Yee'all should remember that Obummer and Killary had a secret Muslim wedding in Kenya and he only had to shell out 88 pieces of gold. Wild Bill sacrificed a goat and three chickens.BearNIt said:Every night he wakes up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat and sees Obama standing at the podium at the Correspondent's Dinner laughing at him. Hilary is in the audience pointing and laughing at him and that furry animal on top of his head that he calls hair.bearister said:
tRump mentioned Obama 20 times in 30 minutes today during one of his high pitched hysterical rants to the press corps in front of the POTUS copter. It gives rise to the question:
Does Obama have his own rent free room in tRump's lard filled head or does he have to share it with Hillary?
B.A. Bearacus said:
Are there any lawyers on here? The following, despite being 100% accurate, has caused me trauma and I would like some compensation.
This is blasphemy against our Lord and Savior, The Chosen Individual One.bearister said:
tRump during Chopper Talk:
B.A. Bearacus said:
My god, he is the chosen one...he speaks in tongues and other crap...bearister said:
tRump during Chopper Talk:
Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.bearister said:B.A. Bearacus said:
*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
I have to take issue with some of the complaints I've seen about this scene:Cal Junkie said:Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.bearister said:B.A. Bearacus said:
*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
sycasey said:I have to take issue with some of the complaints I've seen about this scene:Cal Junkie said:Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.bearister said:B.A. Bearacus said:
*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
1. Bruce Lee does not actually "lose" the fight in the movie. He knocks down Brad Pitt, then Pitt knocks him down, then they keep fighting and are interrupted before anyone wins.
2. The whole scene is portrayed as a memory of Brad Pitt's character, so you can assume that the incident has been embellished by him.
bearister said:sycasey said:I have to take issue with some of the complaints I've seen about this scene:Cal Junkie said:Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.bearister said:B.A. Bearacus said:
*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
1. Bruce Lee does not actually "lose" the fight in the movie. He knocks down Brad Pitt, then Pitt knocks him down, then they keep fighting and are interrupted before anyone wins.
2. The whole scene is portrayed as a memory of Brad Pitt's character, so you can assume that the incident has been embellished by him.
Matthew Polly, a Rhodes Scholar, Kung Fu junkie and able practitioner that wrote the definitive bio of Bruce said it was disrespectful nonsense. McQueen was not disrespected in the film, why Bruce? I have conversed with Polly via email regarding a tale in the bio I have some knowledge of. Polly is a great guy that wrote a fine book.
NYCGOBEARS said:bearister said:sycasey said:I have to take issue with some of the complaints I've seen about this scene:Cal Junkie said:Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.bearister said:B.A. Bearacus said:
*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
1. Bruce Lee does not actually "lose" the fight in the movie. He knocks down Brad Pitt, then Pitt knocks him down, then they keep fighting and are interrupted before anyone wins.
2. The whole scene is portrayed as a memory of Brad Pitt's character, so you can assume that the incident has been embellished by him.
Matthew Polly, a Rhodes Scholar, Kung Fu junkie and able practitioner that wrote the definitive bio of Bruce said it was disrespectful nonsense. McQueen was not disrespected in the film, why Bruce? I have conversed with Polly via email regarding a tale in the bio I have some knowledge of. Polly is a great guy that wrote a fine book.
Why you getting so bent out of shape? It's a revisionist fable.
bearister said:sycasey said:I have to take issue with some of the complaints I've seen about this scene:Cal Junkie said:Even Brad Pitt knows that - Bruce Lee would have vaporized him. Don't get me wrong, I was into Bruce Lee as a kid and he was a bad ass. So it did irk me a bit that he was dissed, but I begrudgingly admit that there was a certain hilarity associated with Brad Pitt whomping his ass into the car.bearister said:B.A. Bearacus said:
*With sincere apology to Shannon Lee. Her dad would have killed Brad Pitt aka Cliff Booth aka Hal Needham
1. Bruce Lee does not actually "lose" the fight in the movie. He knocks down Brad Pitt, then Pitt knocks him down, then they keep fighting and are interrupted before anyone wins.
2. The whole scene is portrayed as a memory of Brad Pitt's character, so you can assume that the incident has been embellished by him.
Matthew Polly, a Rhodes Scholar, Kung Fu junkie and able practitioner that wrote the definitive bio of Bruce said it was disrespectful nonsense. McQueen was not disrespected in the film, why Bruce? I have conversed with Polly via email regarding a tale in the bio I have some knowledge of. Polly is a great guy that wrote a fine book.
bearister said:
If Bruce could take Kareem and Chuck, he would whip that meow meow Brad.
Another Bear said:
HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.
sycasey said:Another Bear said:
HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.
It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.
The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.sycasey said:Another Bear said:
HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.
It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.
The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
Another Bear said:I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.sycasey said:Another Bear said:
HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.
It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.
The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.
There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.
My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.
Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.
So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.
Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.sycasey said:Another Bear said:I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.sycasey said:Another Bear said:
HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.
It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.
The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.
There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.
My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.
Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.
