Lurker > bigblu89

Murphiroth posted...

Death to Smoochy.

Though I think it's hit a level of cult classic status to some degree.

I absolutely LOVE this movie. I constantly argue about how I think it's Robin William's best role.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

Its not even the first time the fourth wall is broken in the movie.

Ok, then I'll reserve any more judgement until I see the movie, if I ever see it.

Because everything I have read made it sound like the remote thing came out of nowhere.

Unbreakable

FunWithAFryPan posted...

It wasnt always a factor, but its just an unexpected thing that happens in the movie. Nothing new is revealed. I dont really think you can call any surprise in the plot a twist. That would be like saying a jump scare in a horror film a twist.

I guess we're arguing semantics here, but I would consider that a twist, as it sounds like it's a pretty extreme break from the natural progression of the movie.

It would be like saying if the two bad guys reveal they are aliens at the end. I would consider that just as much of a twist as what actually happens in the movie. It's such a turn in plot from where the movie was heading.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Correct. You did not say they are 100% wrong.

I can't say if they are right or wrong because I have no idea how their agreement is worded.

The argument, again, isn't about whether or not the cops should be allowed to use unprescribed steroids, becasue even the union is saying they shouldn't.

The argument is whether or not the Department is allowed to change the parameters of the agreement without a window of negotiation with the union.

Whether or not we all think the union deserves that right is irrelevant.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

That's not what you're saying though. If that's what you were saying, you wouldn't be getting criticized

But it is what I'm saying.

I'm not (nor is the union) saying the cops should be allowed to use illegal steroids without a prescription, I'm saying that they (probably) have a right to argue whether or not the Department can unilaterally change something the union agreed on and is in their contract.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Dunno man, I feel like it's akin to reading the plot summary to Devil's Advocate with Pachino and Keanu, and reading that the whole thing is a thought in Keanu's mind.

May not ruin the movie as a whole, but it does give it a "Well, that's stupid and a waste of time" overall vibe to the movie.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

If theres a more worthless criticism of a film than its pretentious, then I havent heard one.

And the remote scene isnt really atwist. A twist is new info that gets revealed which recontextualizes something the audience knows. The remote scene is just a normal story beat.

So the remote thing was always a factor though the movie? Everything I read doesn't mention it till the very end.

loafy013 posted...

I did see the movie when it came out, and this does sound like an accurate summary. Defense of the movie always strikes me as the "I am very smart" crowd and like it makes them special because you aren't pretentious enough to get it.

OK. So despite not seeing it, the plot summaries I read were accurate.

I get the "oh shit" aspect of the twist, but I can't imagine it playing out the way I read it and someone not saying "Wait? What? Why? That was stupid!"

DrizztLink posted...

Probably because you're going to bat for people who deliver actual beatdowns when they get questioned.

I guess.

But I wasn't looking at it in a "hooray cops!" way. I was looking at it on the basis of whether or not their argument had actual legal bearing.

I'm interested to know where these bars were, becasue they sure as shit weren't the bars I went to in NYC

Murphiroth posted...

Really showing your whole ass with this little snipe.

Sorry, It was more frustration than anything else.

It seems like on here, even if you 100% agree with everyone, if you try to explain the "other side's" thought process, it's met with venom.

It's like "I understand their argument, even if it's 100% wrong" isn't an option. It has to be "fuck that side" or you get beatdown.

DrizztLink posted...

Do the Teacher's Union or UPS drivers have the same history as the cop union?

I understand the sentiment and the opinion of everyone, and don't necessarily disagree.

I just posted the article, and an explanation, for those that couldn't read it behind the paywall.

I'm not making the argument for either side, just trying to explain why the union is fighting this. And, in theory, you can see why. The department broke negotiating protocols.

Whether or not you think the union deserves these protocols is a different argument.

But I'll let you all go back to just spamming ACAB, because the last thing I want to do is sit here and go to bat for the NYPD

HashtagSEP posted...

This definitely feels like a "Sure, Jan." Why would they be suing if they agree with the outcome?

Becasue they would be able to negotiate the punishment.

Article doesn't say what the punishment is for a positive test, but if they decided that it was a flat out firing, loss of pension, loss of insurance, etc., the union should have a right to negotiate that.

texanfan27 posted...

Wording seems clear and fair, I dont see an issue with this.

The issue, or so the union claims, is that the change was made without negotiation, which violates a prior agreement.

I understand that there is a heavy ACAB sentiment here on CE, but imagine it wasn't the Police union and it was the Teacher's Union or UPS Drivers, and the district or company decided to unilaterally change the drug policy.

Article for those that can't see it. The part you really need to read is in bold.

TL:DR - The Union isn't fighting about steriods being prohibited unless there is a prescription. They're fighting the fact that the change was made without the union's input.

New York Citys largest cop union is suing Police Commissioner Edward Caban and Mayor Adams for implementing a new zero tolerance policy on NYPD officers using steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs, the Daily News has learned.

In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court on Friday, lawyers for the Police Benevolent Association alleged the previously undisclosed policy flies in the face of a legal agreement the union entered into with the city in 2011.

