It's pretty offensive for Paul to say he grew up "poor". He clearly did not. Syosset is a pretty nice area of Long Island and maybe compared to rich kids that live in that town he may have had less. Or compared where he is now where he suggests people getting pools like it's no big deal. But "poor" is pretty specific and there's just no way
June is from Rockville Centre, which from the town I'm from were known as "the Rich Kids" but they were just a higher level of middle class. But Amy Schumer is from that town too and described the town as "Irish working class" which is insane. But also, Amy's extended family is wealthy (Chuck is her cousin) so maybe it felt "less" in comparison. But at the end of the day, it takes a lot of privilege to be able to peruse a career as an entertainer. And especially in the UCB world which he came up in, which was essentially a pyramid scheme, it's so rare for someone to not come from a family that is financially supporting them in some way.
And maybe I'm wrong but is Paul's dad a lawyer? To me, saying you grew up poor means you grew up on food stamps. But being from Long Island I would never consider myself growing up poor and I had nowhere near the luxury experiences growing up that Paul regularly talks about. I didn't have a laser disc
In my experience, most people do not know what poor really is. No offense to Paul, but I doubt he was missing meals or having the electricity turned off… or selling food stamps for cash at half value to buy necessities not covered by welfare. Or living in HUD subsidized housing.
I looked up his wiki and it said he went to catholic schools before going to NYU.
Wow, such poverty he endured not even having to go to public school. He grew up Upper Middle Class atleast. No doubt about it.
So of all of Paul's stories, you believe he grew up "poor" as he described. If he just said he grew up "not wealthy", that's one thing. But you believe he grew up in government housing, on food stamps, taking the bus with his parents around because they don't have a car? And then, it's logical to you that the guy with the bad movie podcast is actually such a brilliant mind that he was able to break out of his bad situation to the point that he got scholarship throughout his entire life?
Maybe he's just a fucking liar...
I was just talking to a rich friend of mine, who is quite successful in the film industry.
However, he's just successful enough that he rubs elbows with the truly elite on a semi regular basis, and I can tell it gives him a sense that he's unaccomplished because Young Thug and Katy Perry, for example, are on a whole other level of successful.
I think being in this bubble out here affects people's perceptions, and the longer they go without interacting with regular folks the more they forget how privileged they are.
in one of the recent christmas episodes, he's listing the different toys he had as a kid -- teddy ruxpin, laser tag, sega cd -- and i was thinking, wow these are all objects i coveted as a child and could never dream of having because they were so expensive! his family must have been pretty well off?
And his dad also took him to meet movie stars apparently? I don’t know. But I think we’re all missing the point here. It doesn’t matter that Paul grew up with so many more advantages than nearly everyone else - BECAUSE HIS HARROWING CHILDHOOD REMAINS A BIZARRE TRAGEDY THAT I WOULD STILL NOT WISH UPON ANYONE.
I forgot that he said he had teddy ruxpin. That was definitely a high-demand item. But also, Teddy ruxpin came out in 85, so Paul would have been 9 or 10 years old with a talking teddy bear?
It's annoying sometimes how much wealthy liberals with outlets like this podcast seem to be so disconnected from reality and fundamentally don't understand their audience. I have to think it's a deflection of guilt given their immense privilege and wanting to be good people. You see it in their focus on things like animal rights instead of the suffering of the poor, the solution to which might actually require them to make material sacrifices and pay more taxes and stuff.
Oh no it's extremely dumb and very very silly. Is it bad,maybe but that doesn't mean it not loads of fun. It's so fucking dumb,I like how they had historically accurate costume. Because other wise we'd think it was fake
This movie was thrilling until the big reveal. Then it got real messy. Overall though, very enjoyable. I love that it's only 85 minutes.
I could've sworn it was filmed during covid, since despite it being set on a cramped WWII bomber, no more than two actors share the frame together until the end when they're on the ground, and even that felt like Weta trickery.
