Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Today's office debate: Wes Anderson films.


pstall

Recommended Posts

Not my kind of humor at all. I got about 5 minutes into The Royal Tennenbaums, and then decided watching reruns of Jackass was more interesting.

I mean even the quotes from IMDB aren't funny.

Chas: Looks like you and Dad are back together again, huh.

Richie: He's your dad too, Chas.

Chas: No, he's not.

Richie: Yes, he is.

Chas: You really hate me, don't you?

Richie: No. I don't. I love you.

Chas: Well, I don't know what you think you're gonna get out of this, but believe me, whatever it is, it's not worth it.

Richie: Chas. I don't want to hurt you. I know what you and the boys have been through. You're my brother and I love you.

Chas: Stop saying that!

lol?

There's a way to do the whole situational deadpan comedy thing, and it ain't Wes Anderson. If you want to see it done right, watch Wonderboys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not my kind of humor at all. I got about 5 minutes into The Royal Tennenbaums, and then decided watching reruns of Jackass was more interesting.

I mean even the quotes from IMDB aren't funny.

lol?

There's a way to do the whole situational deadpan comedy thing, and it ain't Wes Anderson. If you want to see it done right, watch Wonderboys.

But it's not deadpan humor. He makes very specifc and eccentric takes on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a filmmaker makes 2 great movies and 2 good movies, I'd say he's a very good/arguably great filmmaker.

"great" is relative. I just think his films are kinda pretentious and more clever than they are actually funny. Not necessarily a bad thing, just sorta is what it is. He's steadily tracked away from having any real soul or life in his films (which was what made the early ones good) to this sort of panoramic, static weirdness. It's not particularly interesting or unique to me, it's just passively weird and that doesn't cut it. If I want weird I'll watch lynch.

I did here that Fantastic Mr. Fox was really good though and I want to see it.

And to me what makes a great director is a viewpoint that's added to films, something that speaks to an idea larger than what's happening onscreen. Forced eccentricity is not that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's not deadpan humor. He makes very specifc and eccentric takes on things.

It's rarely any humor at all. It's almost condescending, like "If you don't find this amusing, you are a boorish oaf". That's why he doesn't do anything at the box office. Too eccentric.

Mike Judge, on the other hand, makes funny movies that have a lot to do with what we consider modern pop culture, yet he's not on the same level, critically, as Anderson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's not deadpan humor. He makes very specifc and eccentric takes on things.

I guess I don't like eccentric humor then. Would you say that Barry Sonnenfeld is eccentric humor too? Because I hate his stuff as well (Except the absolutely brilliant Addams Family movies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12642811-can-i-change-the-name-on-my-cruise-reservation-guest-service-24hr-short
    • I'm not a fan for a couple reasons. You have to nail your 1st 2 picks, especially when you're lacking as much talent across the board as we were and you traded away the number 1 overall pick. Barring injury, they need to be immediate 4 year starters, and on this team, that's a pretty low bar to hurdle. I also really hated the FA strategy building up to the draft, particularly the guards, and the draft strategy itself. A strategy that focused on building around a QB that was so terrible he had no business being on the field. It was clear to pretty much everyone, BY wasn't ready to be an NFL starter. We dumped everything to build around him in the hopes he would become what we drafted him to be. And while the end of the year started showing some promise, we still don't know going into year 3 if he's going to live up to the hype. Dumping all your resources to build around a single player (and hope for the best) isn't as important as building a complete team.  If there's any certainty in drafting, it's HQ interior linemen are found in rounds 2-3, and even 4 pretty regularly. Dumping a ton of FA cash into those 2 spots didn't make sense when we have so many holes. Draft guards, pay tackles. It's one of the staple principles of oline building.  XL was always a project. He didn't have years of consistent high end performance in college. His hands are bricks, he body catches a lot, and he looks more like a 4th round receiver than a 1st. Maybe he improves, maybe not. He looked extremely raw as a rookie and we can only hope he might develop by the time his rookie contract expires. I'm always a fan of drafting guys that actually have hands coming out of college. Who cares if you can get open, or fight for the ball, when you can't actually come down with it consistently.  Then we get to Brooks. Taking a RB with a torn ACL who may or may not see the field in 24/25 over Zach Frasier, who already looks the vet at a position we've been severely deficient at since pre-injury Ryan Kalil. Relying on Corbett, coming off injury, to move from guard to center is never ideal, and the injury bug bit yet again, and we were scrambling trying to find someone to lead our 200m offensive line. And the worst part, we traded up to do it giving up 2 5ths to take Brooks when we're lacking talent everywhere.  Wallace, meh. Sanders looked good before that neck injury. But now we're into day 3 where expectations aren't extremely high for making the roster, unless it's the Panthers, but you can find some position players and rotational players to start plugging the Swiss cheese roster.  I give him credit for getting Coker as an UDFA and the trade for Jackson, but if that's the highlight of your draft, there's some serious problems with your drafting.  If we had saved the FA money spent on the guards, drafted JPJ and Frazier, and still been in pretty close to the same spot, better off cash wise (or spent on other FAs) going into FA this year. Coker ended up playing better than XL in less time. Brooks is Eric Shelton 2.0 right now. And we used 5 picks in the 1st 2 rounds, if you count those included in the trades. That's too much given up for a team that won 2 games the year prior. JMO, but I think the whole offseason strategy last year was flawed from start to finish.  
    • Everything hinges on his ability to build through the draft so it's unknown until we see the upcoming draft class in action. That's all that will ultimately matter. We cannot afford anymore duds or projects especially in the early rounds.
×
×
  • Create New...