@aholejones said:

it seems like most of the cast is trying way too hard to be funny.

That's my primary issue with Ryan Reynolds in a nutshell (I wrote similar my review of his performance in Self/less (https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/238615-selfless/discuss/5b95b65b9251414338028105)

It's nice to know I'm not alone in my assessment of his work to-date.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@aholejones said:

it seems like most of the cast is trying way too hard to be funny.

That's my primary issue with Ryan Reynolds in a nutshell (I wrote similar my review of his performance in Self/less (https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/238615-selfless/discuss/5b95b65b9251414338028105)

It's nice to know I'm not alone in my assessment of his work to-date.

He found success with Deadpool and has pretty much been milking that same schtick in every movie after that. Although some might argue it goes all the way back to his Van Wilder days. I suppose I can't blame him for trying to milk that '15 minutes of fame' for all it's worth, but it just wasn't funny in this, and I suppose people might say it was never funny to begin with. Then again Reynold's is not even the worst part in this and Lil Rel and Taika Waikiti are much worse in this and their 'comedy' is so forced and unfunny it's like the director just said to them "Ok guys! Forget the script and now I just want you to act funny in front of the camera!" and that's what they did - they try their hardest to act funny and fail spectacularly.

@aholejones said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@aholejones said:

it seems like most of the cast is trying way too hard to be funny.

That's my primary issue with Ryan Reynolds in a nutshell (I wrote similar my review of his performance in Self/less (https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/238615-selfless/discuss/5b95b65b9251414338028105)

It's nice to know I'm not alone in my assessment of his work to-date.

He found success with Deadpool and has pretty much been milking that same schtick in every movie after that. Although some might argue it goes all the way back to his Van Wilder days. I suppose I can't blame him for trying to milk that '15 minutes of fame' for all it's worth, but it just wasn't funny in this, and I suppose people might say it was never funny to begin with. Then again Reynold's is not even the worst part in this and Lil Rel and Taika Waikiti are much worse in this and their 'comedy' is so forced and unfunny it's like the director just said to them "Ok guys! Forget the script and now I just want you to act funny in front of the camera!" and that's what they did - they try their hardest to act funny and fail spectacularly.

Blade Trinity was bad on many levels - while that mess wasn't all his fault, his cringe-worthy performance yet managed to stand out.

So, this movie must be pretty bad if he' s outdone by the others.

@mechajutaro said:

@aholejones said:

Went in with positive expectations, but it's just a boring unfunny movie where it seems like most of the cast is trying way too hard to be funny. This being a hollywood mainstream movie in 2021 you shouldn't be surprised to find buzzwords like 'white privilege', 'patriarchy' and 'toxic masculinity' (guys) etc. thrown in there for no reason apart from virtue signaling. The scene where the IT guys is talking about how he ended up where he is having gone through MIT and amassing a mountain of college debt and the indian guy says "That story sounds horrible, boring and full of white privilege" is absolutely pathetic even by today's Hollywood standards. The whole thing is like somebody watched "Truman show" and decided that it definitely needed to be redone as a boring and unfunny action movie with some wokeness added in for flavour.

This is ironic. Someone must now ask Blake Lively if whipping out her butt for the express purpose of promoting her husband's latest movie isn't pandering to the male gaze

First, wearing a bathing suit is hardly "whipping out" her butt. Second, "the" male gaze? Nah, more like the adolescent male gaze that is most likely to enjoy Ryan Reynold's typical level of...(well, what he calls, anyway) humour and likes butts with nowhere near enough junk in the trunk for the more sophisticated glute-aficionado.

@mechajutaro said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@mechajutaro said:

@aholejones said:

Went in with positive expectations, but it's just a boring unfunny movie where it seems like most of the cast is trying way too hard to be funny. This being a hollywood mainstream movie in 2021 you shouldn't be surprised to find buzzwords like 'white privilege', 'patriarchy' and 'toxic masculinity' (guys) etc. thrown in there for no reason apart from virtue signaling. The scene where the IT guys is talking about how he ended up where he is having gone through MIT and amassing a mountain of college debt and the indian guy says "That story sounds horrible, boring and full of white privilege" is absolutely pathetic even by today's Hollywood standards. The whole thing is like somebody watched "Truman show" and decided that it definitely needed to be redone as a boring and unfunny action movie with some wokeness added in for flavour.

This is ironic. Someone must now ask Blake Lively if whipping out her butt for the express purpose of promoting her husband's latest movie isn't pandering to the male gaze

First, wearing a bathing suit is hardly "whipping out" her butt. Second, "the" male gaze? Nah, more like the adolescent male gaze that is most likely to enjoy Ryan Reynold's typical level of...(well, what he calls, anyway) humour and likes butts with nowhere near enough junk in the trunk for the more sophisticated glute-aficionado.

Hey, I'm not complaining about Lively's marketing; enjoyed the view just as much as the next man(and likely quite a few women)did. To say that her slipping into f-cking thong, then putting up a pic on Instagram that makes reference to her exposed backside doesn't=whipping out her butt is tantamount to saying that a mugger "didn't actually rob anyone. He just asked for change, in an exceptionally forceful fashion."

Agreed, regarding RR's idea of humor. Aside from Van Wilder, it's never been especially funny, and often plays like a PC imitation of Dice Clay

All in good fun, mate - cheers! (we argue plenty, it makes a nice change to laugh a bit).

