126

(124 replies, posted in Episodes)

Doctor Submarine wrote:
AshDigital wrote:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-cbZIyD4SCxQ/TcG4pt9Q2iI/AAAAAAAAADo/HmH6YRXKVfM/s1600/man-in-elephant-ass.jpg

I love the look of disappointment from the dude on the right.

"You're gonna take a picture of this, huh? Gonna have a good laugh about the elephant butt? I thought better of you."

Fun fact: there should be four guys in the photo. It's a rescue mission.

127

(64 replies, posted in Episodes)

I think someone may have said this in the episode, but as a character Dr. Shaw would make more sense if she were not a scientist at all. They were doing the whole faith-vs-science thing with her character. They did it so poorly it ended up creating a character with muddled motivations who appears to be laughably bad at her job.

You still can do faith-vs-science by having Shaw be some kind of clergyperson, or just deeply religious, and having Charlie be the scientist. They don't both have to be scientists. Charlie makes this discovery and wants answers but isn't at all interested in what they "mean" in the broader sense. But Shaw is interested exclusively in the spiritual implications of the expedition. So you still get the faith-vs-science dynamic but *between two clearly drawn characters* whose perspectives are not so muddled. (The "It's what a choose to believe" line then plays better because you have Charlie there who can say "Yeah well, my wife's a spiritual gal--love that about her. Truth is, we don't know anything until we have data. That's why we're here.")

http://biggiesplace.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/mcqueen-lazy-clap.gif?w=500&h=270

Your version does what I thought the finale would do: unravel the conspiracy a little more. Rust said it wasn't about one man but a network of twisted good ol' boys being protected by people in high places--the "sprawl" as he called it. But the ending was about one man.

(I guess that gif means that I applaud the fix but am still a bit mad at John Ridley.)

129

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Ouch. Poor Derrick.

130

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Eddie wrote:
Rob wrote:
Doctor Submarine wrote:

The more I think about it, the less I like it.

Me too. I'm pretty sure I hated it. What Cohle said at the end undermined what was daring and different about him as a TV character.

Right.  I forgot characters aren't supposed to grow or change after a traumatic event.

Absolutely. I mean, I get it. I was hoping that it wouldn't be that kind of change is all. I was hoping the show wouldn't go in a certain direction with Rust, and boy did it ever.

SPOILER Show
The Rust we knew in episodes 1 thru 7 would have said that his near-death experience was likely stressed neurons firing wildly from loss of blood/coma/pain meds. I wanted that Rust to visit the wheelchair-bound Rust in the hospital for a chat. I thought maybe he'd die at the end having saved the day, saved some innocent kids or something, an existentialist hero striking a small blow against the absurdity of the universe. He dies a hero's death with his ethos more or less in tact. Or something. Whatever it would have been. What we got was him going from being a combination of Sartre and Dirty Harry to being a guy who, at the end, seems like he'd almost be willing to blurb "Heaven is For Real." I just... I was really hoping that wouldn't be his arc.

131

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

The more I think about it, the less I like it.

Me too. I'm pretty sure I hated it. What Cohle said at the end undermined what was daring and different about him as a TV character.

132

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:

I'm not trying to be a bitch or anything. That's kind of the problem with sarcasm and the internet. It gets really hard to tell when people are being genuine. Apology totally accepted. And my apologies if you felt I was making a dig at you for being a fan. That was not my intent at all.

Oy. Someone please tell me if I'm crazy. Seriously. Just tell me I'm nuts, and I'll stop.

Because see now that was a backhanded apology. Apologizing in the form of a conditional statement (I'm sorry if you feel I did something I should apologize for) is not an proper apology. IOW, it's precisely what you were upset with me about. Now this is meaningless because you did absolutely nothing that would require an apology. But it's just extremely bizarre that you would call me out for an alleged backhanded apology (which clearly wasn't a backhanded apology at all), then turn around and deliver a most spectacular example of a backhanded apology. I get it: you're sorry if my silly feelings made me feel like you were taking a dig at me; it's really a shame about my misguided, silly feelings, isn't it? Breathtaking.

