Search options (Page 1 of 45)

Yeah, I get it that Del Toro is influenced by darker, O.G. European fairy tales. This is not my problem at all. I like that aspect of what he does. It's that his storytelling skews more nonsensical than sensical, and unlike classical folklore and fairy tales, I come away not knowing what the point was. He's a European-flavored Tim Burton. Lots of style, but any substance is purely coincidental.

AND BUT SO ANYWAY VAN HELSING

Yes, I'm sure the "Art of Hellboy 2" book is well worth the money, but I don't want to sit down and watch someone flip through it for two hours. As with Pan's Labyrinth, cool production design =/= good movie.

EDIT: To be fair, though, seeing as how my brain's hate-center has been recalibrated the last few years, maybe I'd like HELLBOY 2 better if I gave it another shot.

Unless his agent is a complete imbecile, he'll also be getting a cut of the gross receipts. So every ticket purchased is more money in his pocket.

I personally thought the book was garbage before I knew OSC was too, so put em both together and I have no intention of watching this film.

If it makes you guys feel any better, with tomorrow's recording including VAN HELSING -- a movie I've always hated -- plus coming at the end of a brutal pilot season, plus being Cinco de Mayo, there's a decent chance the inaugural WAYDM recordings will feature an appearance by special guest Drunkman. Be there and find out!

That's part of the deal, yes. But they don't have to be unique to each episode, just a note that the episode is actually one of the new show and not related to the trademark owners.

Just finished 11/22/63. Really enjoyed it, thanks to everyone for encouraging me to give it a chance. According to King's afterword (on the audiobook at least), the reason the ending was actually good is because his son, Joe Hill, came up with it. Speaking of, the audiobook is quite well done. Craig Wasson does a very good job of keeping consistent voices for each of the characters, and has a surprising range. It's also a performance, not just a narration, really enhancing the emotions of the story. It's laid on a little thick in a few places - at one point his voice gets so full of grief and horror it's a little hard to quite understand - but only a few. Recommend both the book and the audio recording.

I'll be getting around to reading Under the Dome soon. I don't really want to, if I'm honest, but it looks like I'll be working on the show, so I should be familiar with the material. But I try not to read the same author back to back or their writing voice will start to unduly influence my own, so I'm cleansing my palate listening to a book Trey recommended, Larry Niven's Footfall.

Ooo. Fridge Logic has a nice ring to it...

I suggested we go with Friends in Your Head but for some reason that didn't get much traction.

Back when we were first trying to think of titles I suggested The Peanut Gallery -- which surprisingly isn't trademarked, at least not in the relevant field. Not sure that feels right for what the show has developed into, though.

Banned from the Web/Internet was suggested and I think that's funny, since we clearly aren't banned from anything.

The Show That Dare Not Speak Its Name strikes me as amusing but the novelty might wear off.

Or The Show With No Name? People might think we're bigger on Westerns than we are though.

EDIT:

OMG

Anyone who asserts video games cannot be art demonstrates a poor grasp of at least one of the two.

I maintain that there is no sensible definition of "art" which could encompass movies but not video games.

EDIT: More to the point, who fucking cares if it's art or not? People tend to turn up their noses at it as "not art" as a way of dismissing it as not worthwhile, as if they're better than people who play because they're doing something more important with their lives. Fuck off, no you aren't. And fun is worthwhile regardless of "artistic" merit.

I have that one. The hardcover is like a foot thick so it's a bit daunting. Been meaning to check it out though.

I'm still reading The Eye of the World, but I finished This Book is Full of Spiders. It was fine, meandering about as much as as John Dies at the End but, to me, less entertaining. JDATE lacked any kind of real narrative arc, and being just a collection of episodes in the characters' lives that was perfectly fine. TBIFOS, though, is a story about one event from beginning to end, and as such I would've liked it if there was more of a, you know, point.

I also read Sick Little Monkeys: The Unauthorized Ren & Stimpy Story, which got into the genesis, rise, and fall of the cartoon that was a big part of my childhood, and has arguably influenced animation (mostly for the better) moving forward. Pretty cool information, including some info about the development behind certain episodes. The author is not afraid to share his opinion on animation in general and Ren & Stimpy in particular, nor to declare most of it (including a number of episodes of R&S) complete garbage. I would've preferred maybe a more clinical tone, but whatever. There are also a number of occasions where he uses a word that looks like the one he wants to use but isn't, like he wrote the book on an iPhone and got autocorrected here and there. The editor seems to have been a bit asleep on the job, but again whatever. You can still make sense of the narrative just fine.

Currently listening to True Grit, a bit over halfway through (it's a short book -- 6 hours audio unabridged). I haven't seen the John Wayne version, but the Coens nailed it. I am still planning to go over to 11/22/63 next, and possibly Under the Dome after that, just out of curiosity.

It's actually a pretty well-known fact -- at least among folks like us -- that Watterson refused to license C&H, and that the Calvin decals are effectively bootlegs.

Incidentally, I just saw this today. Something else Watterson, sadly, wouldn't be happy about:

I don't see how your comment was sarcastic, despite the sartalics, since sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you mean but the italicized comment seems to be precisely what you mean to say.

Sarcasm would be something like "I'm glad we've got three pages of suggestions to expand the list - it was pretty sparse." That's obviously untrue and can be assumed as sarcasm without having to resort to typographical cues like backwards italics.