and films while growing up, and that’s why SW has the story details it has, like Lucas’s childhood adventure stories. I think Lucas lost sight of that in the years between the two trilogies, and for the exact reasons you specify.
SW started out as a film to recapture the magic of Lucas’s favorite adventure fiction, but then SW became a legacy of groundbreaking special effects. that led to GL setting up a special effects studio in a ranch and becoming the premiere “shop” to create effects for other films. The prequels are like GL’s showcase.
Indeed. I read that this film is adapted from book one in the series.
Here’s a great quote about USAG
“How do you live with yourself? How does this organization live with itself? Basically, you're telling me the money is more important than our kids are and their safety is."
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/investigations/2016/08/04/usa-gymnastics-why-coaches-hugs-make-becca-seaborn-cringe/87967164/
Thanks for responding. You’ve articulated very well some of my feelings about the prequels.
In addition to the cardboard cutout characters, there were also long sequences of cgi metal machinery—cold, emotionless, bland, unengaging. So boring. I felt disconnected and struggled to keep my mind on the film.
Jesus who?
Something crucial was missing. It was cold and uncharismatic. It didn’t grab at your heartstrings the way the original trilogy did. I appreciated some aspects of the story, but it wasn’t MY Star Wars. I just didn’t feel engaged.
The children’s book is told from Enola’s perspective
I think so, too. It was less predictable and had many more comedic moments than expected.
But Hepburns trousers were not that tight. Sandy’s pants at the end of Grease were inspired by Hepburn’s Funny Face cigarette trousers, but they were much tighter. They were designed to cause a spectacle. And they did.
Olivia Newton-John is wearing something akin to the spandex look, but before it was invented. ONJ’s costume inspired a look that became popular in the 70s after being introduced in Grease. Following their debut in Grease, Raquel Welch wore similar pants on stage and tv, but they were loose at the ankle.
He was doing the Charlie Chaplin Tramp walk.
The Groucho walk is something different all together.
The cigar is all Groucho, but the walk is all Chaplin.
Even in the 70s, Sandy’s tight pants at the end were a shocker. No one had seen pants like that before. They became a new fashion item for fit women who could pull off a glitzy, shiny pants look. They were for dressed-up occasions, like clubbing. But they weren’t snug at the ankle like Sandy’s.
One star I recall wearing them, post-Grease, was Raquel Welch while performing on a tv program. Hers were shiny, like Sandy’s, but not tight around the ankle. And not black. I think they were bronze, or maybe copper.
Except in the real 50s, you wouldn’t find a film character with a last name like Kenicki or Zucko.
I recall an interview with Annette Funicello, I think it was on Good Morningk America, around the time the Disney Channel was launching their 1980s squad of Mousketeers. Funicello was asked to discuss the diversity of the new Mousketeers, and the interviewer told her that she, Annette, was the diverse member of the original Mousketeers. And Funicello agreed.
But that’s one of the staples of Grease: whenever you see a non-high school stage version, including the original cast when the musical was written, older actors play teens. It’s a Grease characteristic. You don’t question it. You don’t think of it in those terms. Rydell is a fantasy, not realistic.
Have you seen Animal House?
His family life was utterly toxic. So much abuse and manipulation at the hand of his parents. They really are quite the pair of pathetic twisted phukks.
It’s so much worse than denial. Read Carine McCandless’s book.
The truth was hidden in the book because his sister wanted it that way. I’m reading her book right now, and cannot believe how she repeatedly does the very thing she derides her parents for doing. She keeps taking them back into her life, while acknowledging their toxicity and acting as though she isn’t just as co-dependent on their twisted drama as they are.
Her brother cut them out of his life because they were toxically abusive and manipulative. But she just can’t bring herself to do the same. She prevented Krakauer from publishing the truth. Then, Sean Penn was so enamored of Krakauer’s book without the abuse being exposed, that he totally bought into his own idea of Chris and didn’t want the truth about his parents to spoil the meditative film he had imagined. Both men did a disservice to Chris’s memory, but with so much help from Carine McCandless.
Her repeated permitting of her parents sick behavior into her life and the lives of her children is so frustrating to read, again and again. When she finally cuts them off, it just feels too late. Don’t get me wrong, I am glad, for her sake and those of her children, that she finally did cut them out of her life. But by the time I got to that part, I wasn’t sure if I even cared anymore.
And I’m not trying to be condescending about parenthood. I’ll just say that my experience as a parent has taught me a lot about life, love, commitment that I never knew I didn’t know. Things my parents said and did, that I used to roll my eyes about, I understand better and can appreciate their perspective.
I imagine such understanding cam come about from other experiences, too. It isn’t just parenthood. Age and maturity certainly has shown me I didn’t know as much as I thought I did.
I think you’re forgetting that Jolyon knew Jon had been lying to them, and that was something that Jon had only begun doing after he became involved with Fleur. That, to me, was a red flag to Jolyon not to trust Fleur.
And I agree with the other poster who said Joe wasn’t trying to guilt Fleur. He was opening his heart to her so she might understand why he and Irene needed Jon at that time.
Honestly, the fact that she knew about Joe’s illness and then manipulated Jon to attempt to elope with him only suggests that she and Jon were always doomed. She would always hold back important info that might prevent her getting what she wants. If she can withhold from a man she claims to love that his father, whom she knows he loves, is dying, then there isn’t anything she wouldn’t do to get what she wants.