IWantCandy71

He did at first, you're right. And had Billy continued to include him in everything he did, everywhere he went....IDK that Freddy would have cared so much about Billy's selfishness. Freddy was a pretty big fan of superheroes though, and I think eventually they would have come to the same place-with Freddy calling him out and basically saying "look man, don't be a jerk". I'm glad we got it the way we did, and I think Freddy is a good "morality check" for Billy. I think it can be hard to remember that Billy lived on the streets off and on, and scamming people came naturally to him after a while. It was how he survived. I will be interested to see where they take the character if a sequel actually gets made.

That's all we can ask, right ? 🙂 If a movie can do that, it's time and money well spent.

Just finished "Deception"- "Tales of Intrigue and Lies", one collection of short stories from Roald Dahl. Pretty good, though I'd already read a few of them online. "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" is a favorite now. Several of the ones in this collection were made into TV episodes of Alfred Hitchcock, The Outer Limits, shows like that.

I knew a portion of the budget had to be to pay some of the salaries, but I had no idea RDJ made that kind of money for Infinity War. That doesn't leave a good taste in mouth, and I'll leave it there. I was thinking along the lines of $25 million for him. If he got that much, how much are they paying people like Chris Hemsworth, who isn't even anywhere close to RDJ's talent ? Okay then.

And with your comments from the other day, you are almost contradicting yourself: You are saying the films require a large budget because of the special effects-but that the film makers are not making up for something lacking in the script. Those two statement are almost against each other. Typically-if a filmmaker doesn't feel a script is lacking, they don't go adding a bunch of stuff to pump up the script. Because they don't need to. If we agree these movies, by the nature of them, do need "something extra", then again...we roll back around to the point that the script is NOT enough for these types of movies. We also roll back around to the point that the special effects ARE a big part of why people watch them. And...a $300 million plus budget is NOT needed. Not for any film, in any genre. Sci Fi movies-GOOD ONES-get made every day with half that or less. To say that size budget is needed to tell a good story of any genre is just not true. And...we are obviously not going to agree. So, agree to disagree. *waves flag*

I love cooking, but I also love easy stuff. I have done "complicated" recipes only a handful of times. I don't have one particular recipe to recommend today, but I do have a book to recommend: Anne Byrn's "Dinner Doctor" and other food related "Doctor" books she does. Many of them involve using precooked/pre packaged foods and tossing them together. There are things in the book like "Fifteen ways to doctor a potato salad". It's awesome and I love it, and some of her recipes can be found online if you search.

Since you aren't looking for a recipe, I'd just recommend calling your local health/natural food store and asking if they sell vegan cream cheese. It would definitely be less fuss to buy it rather than make it. But if you change your mind or your store doesn't sell it, try this ? https://simpleveganblog.com/vegan-cream-cheese/ I can't say I've tried this, but it sounds fairly simple and inexpensive. I do think though, depending upon where you live, that if you have a Whole Foods or even an HEB or large grocery chain store, that you might be able to buy it premade.

I don't disagree with you. But one of my comments a while back was that these movies (especially Marvel's most recent ones) rely far too heavily on CGI instead of story. Even with people who like the movies, that is the bulk of what I see them talk about. The costumes, the battles, the fights. It was said that the two are not mutually exclusive. I agree, they're not. You can have a CGI movie that tells a great story. But the point also stands that if the story is truly great, you can tell it without the CGI. Or without most of it, anyway. I don't disagree also that seeing the battle can sometimes add excitement to the story. But bottom line, these movies either rely on CGI, or they don't. One of my comments was that the most recent ones DO rely too heavily on it, and I stand by that. Just tell the story. If you have to "amp it up" every single time, then again, it goes back to the film maker relying on spectacle rather than emotion and story. To put it more in perspective-one of the film studies classes I took in college-my professor, who has since passed away, once said that sci fi movies like Star Wars, are just westerns set in space. He compared them in such a beautiful way. And yes westerns have some chase scenes and gun battles, etc. But they are bare bones stories, for the most part. They are about human emotion and relationships, at their core. I'm not saying CGI movies don't have those. I'm saying that many times, the relationships take a back seat to the other stuff. At least, for some of the most recent ones I've seen, that has been the case. I think again, GOTG and Shazam are two exceptions. It's why I loved the first Thor and even TDW(though it's lesser quality than the first Thor). Because even though there are high stakes, those two movies were never about the physical fights. They are about family and emotions and forgiveness.