The 2011 contract prohibited officers from ingesting or possessing any anabolic steroid or other forms of human growth hormones without a medical prescription. However, the old standard didnt require officers to run any such prescription by their NYPD district surgeon before starting to use it.

The new protocol which was enacted on Dec. 26, 2023, and described in an internal memo reviewed by The News as a zero tolerance drug policy beefs up the old rule by affirming that officers must immediately notify their district surgeon of any steroid prescription they receive and provide all supporting medical documentation to the surgeon backing up the need for the drug.

If officers are caught violating the new rule by, for example, deviating from a prescribed dosage, they can face firing, the memo says.

The PBAs lawsuit alleges the new protocol is illegal because it unilaterally revokes the 2011 standard without bargaining. The union says it is not challenging the prohibition on illegal steroid use.

In addition, defendants breached the 2011 contract by incorporating multiple provisions that deviate significantly from the originally agreed upon language of the 2011 order concerning new burdens it was placing on police officers, charges the suit, which names the NYPD as a defendant, in addition to Adams and Caban.

It wasnt immediately clear if any particular incident prompted the stricter steroid use rule.

The NYPD press office declined to comment on the new suit. Adams office didnt immediately return a request for comment.

Anabolic steroids, which are illegal without a prescription, can speed up muscle growth and have been abused by athletes. Side effects can include severe mood swings and violent behavior.

I've been told by a comfortable amount of people (other than my mom and my wife, lol) that I am handsome. Not to the point where *I* think I am, though.

I think, at 47, despite being in the best physical shape of my adult life, I'm too stuck in having a "dad bod" to have anyone truly find me traditionally attractive though.

CSCA33 posted...

These are your words:

Yes they are my words. Good job

CSCA33 posted...

Now you're just deflecting with semantics. So you believe cishet white males are unfairly targeted or otherwise maligned in ways that racial and other historically marginalized minority groups are not.

This is still describing the victim ideology of white supremacists, even if you don't personally use the word "victim."

Sure. If thats what you got out of what I said, have at it.

CSCA33 posted...

Hmm, so cishet white males are the true victims of offensive comedy these days? Interesting observation.

I dont think anyone is a victim.

Also, as someone who would be considered white by most, as I am of Mexican and Puerto Rican descent, I dont what to speak for white guys.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

dude just watch the damn movie

Youre going off of summaries. Movies arent made on paper. You cant understand the experience of a movie if youve literally never seen it

OK.

Fenrir_Howls posted...

Okay, now square that up with your comments about racially motivated jokes and explain precisely what you are looking for.

As far as?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

That's fair, then I misread your original comment.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I would have to watch the actual movie, because it reads like a twist that comes out of nowhere when you read the plot summary.

Like, it sounds like a normal home invasion horror movie, and then the second the heroine gets the upper hand the bad guy breaks the 4th wall, grabs a TV remote and "rewinds" the movie, undoing the heroine's actions.

I'm not here to argue the merits of the movie, becasue like I said I have not seen it, but that sounds like a "what can we do to make this different from every other home invasion horror flick, while also insulting the audience's intelligence?"

CSCA33 posted...

So youre just making stuff up and dont have an actual example or anything that is actually related to being on the left and an extremist.

No I don't have an actual example, because I don't agree with what Seinfeld is saying.

The example I gave is what MIGHT be perceived as a joke someone could find offensive today that no one found offensive 30 years ago, when the show originally aired.

Fenrir_Howls posted...

How are we (conveniently) defining safe here? Because the only thing that comes to mind from your post seems to be an emphasis on shock comedy.

Honestly, that's what I think of when I think of comedy that isn't "safe". Jokes that make you say "oh shit!" because you weren't expecting someone to say it.

I personally can see the difference in shock comedy and offensive comedy. I find very little humor in offensive comedy, but can enjoy a comic that sprinkles in what most would consider shock comedy.

Murphiroth posted...

"A small pocket of Twitter" = "comedy killed by the extreme left"?

LMAO.

That's not what I said, at all.

She asked for an example of jokes that could be seen as offensive now by people on the (US version of) "extreme left".

That could be one of them.

That's all.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


One example that I can think of is the episode on the woman Jerry was dating having "Man Hands".

I can 100% see a small pocket of Twitter rallying around how that was an example of body shaming.

LightningThief posted...

Blackish definitely tackled some racial stereotypes about black people. Some even not so great stereotypes. The show actually addresses black stereotypes often. Show even made Dre into the constant the guy who constantly plays the "I'm black" card which the show addresses.

So is your complaint that the jokes didn't go far enough to royally offend black people? I'm just trying to understand better what you're saying, in relation to the TC who's complaining "the extremes left killed comedy."

It was never a complaint, at all. It was an observation about how most racially motivated jokes on network TV are definitely on the "Safe" side, unless the subject is straight, white, males.

Dakimakura posted...

Television is always so very far behind technology. It took forever for them to adapt to widespread cell phone usage then very much later smartphones. It changes so damn much in terms of writing as most of the tropes are dated af and are based on simple miscommunications that are easily solved by technology.