133

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

You are also the first person in the history of the Internet to collect an apology from someone who merely deployed sarcasm. So you are racking up the points. That's like hitting a jackpot, no?

134

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I apologized for the sarcasm in a clear declarative sentence that was free of any equivocation or weasel words whatsoever. "I apologize for my sarcasm. It was flippant and childish. It's a bad habit." Is there anyone else here who reads that as a backhanded apology? If so, please tell me how that apology could be made more explicit so I can revise it. And I meant it, too. That's the thing. I wasn't just apologizing to apologize -- I felt bad for having spoken to you that way, and a little embarrassed too. Forgive me, but I literally don't know how to apologize in a more direct way, so I'm finding myself in a no-win situation it seems.

135

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:

Hyperbole and sarcasm aren't necessary here. I'm not butthurt over the fact that you love the show and think it's perfect; I just happen to think it's decidedly less so. I really do think the show has some brilliant moments. But I've yet to get through an episode without finding something that really bothered me from a storytelling standpoint. And no amount of hand-waving by a die hard fan is going to convince me that I'm just imagining things.

Aw man, why's it gotta be like that? You're the white knight, just an objective, fair-minded viewer who's calling them like you see them. Whereas I, for having the audacity to disagree about the merits of a particular scene in a particular episode, must be some sort of basement-dwelling fanboy apologist who's just looking to defend the show at every turn no matter what the topic is. It would be just as unfair for me to say "Well you're just someone who clearly hates the show -- a hater! -- and that's why you're saying what you're saying." Same thing. Even if that were true, it wouldn't invalidate your point of view. Read over our dialogue. I stuck to the substance of the points we were making. Mostly I simply asked questions. I may have engaged in sarcasm*, but I didn't characterize you personally or put you in a box labeled "hater" just because you held a different view and were willing to defend it.

* I apologize for the sarcasm. It was flippant and childish. It's a bad habit.

136

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:

SPOILER Show

Rob wrote:

What does Rust's opinion of Marty's forensic acumen have to do with Marty's need to know the information? But accepting the premise, if you don't think someone is a good detective, isn't carefully walking your slow-witted buddy through the evidence in chronological order exactly what you would do? Also, Rust did a lot of legwork to get that evidence. It makes sense that he'd want Marty to know how much work he put in. He committed a B&E for goodness sake. (This is all apart from the fact that Rust probably does think Marty is a good detective. They lock horns and have exchanged harsh words in moments of anger, but there's obviously, fundamentally, a mutual respect.)

We're not talking about Marty's need to know. We're talking about Rust's willingness to inform him. And why would Rust feel the need to impress Marty with his diligence? A B&E is probably the least of the crimes we've seen Rust commit so far.  In any case, if I was in the same situation, I would definitely show him the tape first.

"Hey, you know that little girl we were never able to find? Well, it turns out this bastard I was suspicious of all along raped and murdered her. I have the evidence right here if you'd like to see it. So, would you mind helping me out with this case?"

Rust came to Marty for help because he needed access to police records and other resources, and because by shooting that guy, Marty fucked up their chances of properly solving this case back in 1995. Mutual respect has nothing to do with it.

Rob wrote:

But I thought everything besides the tape was pointless and unnecessary. If it's not, then what is the utility of having the same information conveyed in Marty's office? Didn't Rust bring Marty to the shed for the explicit purpose of showing him the evidence? How does running thru the evidence make sense in Marty's office but not make sense in Rust's shed -- where they came specifically to look at the evidence?

The point of that scene was for Marty to see the tape. That's it. The tape is the trigger that convinces Marty to help Rust. Everything else is an exposition dump that bogs us down unnecessarily. Either cut it, or save it for a later scene so that the action can get started already.

What exactly do we learn in this scene aside from the tape?

  • There was no physical evidence connecting Dora Lange to Ledoux's place (this is an "as you know" and it makes me wonder why it took another seven years for Rust to figure out that the case hadn't really been solved after all)..

  • Women and children have gone missing in the area surrounding the Tuttle-funded schools (Marty and the audience already knew that Rust suspected the schools were somehow connected to the case).

  • Rust believed that Tuttle's interest in the case, the formation of the task force, and his behavior in 2002 were suspicious (more information we already knew).