The subject is the quality of the story. I used Shakespeare as an example, because Shakespeare can be performed not only without CGI, but without any props at all. Shakespeare, or any stage play, is generally as bare bones story telling as you can possibly get. That's why I used it, because CGI laden movies, are the polar opposite by the sheer nature of what they are. But the obvious difference, should *only* be the CGI, if the stories are told well. Imagine most of these movies as stage plays, with all the battles off stage. Do most of them have enough meat to carry a story without the CGI ? In my experience, the answer is no. If you think otherwise, fine. But it's not an "apples to oranges" thing. It can't be said that these types of movies tell great stories, but then balk at the idea when they are compared to a type of medium that has to tell the story without the benefit of the extra stuff. I personally think it's a perfect example. Especially since some of these movies absolutely do have enough emotional meat to carry a story without CGI. The first Star Wars could have done it. The first Thor could have done it. The early Christopher Reeve Superman stories could have done it. I'm sure others here can think of many examples that could work as a play. ETA Nolan's Batman trilogy. Great example that could have been set to stage and made only a marginal difference in terms of story. Because the core of those movies were about Bruce's internal journey, not the physical battles. But most of the ones in the last five years that I have seen ? I have to say no to those. Or rather, yes they could be staged, but with the battles or any CGI parts offstage, some of them would be over in about a half hour to forty five minutes. I never said Shakespeare is always better in terms of entertainment, by the way. Some of Shakespeare's plays bore me. But in terms of being able to just get to the root of something and tell it, without needing visual enhancements, a stage play is the perfect example to make my point that in order to just tell a story, you do not need the CGI or other stuff.

No, it's not a guarantee, and I never said it was. It's been my experience though, that most of them are not. You aren't normally going to require a $300 million plus budget if you're writing Shakespeare.

True that.

Yes, I'd be sad over it. It's the death of a baby. Fictional or not. The fact that his or her parents are sociopaths is not the child's fault. It's a tragedy, of course it's sad.

Okay.

Oh, I never said it was a blanket case. I think it's the majority of the case for Marvel movies, though from my own personal experience reading comments online when one comes out.

And now that I've watched, I think the kid did fine and the shows leading up to his death were fine. There are some sad, bitter people on the internet who mock a child dying. Some people just live to complain and aren't happy with anything.

So I went ahead and watched the stuff last week from Oscar's death. I didn't even really know the character, and I cried. Sucks that they killed off another Q, but not a bit surprised. I was taken aback by how much I did cry, but maybe it is because it's my family and I love them and those actors move me every time. Unfortunately. I did not hit the FFwd button quickly enough, and caught a snippet of the Jason/Sam scene. And I was so disgusted, I just have to comment. Did that unbelievable moron actually say she didn't know anything bad about Jason ? I mean, did she, really ? I realize the show has always tried to ignore the fact that he's a murdering thug. But seriously. She said that, with a straight face. "I don't even know anything bad about you." And that right there, Is why I have never, and will never, have an ounce of sympathy for Sam, no matter what she goes through. Because someone THAT stupid and hypocritical deserves almost any and every kind of pain she could suffer from, from being involved with, someone that "she doesn't know anything bad about". The utter stupidity of that moment. I am so glad I do not watch on a regular basis. Seriously, what the crap, show. So far up Jason's murdering butt it's ridiculous. My eyes were desperately trying to hang on, to keep from rolling right out of my head. I've never been more glad I stopped bothering keeping up with this show. What a complete and utter trash moment.