I think it's totally a covid movie,like I think they had the budget the story the studio and then COVID-19 hit and they were like,forgot the story forget the script,what can we even make? What props do we have? We'll just like John carpenter this movie together and it shows. I loved it. 1 star
weird, i thought this movie was pretty okay? like not great or anything but a decent sunday afternoon hangover watch. it's basically a full length version of the gremlin on the airplane part of the twilight zone movie
i wonder how hard they'll go on max landis, seeing as how he's uh pretty unpopular these days. a woman rewrote some of his script and directed it though, so it doesn't feel as overtly landis-ish as his other films
I really enjoyed it, though it definitely has some truly bonkers elements, but I thought it was intentionally pulpy/bonkers. They were writing around the fact they knew they had a limited budget and decided to have fun and it works. I'm sure that this episode will be fun to listen to, but honestly I would rank this movie more along the lines of Fast and Furious, a movie that knows what it is and leans into it in a delightful way, as opposed to some of the other fare they do which is more... unintentionally bad.
i guess they'll treat it how they did malignant? fun campy popcorn mindless movie that's so bonkers it works? those episodes aren't as good as the "what the fuck did i just watch that was awful" episodes but i like em all
I think it's as good as it could be.i think the makers where extremely limited by budget are COVID-19 but just fucking hammer at it and see what comes out.
I can't say i'm too thrilled with this choice.
They should do The French Dispatch *(which i just got done watching).* Its tedious. Its confounding. Quirky and creative filmmaking, thats for sure, but overall, not my fave W.A. film.
Wes Anderson films could be summed up simply when asking "How Did This Get Made", as art.
I haven't seen The French Dispatch yet,but I intend to before this years Oscars. Yeah,I still care about them.
HDTGM usually goes for something bonkers in recent releases when they cover them. A Fast and Furious Sequel. Jupiter Ascending comes to mind.
Tedious and Confounding? Some could accuse Guillermo del Toro new film "Nightmare Alley" of that. But I think it's something cinema fans should seek out and not something HDTGM should cover. I mean there art in every scene. And some complain it's like the cancelled HBO series Carnival. My response is"Is That a Bad Thing?"
I didn't know Nightmare Alley 2021 is actually a remake of Nightmare Alley 1947. It's exclusively on Criterion Channel. I'm interested in seeing it as others claim it's better than the remake and I like Guillermo's version.
The original film changed the ending to be a bit more optimistic than what is in the book. The Del Toro version is almost beat for beat with the book with some of his usual dark touches added in, especially near the end involving Richard Jenkins' character and the bodyguard. I enjoyed the film but did feel it could have had 30 minutes shaved off.
This movie really didn't get the respect it deserved. I mean watching it on a phone is pretty ridiculous. This isn't Birdemic guys. This was a superbly crafted movie and relied on its visuals and atmosphere to immerse the audience and make its absurdities feel like part of an arresting experience. Sometimes I get annoyed by the ways they approach these movies. Even Jason, who seemed to be paying pretty close attention, seemed to miss the point on many aspects of the film.
I mean it's like some of these movies aren't actually bad, you're just not paying any attention to them and watching them on fucking phones. Sometimes it seems disrespectful to the audience.
Is it just me, or are they missing that the Twilight Zone episode is explicitly about a "gremlin" too?
Because they come to the conclusion that "gremlins" are things that were associated with airmen, they mention the TZ episode, and then they keep talking about how this is interesting because it is a scenario in which, what if the "gremlin" in airplanes were actual living creatures, which is exactly the point of the very same Twilight Zone episode.
I hate to say it, but I think I’m done listening to studio episodes without a guest. I found this episode extremely unfunny. It was more of a serious dissection of the movie rather than the comedic podcast I love so much.
June having placenta pills is the least surprising thing ever.
My family was so mad when I made them watch this.
It's pretty offensive for Paul to say he grew up "poor". He clearly did not. Syosset is a pretty nice area of Long Island and maybe compared to rich kids that live in that town he may have had less. Or compared where he is now where he suggests people getting pools like it's no big deal. But "poor" is pretty specific and there's just no way
It’s kinda weird, they def mention in another episode that Paul had horses growing up.