  • Rust tracked down a former student from one of the Tuttle schools who provides the first direct connection between the scarred man (Kelly Rita's third attacker) and the schools.

  • The Tuttles come from a part of the state were people practice strange rituals involving  santeria and voudon that bear striking resemblance to Dora Lange and the Lake Charles victim.

  • A photographer spotted many of those little stick things which Rust takes to mean that the killer was very busy during the post-Katrina chaos (again, we already knew that the killer was still active because of the Lake Charles killing - the fact that it may have been easier to kill people after Katrina is irrelevant because he didn't seem to have much trouble killing them before that).

So the only compelling piece of new evidence is Rust's interview with Toby. Considering their conversation at the bar, and the fact that Marty pulls his gun at the thought of meeting Rust in dark room, why go through all this before reluctantly showing Marty the tape? I still don't think most of it was necessary, and this episode needed to accomplish more since we've only got one episode left. But if we were really going to have a moment where Rust walks Marty through everything, having that happen before he shows him the tape is dumb.

Rob wrote:

It also looked like Rust's house when he was on the job. Same deal. Evidence on the walls, stick sculptures on the dining room table. Maggie walks in, sees it, and says "You can't live like this." She wasn't talking about his loose linoleum tiles.

His house did not look like that storage shed. Yes, there were a few pictures on the walls and the table was messy with one of those sculptures on it. But the rest of it was bare white walls and no furniture (rather like my brother's house). He hadn't painted the place insane symbols and cryptic clues. And to me, Maggie's comment seemed to have very little to do with the state of Rust's house. She wasn't even looking at the mess when she said it. She was just trying to seduce him. He's alone, in an empty house, he's just lost his job, and seemed pathetic enough that he might jump at the chance to bone her.

Rob wrote:

Come now. He's may not be clinically insane, but in colloquial terms Rust is batshit crazy.

[snip]

Given all this crazy-ass behavior (and more), is it really that far-fetched to think this guy would draw on a storage locker door? Well of course not. (He likes to draw. His "taxman" portfolio is full of drawings of stick sculptures and such.)

Yeah, I'm willing concede that I overstated my case a bit there. Rust clearly has issues. But I still think that spiral was fucking stupid. There is in fact a world of difference between filling a notepad with small, intricately detailed sketches and painting a big ass mural on a door.

I'm convinced. I now recognize that the scene in the storage locker is clearly pointless and poorly executed, one of the sloppiest examples of storytelling I've ever seen on TV. And you were right the first time about Cohle. He's never done or said anything crazy during the whole show. He's a perfectly normal, well-adjusted person -- certainly not the type who would draw a weird symbol on a wall (just in notebooks). I'm seeing things more clearly now.

137

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

SPOILER Show

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:

The problem is that it felt artificial - an unnecessary information dump capped off by a dramatic reveal that really doesn't make any sense for our characters.

I still don't understand why you think the content of the scene is unnecessary. The evidence Rust obtained, and what he did to obtain it, is not relevant to the story?

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:

Rust has explicitly said he has no respect for Marty's skills as a detective and later expresses surprise when Marty manages to pull off a complicated bit of police work. So why would bother to carefully detail all the evidence in chronological order before getting to the tape?

What does Rust's opinion of Marty's forensic acumen have to do with Marty's need to know the information? But accepting the premise, if you don't think someone is a good detective, isn't carefully walking your slow-witted buddy through the evidence in chronological order exactly what you would do? Also, Rust did a lot of legwork to get that evidence. It makes sense that he'd want Marty to know how much work he put in. He committed a B&E for goodness sake. (This is all apart from the fact that Rust probably does think Marty is a good detective. They lock horns and have exchanged harsh words in moments of anger, but there's obviously, fundamentally, a mutual respect.)   

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:

The whole thing should have been: Rust explains how he got the tape, he shows Marty the tape, Marty reacts, end scene. Save all of the rest of it for a later scene once Rust has moved everything out of the storage shed and into Marty's office. Then you can spend all the time you need connecting the dots for the audience in a time and place that makes a hell of a lot more sense.