Who said it was a bad thing? Entertainment is usually not a bad thing. But I think audiences have a disconnect. I think that if they have a good time at the movies, and enjoy the movie, that automatically translates into the movie itself being "good". Which is not always accurate. I couldn't care less who enjoys them. I myself have enjoyed many movies over the years that made me laugh, cry, and forget my troubles for a few hours. But after the hype over some of them died down, I realized afterwards that in terms of quality, they weren't really well made. Many movies made during the entire decade from 1980-1990 fall smack dab in that category for me, as a matter of fact. I dislike the pretense that some people try to project, that movies built around spectacle are well written, complex, great movies. Getting wowed by a great fight or great CGI or even a few great moments, does not make a movie great. So no I don't have a problem at all with people being entertained by spectacle, as long as it's not used as justification of the quality of the movie.

I haven't watched this show in ages, but I do lurk sometimes and I see the outrage online about Oscar and the whole Edward/Lila thing. So, I have a few most likely unpopular opinions. First off, Robin and Stone weren't all that. Robin has always had the personality of sawdust, and Kim Mc has never, ever impressed me as an actress. Stone would have been far more interesting paired with someone else. People are mocking any comparisons of Robin/Stone and Joss/Oscar. Saying that Oscar is a newbie, but...he was a character for almost two years...which was about the same amount of time Stone was. Maybe the writing was better back then, but that's the only real significant difference. Oscar may not be as well liked as Stone, and Drew being Jason's twin is a rewrite, but rewrites/long lost children happen all the time on soaps. Like it or not, Drew is Alan's son, and Oscar is Drew's son, which makes Oscar a member of a legacy family. Something that Stone never was, BTW. In fact, the only blood tie I remember Stone having, was Jagger-a character who wasn't on the canvas for most of Stone's run. And his sister Gina, who was on for two seconds. I don't really think the problem is Oscar is a newbie-because time wise, he's really not one anymore. It's also not that he didn't have ties. It's just that if the writing is as bad or worse than it was when I watched last a couple of years ago-the writing is so disjointed. Characters are kept in bubbles until they are needed for things like this. Relationships are not developed. I cried like a baby when Stone died, but it was because relationships were established between Stone and other characters that I loved. I cared about THOSE people-so I cared about Stone. I wept for Kevin and Lucy, for Ned and Lois, and yes, even for Sonny. So if the show didn't take the time to build that between Oscar and other people-that's the fault of the writers-not the fault of the character or the actor.

Exactly. I quoted movies Scarlett has done, that I watched, and I said I knew RDJ had done other things. I never said anywhere, that they'd only done superhero movies. I brought up the subject, because oftentimes, being involved in franchises like this, can get you typecast and it can be hard to get other roles.

Heh. When I saw this topic, he immediately came to mind before anyone. I love Rochester, because he's fictional and I love characters with warts the most. I just do. But is he a "good" guy ? In terms of his actions, absolutely not. He was *married*(okay so she was nuts and because of her mental state he couldn't-wouldn't-divorce her), and kept her locked up while he was making the moves on the governess. Bad moves, dude. Just overall bad. He is most often referred to as a "Byronic" hero, which is basically an anti-hero, and when you look at him that way, he's far more palatable. Another guy who is assumed to be a hero, who is really an "anti-hero", is Athos from "The Three Musketeers" and the subsequent follow up books. He also has a wife, and when he finds out she was a murderess condemned to die, who escaped the law, he takes it upon himself to carry out the execution. Granted, based on what Dumas wrote, at the time, Athos(or Count de la Fere, his real name) had the right to carry out that kind of law enforcement on his own land. There is a legal term for it that I I have forgotten, but the fact that he was justified in the eyes of the law to do what he did makes it slightly more palatable. But the fact that this woman was someone he supposedly loved, and instead of extending mercy, he basically just said "Off with her her head", taints the character for me. I think he and Aramis are the two best characters Dumas created, because of their complexities. And I hate that the Keifer Sutherland version is so "Disneyfied". Of course, they also watered down Milady in that version. I mean, yeah Athos should not have did what he did, but Milady is pretty evil. She is one of the most terrifying villians in literature, ever, although her son is bone chilling, as well. But just like I still enjoy Rochester, I also love Athos, judgemental behavior and all. And Aramis, oh Aramis. So power hungry, but at least in most movie versions, he is portrayed that way.