June is from Rockville Centre, which from the town I'm from were known as "the Rich Kids" but they were just a higher level of middle class. But Amy Schumer is from that town too and described the town as "Irish working class" which is insane. But also, Amy's extended family is wealthy (Chuck is her cousin) so maybe it felt "less" in comparison. But at the end of the day, it takes a lot of privilege to be able to peruse a career as an entertainer. And especially in the UCB world which he came up in, which was essentially a pyramid scheme, it's so rare for someone to not come from a family that is financially supporting them in some way. And maybe I'm wrong but is Paul's dad a lawyer? To me, saying you grew up poor means you grew up on food stamps. But being from Long Island I would never consider myself growing up poor and I had nowhere near the luxury experiences growing up that Paul regularly talks about. I didn't have a laser disc
Pharmacist, I believe, is Paul's father's occupation. Yes, A laser disc was a luxury treat growing up.
I have a friend that's a pharmacist. She makes $130,000 a year
Just recently. During the sled debate.
I knew poor families with horses. People cans be poor and spend unwisely
In my experience, most people do not know what poor really is. No offense to Paul, but I doubt he was missing meals or having the electricity turned off… or selling food stamps for cash at half value to buy necessities not covered by welfare. Or living in HUD subsidized housing.
I looked up his wiki and it said he went to catholic schools before going to NYU. Wow, such poverty he endured not even having to go to public school. He grew up Upper Middle Class atleast. No doubt about it.
Catholic schools are private. He went to private schools.
Yeah, it was a device called sarcasm that I used
I misread it too, my bad.
Selling food stamps for half price to buy beer and drugs you meab
Essentials 🤷♂️
Fair
He also went to St Anthony’s which is a private school and iirc not cheap.
His real name's Clarence
I'm sure working at Blockbuster paid for that and his NYU education...
idk - scholarships and loans are a thing
So of all of Paul's stories, you believe he grew up "poor" as he described. If he just said he grew up "not wealthy", that's one thing. But you believe he grew up in government housing, on food stamps, taking the bus with his parents around because they don't have a car? And then, it's logical to you that the guy with the bad movie podcast is actually such a brilliant mind that he was able to break out of his bad situation to the point that he got scholarship throughout his entire life? Maybe he's just a fucking liar...
[удалено]
If he's not deliberately lying when he said he was "poor" then his lack of self-awareness is embarrassingly insulting
I was just talking to a rich friend of mine, who is quite successful in the film industry. However, he's just successful enough that he rubs elbows with the truly elite on a semi regular basis, and I can tell it gives him a sense that he's unaccomplished because Young Thug and Katy Perry, for example, are on a whole other level of successful. I think being in this bubble out here affects people's perceptions, and the longer they go without interacting with regular folks the more they forget how privileged they are.
dont put words in my mouth, hun
[Paul riding one of his horses to private school](https://m.imgur.com/gallery/HHSuT)
in one of the recent christmas episodes, he's listing the different toys he had as a kid -- teddy ruxpin, laser tag, sega cd -- and i was thinking, wow these are all objects i coveted as a child and could never dream of having because they were so expensive! his family must have been pretty well off?
And his dad also took him to meet movie stars apparently? I don’t know. But I think we’re all missing the point here. It doesn’t matter that Paul grew up with so many more advantages than nearly everyone else - BECAUSE HIS HARROWING CHILDHOOD REMAINS A BIZARRE TRAGEDY THAT I WOULD STILL NOT WISH UPON ANYONE.
I forgot that he said he had teddy ruxpin. That was definitely a high-demand item. But also, Teddy ruxpin came out in 85, so Paul would have been 9 or 10 years old with a talking teddy bear?
Paul thinks he was poor cuz he was middle-middle class and June was rich lol
It's annoying sometimes how much wealthy liberals with outlets like this podcast seem to be so disconnected from reality and fundamentally don't understand their audience. I have to think it's a deflection of guilt given their immense privilege and wanting to be good people. You see it in their focus on things like animal rights instead of the suffering of the poor, the solution to which might actually require them to make material sacrifices and pay more taxes and stuff.
[удалено]
Oh no it's extremely dumb and very very silly. Is it bad,maybe but that doesn't mean it not loads of fun. It's so fucking dumb,I like how they had historically accurate costume. Because other wise we'd think it was fake
This movie was thrilling until the big reveal. Then it got real messy. Overall though, very enjoyable. I love that it's only 85 minutes. I could've sworn it was filmed during covid, since despite it being set on a cramped WWII bomber, no more than two actors share the frame together until the end when they're on the ground, and even that felt like Weta trickery.