Even until this day it struggles to depict social media.

The amount of movies from the 1980-2000s where you could say "if this happened today, the movie would be 5 minutes long".

Perfect example, Home Alone. Yes, you can say Kevin may have been too young to have a cell phone, but that family was obviously pretty well off, and there's no doubt he would've had an iPad and could've been reached via FaceTime.

I noticed the same not that long ago when I started re-watching "Shameless", and season 1 only aired 13 years ago.

Robot2600 posted...

bros how hard is it to understand that the entire reason it's effective is because it's bad on paper

more importantly why are you reading wikipedia summaries like that is a thing

Was the first site a saw with a full plot summary.

Is it an inaccurate summary? Is there a better one to read? Assuming I cant watch the movie

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Im going just based of the plot summary I read, so it may be inaccurate, but it just screams twist for the sake of a twist.

RetuenOfDevsman posted...

2, 3 and 4.

Same

I think I would need an example of what a joke is that would be considered "punching up"

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I thought so too, especially when it comes to race or sexuality, which is why I didn't think I had to qualify saying "stereotype" with the word offensive.

But there are definitely stereotypes that aren't necessarily offensive. Like, a guy hating his Mother-In-Law is a stereotype, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an offensive one.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


All good.

My initial response about stereotypes being "offensive" was to the comment:

Pretty sure 70s was generally trying to avoid being offensive as well in terms of entertainment.

To which I said:

In general, maybe. But, even into the early 2000's, you would see shows lean into things like racial or sexual stereotypes that I don't think would happen today for fear of backlash.

I thought it was assumed when I said that I meant stereotypes that people would find offense to.

I guess I should've been a little more straight forward, and that was my bad.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I wasn't complaining, at all.

I must've misunderstood the conversation then. I was under the assumption that the conversation was about people being offended by the stereotypes they see on TV and during stand up routines.

Apparently that wasn't the conversation, so I will politely bow out of the conversation.

lolife67 posted...

Both the Dre's parents were also stereotypical in different ways. Hell, so was Dre, Junior and Bow at times.

Yes, but not to the point of being seen as offensive, which I thought was what this conversation was about.

HylianFox posted...

Seinfeld wasn't that funny, everyone else on the show was

I've always maintained the theory that the main character on any given sitcom is the worst/least funny.
They pretty much only exist as the "straight man" foil for everyone else's funny antics to bounce off of.

Other than a few exceptions, like Married With Children, I do tend to agree with you on that one.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Unless I didn't understand the conversation, that's kinda what the conversation was about, no?

The line between a stereotype just being a stereotype, and it being an offensive stereotype.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Did you watch Black-ish? The only racial stereotypes that anyone could've looked at as offensive were of the white characters, like all of Dre's co-workers.

MAYBE you can make an argument that Deon Cole's character was a bit stereotyped, but it was more about him being stereotypically dumb, and not stereotypically black.

Antiyonder posted...

Pretty sure 70s was generally trying to avoid being offensive as well in terms of entertainment.

That Simpsons bit with Itchy and Scratchy episodes of the duo being non-violent buddies? Applies to a mid-70s Tom & Jerry cartoon.

In general, maybe. But, even into the early 2000's, you would see shows lean into things like racial or sexual stereotypes that I don't think would happen today for fear of backlash.

And I'm not saying it's right or wrong that it's not there anymore, it's just an observation.

One current example I can think of is "The Neighborhood". If you haven't seen it, it's about a white couple that moves into a predominantly black neighborhood, and how Cedric The Entertainer's character begrudgingly becomes friends with the white guy.

But 90% of the jokes are at the white guys expense for basically being a stereotypical "white guy".

As opposed to, say All In The Family, and the dynamic that Archie Bunker and George Jefferson had.

Murphiroth posted...

Weird how y'all still can't provide any evidence of comedy being killed by the "extreme left"

But keep drive by shitposting without any substance, that's about all you're good for after all.

The only thing I'll say is that Network situational comedies are filled with the most bland/safest jokes out there when you compare them to what is on cable or what was on 20-30 years ago.

The only one that really doesn't is The Conners once they fired Roseanne. And that ended up going so far "Left" (well, Far Left as far as American standards) that it just became a tough watch. It was like they over compensated for having Roseanne on the show.

Neoconkers posted...

an exercise in pointlessness should not be 2 hours long. we get it. you could have said all you wanted to say in half that time

The plot summary reads like an episode of Black Mirror. As in, a story that could've been told in 40 minutes and not 2 hours.

If they understand phones, tell them it's Android vs iPhone.

Both offer the same basic functions, but people pretend that "their" version is better.

If they don't understand that, and they're over the age of 35, tell them it's 90210 vs Melrose Place. Same basic stories, just a matter of which one you prefer.

My athletic shorts fall to a similar length as the ones pictured above.

My regular shorts, slightly higher.

Outkast
Queen

Lion-O
Michael Jordan

Didnt sound like a movie Id have any interest in watching, so I just read the plot on Wikipedia.

Assuming it is accurate, I wouldve threw my TV away if I had watched this movie.

That may be the all time worst plot twist Ive ever read.