Infiinity War wasn't a movie. Infinity War was a spectacle. I waited until Netflix before even bothering, and it took me about twenty minutes to watch because I kept FFwdng through it. That's one reason I will likely never bother with Endgame or anything else. Someone else said once that Marvel doesn't make films-they make products. I would not have said that during the first Iron Man days, or even the first Thor. But now ? Yep. Totally agree. X-Men is another franchise that is tired. I used to love them and I will likely see Dark Phoenix, because one of my nieces has been begging me for months to take her. But I do think this is the last one for James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender and in fact, most of the current cast ? I think the next movie will be all new people if I am understanding it correctly ? If so, this will be my last time for them as well. And I'm not saying definitively that there can't or wont be any more good X Men movies, or even Marvel movies. I am just saying that I'm tired of them, or have given them so many chances and they keep disappointing me and I'm tired of being disappointed. I think that's one reason I enjoyed Shazam so much. It's something new and fresh and different and not really like other superhero movies. It has the heart that so many of them have been missing for so many years. If the new X Men has that reputation, I might check it out, but I feel Marvel is just going to "spectacle" them, just like they do everything. It's so frustrating.

I never said they only make superhero movies.

Some of them did a good job of killing any possible love I might have had for Captain Marvel. It's a mediocre film *at best*, and I might have come to that conclusion on my own anyway. But yeah, internet nonsense ruined it for me before I ever stepped foot into the theater. I still tried to, and found, something to enjoy in It, (because that's what I do), but it's a shame some folks just have to be like THAT over a movie. Or the actress. Newsflash to anyone still wondering : just because a man hates Captain Marvel doesn't mean they are sexist. Just because anyone hated the film doesn't mean they are jealous of Brie Larson. Some of the stuff I have been reading, GOOD grief LOL, it's so sad and grasping. I will say though-the whole "real Captain Marvel" in terms of her character and Zachary Levi's-that particular issue is so juvenile. Yes, his movie is the better one and his character is far more developed and interesting. But he's not the "real" Captain Marvel anymore, people. Please stop with that, thank you.

Not for me. I actually think I enjoy The Dark World the most because of the Loki and Thor dynamic. It isn't the strongest film, for sure, but I'll take it over Ragnarok any day.

What I meant when I said "done well"- I meant that there has to be the right balance of dark and light, and for the right reasons. I'm well aware that Marvel can push out their brand of what they think humor is. But humor is, or should be, far more than Tony Stark's idiotic non funny one liners. For instance, Thor: Ragnarok should have never been borderline slapstick nonsense. I mean, it's RAGNAROK. It is a movie about doom and the possible end of the world. It should have had a ton of emotional resonance. The scene where Odin says goodbye to his sons was one of the flattest, most unemotional pieces of cinema I've ever witnessed. It should not have been that way. The joking beforehand, and the switch right back to joking almost immediately after.....UGH. It almost repelled me physically and was probably the definitive moment I "broke up" with any remaining love for Marvel. The straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. I wish I could hate Marvel, I wish I had that kind of passion left for that franchise. I don't. I am so meh over them now, and I don't think even a Loki stand alone movie would sway me at this point. That's what I mean when I say most superhero movies cannot do humor and lightness well. I don't think Marvel as a whole knows when to joke and when not to. The Guardians of the Galaxy movies are for me, the only instance of comedy in Marvel movies that to me strikes the right balance at the right time, for the right reasons.. So, amended: Shazam and GotG( and I'm not the only one to compare those two worlds in terms of tone) are the two main exceptions. I've not seen Wonder Woman. Oddly enough, I wanted to BE her when I was a little girl, but I have no real interest in watching the movies. Some things we just grow out of, I guess. Although maybe I might bother eventually, I don't know. Captain Marvel was not good. So boring, But...but Brie Larson is an OSCAR winner !! Or so I've been told. As if that fact magically means the movie is good, Sorry Charlie. Nope. I can't even work up ire over it, it was that forgettable. Ben Mendelsohn though. Why isn't he in more stuff ? He and Jude Law are the standouts in an otherwise mediocre film.