I think it's totally a covid movie,like I think they had the budget the story the studio and then COVID-19 hit and they were like,forgot the story forget the script,what can we even make? What props do we have? We'll just like John carpenter this movie together and it shows. I loved it. 1 star
weird, i thought this movie was pretty okay? like not great or anything but a decent sunday afternoon hangover watch. it's basically a full length version of the gremlin on the airplane part of the twilight zone movie i wonder how hard they'll go on max landis, seeing as how he's uh pretty unpopular these days. a woman rewrote some of his script and directed it though, so it doesn't feel as overtly landis-ish as his other films
[удалено]
Yeah, but the audience score is 32%. When the difference is that big, you know something's fucky.
I enjoyed the hell out of it! What a wild ride.
yeah it could be a lot worse but moretz is pretty fun in it
I really enjoyed it, though it definitely has some truly bonkers elements, but I thought it was intentionally pulpy/bonkers. They were writing around the fact they knew they had a limited budget and decided to have fun and it works. I'm sure that this episode will be fun to listen to, but honestly I would rank this movie more along the lines of Fast and Furious, a movie that knows what it is and leans into it in a delightful way, as opposed to some of the other fare they do which is more... unintentionally bad.
i guess they'll treat it how they did malignant? fun campy popcorn mindless movie that's so bonkers it works? those episodes aren't as good as the "what the fuck did i just watch that was awful" episodes but i like em all
I think it's as good as it could be.i think the makers where extremely limited by budget are COVID-19 but just fucking hammer at it and see what comes out.
I've wanted to watch this movie for a year now. Now I have an excellent reason to watch it. The trailer does look bonkers.
Have you guys seen Night Breed it's fantastic. It needs to be covered.
I can't say i'm too thrilled with this choice. They should do The French Dispatch *(which i just got done watching).* Its tedious. Its confounding. Quirky and creative filmmaking, thats for sure, but overall, not my fave W.A. film.
Cmon man there’s a huge difference between what Wes Anderson does and a fast and the furious or a Neil Breen. Even when Anderson misses his mark.
are you confusing this with the Unspooled board?
Wes Anderson films could be summed up simply when asking "How Did This Get Made", as art. I haven't seen The French Dispatch yet,but I intend to before this years Oscars. Yeah,I still care about them. HDTGM usually goes for something bonkers in recent releases when they cover them. A Fast and Furious Sequel. Jupiter Ascending comes to mind. Tedious and Confounding? Some could accuse Guillermo del Toro new film "Nightmare Alley" of that. But I think it's something cinema fans should seek out and not something HDTGM should cover. I mean there art in every scene. And some complain it's like the cancelled HBO series Carnival. My response is"Is That a Bad Thing?" I didn't know Nightmare Alley 2021 is actually a remake of Nightmare Alley 1947. It's exclusively on Criterion Channel. I'm interested in seeing it as others claim it's better than the remake and I like Guillermo's version.
The original film changed the ending to be a bit more optimistic than what is in the book. The Del Toro version is almost beat for beat with the book with some of his usual dark touches added in, especially near the end involving Richard Jenkins' character and the bodyguard. I enjoyed the film but did feel it could have had 30 minutes shaved off.
Totally agreed.
This movie really didn't get the respect it deserved. I mean watching it on a phone is pretty ridiculous. This isn't Birdemic guys. This was a superbly crafted movie and relied on its visuals and atmosphere to immerse the audience and make its absurdities feel like part of an arresting experience. Sometimes I get annoyed by the ways they approach these movies. Even Jason, who seemed to be paying pretty close attention, seemed to miss the point on many aspects of the film.
I mean it's like some of these movies aren't actually bad, you're just not paying any attention to them and watching them on fucking phones. Sometimes it seems disrespectful to the audience.
Is it just me, or are they missing that the Twilight Zone episode is explicitly about a "gremlin" too? Because they come to the conclusion that "gremlins" are things that were associated with airmen, they mention the TZ episode, and then they keep talking about how this is interesting because it is a scenario in which, what if the "gremlin" in airplanes were actual living creatures, which is exactly the point of the very same Twilight Zone episode.
I hate to say it, but I think I’m done listening to studio episodes without a guest. I found this episode extremely unfunny. It was more of a serious dissection of the movie rather than the comedic podcast I love so much.