But I thought everything besides the tape was pointless and unnecessary. If it's not, then what is the utility of having the same information conveyed in Marty's office? Didn't Rust bring Marty to the shed for the explicit purpose of showing him the evidence? How does running thru the evidence make sense in Marty's office but not make sense in Rust's shed -- where they came specifically to look at the evidence?

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:

And oh my God, that storage shed. What the fuck was that? It looked exactly the way Gilbough and Papania would expect it to look if Rust really was an insane serial killer.

Indeed. It also looked like Rust's house when he was on the job. Same deal. Evidence on the walls, stick sculptures on the dining room table. Maggie walks in, sees it, and says "You can't live like this." She wasn't talking about his loose linoleum tiles.

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:

But it's also completely out of character for Rust, who hasn't actually said or done anything crazy during the whole show. The fact that other characters keep saying that Rust is crazy is not the same thing as him actually being crazy. Like Marty said, his behavior during the interview was him sizing up the two detectives. He's violent and has anti-social tendencies, but the idea that he would take the time to paint that ridiculous spiral on the shed door was painfully stupid.

Come now. He's may not be clinically insane, but in colloquial terms Rust is batshit crazy. This is the most obvious fact about him. He acts crazy. Says weird-ass crazy stuff constantly. Goes rogue to get deep undercover and infiltrate the biker gang without approval from his police force bosses. Crazy. Going upside a dude's head with a toolbox just so the guy will tell him where that brothel was. Crazy. Even impulsively fucking his partner's wife. Kinda crazy. His behavior during the interview may have been calculated -- but it was also characteristic. Carving up beer cans into figurines and droning on about fourth-dimensional time being a flat circle is... exactly the sort of thing one would expect Cohle to do. Given all this crazy-ass behavior (and more), is it really that far-fetched to think this guy would draw on a storage locker door? Well of course not. (He likes to draw. His "taxman" portfolio is full of drawings of stick sculptures and such.)

Jeepers, you guys are succeeding in showing me just how profoundly ignorant I am about the process of scoring. Keep it up. Fascinating.

However, the show needs more cowbell.

139

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Well yeah. It's fair to criticize the scene as an information dump (it was), but the fact is it wasn't needless nor was it a rehash of stuff we knew.

SPOILER Show
The whole conceit of the scene is new information: we knew Rust had a storage locker but didn't know what was in it. We learn what's in it. We didn't know he'd done the break in and got that tape. We learn that. I'll stop there. But it's all new information. We knew the dots, but the point of the scene is Rust telling Marty (and therefore us) how they're connected.

140

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

SPOILER Show
Part of the reason Rust didn't show Marty the videotape right away is because he was walking Marty thru the evidence chronologically, in the order in which he discovered it. In real life, yeah, you show the guy the most compelling evidence first. But in a story, where you have an audience who is trying to keep the timelines straight, you might want to do it chronologically so as not to cause confusion. (The way they did it, it's more clear that Rust committed the break-in after he interviewed the guy at the bar, for example.) Also, again, it's a scene in a story -- so capping off the scene with the most shocking bit of evidence is more of a dramatic coup de grace than if they'd have ended the scene with the most trivial piece of evidence.

141

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Eddie you buried the lead. Who does your kid think the yellow king is?!

142

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

SPOILER Show
1. "Get the hell out of here -- you're classing up the joint" is a line I've used countless times in the past. (Which should give you some idea of what kind of places I've worked at in my life.)

2. I continue to enjoy the relationship between the two main characters. They're constantly grating against each other, yet they constantly need each other, both in practical terms and in, IDK, existential terms I suppose. Sounds like a simple enough thing to execute, writing-wise, but it doesn't happen automatically. When Marty killed Ledoux and conspired with Rust to cover it up, they shared a secret, one that weirdly enough brought them closer. When Rust banged Maggie (for 5 seconds!), they shared another secret, but that one tore them apart. Now with Hart Investigative Solutions about to torture some answers out of our crooked sheriff friend, they definitely are sharing another secret that pulls them both deep into the shit together. So many cop stories are stories where the cops merely have different personalities (LETHAL WEAPON). It's cool that these two guys have serious beefs with each other beyond personality conflicts (one fucks the other's wife!). Leads to all that wonderful, heavy awkwardness (helps to have good actors, too).