So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.
IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.
Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.
Another Bear said:Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.sycasey said:Another Bear said:I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.sycasey said:Another Bear said:
HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.
It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.
The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.
There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.
My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.
Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.
So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.
IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.
Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.
After Cal, went to film school. Had to take all kinds of course work, like film theory. So I"m in a seminar taught by a MacArthur genius and it was pure torture, on a very warm Sept. afternoon. I'm quite serious when I say the first guy up to present info lit a candle, rang a bell and then passed around a photo from childhood. He then talked about how his mom hid his favorite pants. I am not joking. So I'm dying in there, next to a close friend and Cal alum...who I go to Cal games with.
And it gets worse...and the big guns on theory are taken out. I don't even remember what it was about but we're dying in there when my buddy, Mr. B, pushes my elbow and whispers, "Oh fcck, theory is just to defend the stuff you personally like so just stop it". BAM...satori. I said, wait say that again. So he did.
Damn if he wasn't right. Much of what people like related to who they are personally, their backgrounds, race, class, cultures, sexual orientation, yada, yada, yada. Of course some people write books about what they like coded in theory. Fine...but I won't go there.
I'll just assume you like QT but I agree with the critique from the LA Times. QT is no longer a maverick. He's now a Hollywood insider by default of age, industry status, gender and race and his film is a good example of it.
That's all I got.
Nope, I'm saying 90% of film scholarship is about defending what you like personally or have a personal affinity with. It's not rocket science. People like stuff they can identity with, sports, music, film, lit, what they grew up with, what they're familiar with.sycasey said:Another Bear said:Yes, the MAGA stuff is to get eyeballs. The LA Times of course is the paper in LA and the industry reads it...so yes, they're sticking it to the industry. Take away the MAGA stuff and the arguments still hold up. But I"m not going to drag you on this stuff because I've learned a funny but brutal lesson about film scholarship and analysis.sycasey said:Another Bear said:I don't think it's a ridiculous take. Look if QT can deconstruct Top Gun's gay/straight struggle (which I agree with), then any take on his stuff is fair game. He's a deep, deep film nerd, into deep, deep film geekdom and deconstruction.sycasey said:Another Bear said:
HAHAHA...LA Times had a review calling QT's latest film a MAGA film...bring back the glory days when men were men, and white guys saved the day. This in the face of major demographic shift. QT, no longer marginal indie guy...now insider.
It's a ridiculous take. The movie has a lot going on in it, both for and against the "manly men" in question. It's hardly a MAGA opus.
The current media culture is to boil everything down to a single "statement," usually a political one. Tarantino's work isn't good for that kind of analysis.
My take on QT. I like some of this stuff (Pulp Fiction). He's a very good writer. He "borrowed" a lot from other films and genres, which isn't unusual but it seems to me part of that was finding his voice, beyond film nerd.
There was his borrowing from Hong Kong films phase. Then his love for love and homage to blackspotation films phase, where Samuel L. Jackson told him it's not cool for him to use the "N" word...in a very Samuel L. Jackson way. Then there was the putting all that together phase with Kill Bill. He has a modern sense of humor through it all.
My read on Once Upon a Time is...QT found his voice as a white guy, Hollywood insider and OUAT reflects that in its revisionism. In 1969 Butch and Sundance played the anti-hero to the core...died like true anti-hero's. QT wanted 60's Hollywood to live on...but with he-ro HEROES.
Within film critique, seems like fair game to me.
So now....here's the clip of QT breaking down Top Gun.
IMO Tarantino had his voice from Reservoir Dogs onward and has just kept finding new ways to address his pet themes. And he has never stopped "borrowing" from older movies. He's a post-modernist all the way.
Anything is fair to write about. I just don't find heavily simplified readings (e.g. "it's a MAGA movie") to carry much water with QT films. They are more complicated than that.
After Cal, went to film school. Had to take all kinds of course work, like film theory. So I"m in a seminar taught by a MacArthur genius and it was pure torture, on a very warm Sept. afternoon. I'm quite serious when I say the first guy up to present info lit a candle, rang a bell and then passed around a photo from childhood. He then talked about how his mom hid his favorite pants. I am not joking. So I'm dying in there, next to a close friend and Cal alum...who I go to Cal games with.
And it gets worse...and the big guns on theory are taken out. I don't even remember what it was about but we're dying in there when my buddy, Mr. B, pushes my elbow and whispers, "Oh fcck, theory is just to defend the stuff you personally like so just stop it". BAM...satori. I said, wait say that again. So he did.
Damn if he wasn't right. Much of what people like related to who they are personally, their backgrounds, race, class, cultures, sexual orientation, yada, yada, yada. Of course some people write books about what they like coded in theory. Fine...but I won't go there.
I'll just assume you like QT but I agree with the critique from the LA Times. QT is no longer a maverick. He's now a Hollywood insider by default of age, industry status, gender and race and his film is a good example of it.
That's all I got.
So you deride the idea of film theory and then offer up some of your own as a closing argument? Cool cool cool.