3. Somehow I wish the black detectives weren't quite so clueless.

4. Pizzolatto seems like he's heading toward almost a BLUE VELVET-in-the-bayou meets EYES WIDE SHUT kind of thing, where you scratch the surface of polite society and find all this ugliness. Preachers raping kids. Powerful people doing weird cult shit. This tack is super dumb when it's done wrong. I hope he doesn't do it wrong.

5. It seems like an awful lot to unravel in one measly finale episode. Either a lot of loose ends will be left dangling, or it's going to be a stupid ending.

143

(199 replies, posted in Off Topic)

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/Avi7OHmatthew-mcconaughey-dallas-buyers-club-rust-cohle-movies-ecards-someecards.png

144

(97 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yes, American Hustle going home with nothing actually restored my faith in the Academy to some degree.

145

(97 replies, posted in Off Topic)

There didn't seem to be any major surprises at all this year. The betting favorites won in the major categories. I don't recall a single upset. Even 20 FEET FROM STARDOM, which had been an underdog to ACT OF KILLING, saw its odds soar in the last week or so, becoming the favorite and winning.

Jonze winning for his screenplay was the biggest "they got it right" moment for me. Also Cuaron.

146

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Squiggly_P wrote:

Parkland:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Parkland_poster.jpg

Interesting flick. Not really the best character piece, since there's not really enough time for anyone to have an arc or anything. Some of the interactions between the characters are interesting. The performances are fantastic across the board, and the cast is remarkable. They list five people on the poster, but there are like 20 instantly recognizable actors in this, including Jackie Earle Haley, Tom Welling and Ron Livingston. Lots of 'those guys' for most people.

The movie doesn't really have a focal point, tho. It just kinda shows you what happened. it's a shame that they don't really focus more on one specific character. I seem to recall that the original title for this film was "Zapruder", though I could be wrong. I thought it was going to focus more on that character, but it didn't really seem to want to focus on anything. I think that's the downfall of the film. Perhaps the title "Parkland" suits it better. The hospital where Kennedy and Oswald both died. A clinical name for a clinical flick.

I still quite enjoyed it, tho, and it's worth a watch. Actually, it's quite interesting to see a film where there is no real lead. Every role is a supporting role, but in support of nothing. It's quite odd, really, and I'll probably watch it again in a day or three to dissect it a bit further.

I remember this coming out a while back. Giamatti, I think, went on Colbert doing press for it. I'm intrigued. This will be my next watch.

147

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

God that is an unbelievably good COLOR OF MONEY parody. First of all, Stiller's Cruise impression is spot-on (he nailed Cruise's spazziness at that age). Second, they didn't even alter anything. Most of what's in the sketch is dialogue lifted right form the film. Stellar stuff.

148

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The first 20 minutes or so of UPSTREAM is really creative visual storytelling. I ended up lukewarm on the film because the pace slows down after that. The first 20 minutes is basically a thriller -- it's clear what's going on, generally speaking. I wish it would have kept that pace. For me, the more the film went on it became less clear what was actually happening to these characters. So that by the end, I wasn't sure what had happened to these people. In PRIMER, I felt the like story itself dictated its elusiveness. Meaning, the story was tricky and so was told in a tricky way. UPSTREAM is actually a pretty linear narrative that I felt was purposely being told in a tricky way just to thicken the soup.

149

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

That's how it works, I think. Movies that are perplexing seem to get people's hate juices flowing more than movies that (they find) merely boring. The beef people seem to have with UPSTREAM boils down to "I don't know WTF is happening" whereas with ALL IS LOST people could follow the action easily (it's as simple as a story gets) but were bored by it. Being told a story that makes you feel bored versus being told a story that makes you feel stupid, I guess.

150

(23 replies, posted in Off Topic)

THE INSIDER does check all the boxes on the perfect movie form. Good call there. That movie is remarkable.

I don't see anything about HER that should prevent it from being called a perfect movie. Just saw TOY STORY 3 again, too, and I'd slap the perfect movie label on that one as well.