I almost went to this but changed my mind at last minute.

I watched on Disney+ long after the initial hype had disappeared. I thought it was entertaining enough for what it was.

Particularly enjoyed the background stuff going on - i.e. the new players jumping up and down non stop and running continuously into the wall.

I do agree though re that "white privilege" line. Seems like a prerequisite in any mainstream film now which is a bit of a shame because it's so jarringly incongruous when it's said and also because in twenty / thirty years or whatever it's going to make any film made in this time period seem horribly dated...

Hey @mechajutaro Thanks for asking "what changed". Firstly, I questioned your take on Blake Lively because I thought it was oddly tangential, but you replied in a reasonable way, and I let you know that I saw it as such. I was happy to do so.

But, after seeing your comments in other threads in which I was not a part, as well as comments you made in threads in which I was chiming in myself, I noticed a tendency you have to interject rather off topic in a way that, in the opinions of myself and others, diminishes the conversations, and I called you out on it. I'd since been advised that it was not at all my imagination, but that others have observed the particular issue with you that I did. I tried to show you respect by addressing you directly and in good faith, not even saying "quit it" board-wide, just to tone it down in threads in which I'm involved; and your dismissal of my efforts was disappointing.

That said, I recently responded to a comment you posted in a thread I'm in. As I said, I'm all for different viewpoints, people have a right to be individuals, be themselves, blah blah blah, and I appreciate when you contribute constructively. I'm not the first, nor will I be the last, person here who is happy to recognize your positive contributions to this board. But, I became just one more person here to call out your BS, and many would really appreciate if you heard us on that.

So, I hope that answers your question.

@mechajutaro said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Hey @mechajutaro Thanks for asking "what changed". Firstly, I questioned your take on Blake Lively because I thought it was oddly tangential, but you replied in a reasonable way, and I let you know that I saw it as such. I was happy to do so.

But, after seeing your comments in other threads in which I was not a part, as well as comments you made in threads in which I was chiming in myself, I noticed a tendency you have to interject rather off topic in a way that, in the opinions of myself and others, diminishes the conversations, and I called you out on it. I'd since been advised that it was not at all my imagination, but that others have observed the particular issue with you that I did. I tried to show you respect by addressing you directly and in good faith, not even saying "quit it" board-wide, just to tone it down in threads in which I'm involved; and your dismissal of my efforts was disappointing.

That said, I recently responded to a comment you posted in a thread I'm in. As I said, I'm all for different viewpoints, people have a right to be individuals, be themselves, blah blah blah, and I appreciate when you contribute constructively. I'm not the first, nor will I be the last, person here who is happy to recognize your positive contributions to this board. But, I became just one more person here to call out your BS, and many would really appreciate if you heard us on that.

So, I hope that answers your question.

Yeah. I was also commenting in good fun, both here and on that Dirty Rotten Scoundrels thread

I know that's how you intended it; I hope you can appreciate that others don't always see the good fun. If I accidentally poked you in the eye, my intention not to hurt notwithstanding, it'd be odd for me not to acknowledge that it hurt you, as well as seek to avoid, as much as reasonably possible, whatever action I took that brought about that hurtful result.

At any rate, I've unblocked you. Be you, do you, looking forward to your insights :-) - just please leave some room for others in the sandbox. We all want a fun, decent place to talk movies and help TMDb avoid what may have contributed to Amazon's decision to shutter IMDb's discussion boards., right?

@mechajutaro said:

I know that's how you intended it; I hope you can appreciate that others don't always see the good fun. If I accidentally poked you in the eye, my intention not to hurt notwithstanding, it'd be odd for me not to acknowledge that it hurt you, as well as seek to avoid, as much as reasonably possible, whatever action I took that brought about that hurtful result.

You've found something I've said hurtful, Mus?

Maybe, maybe not. All I was addressing here is the "intent defense." One can't decide that their intentions are the deciding factor in how their contributions are measured. There's more to it than intentions. That's all.

At any rate, I've unblocked you. Be you, do you, looking forward to your insights :-) - just please leave some room for others in the sandbox. We all want a fun, decent place to talk movies and help TMDb avoid what may have contributed to Amazon's decision to shutter IMDb's discussion boards., right?

Don't believe I've ever tried to force anyone out of the sandbox.

That's a matter of interpretation. If people continuously ask you to tone down your sex-oriented humor, and you stick our your chin and say "no, deal with it", there are those who indeed feel forced to avoid you or the threads in which you interject that stuff obtusely. Again, you see it your way, and that's fine; but there are others who are just as within their right to see it their way.

It would indeed by regrettable if TMDB shuttered these discussion boards.

We agree! And TMDb agrees, which is why there is a deliberate effort to keep it from descending to a lower level. And we all have a stake in this. Let's all help each other in this.

IMDB was, from what I gather, brought down by users refusing to handle any difficulties they had with other board members themselves, rather than going to the moderators the minute someone wrote something they found to be too strident or too disagreeable.

You gathered that? Interesting. I hadn't, and it's the first I've heard that take. You have a unique perspective on things, which is cool...just, try to appreciate that your unique perspective is not altogether common. If you think that, because you see it that way, everyone else does or there must be something wrong with them, you may come to see the error in that approach. I've been challenged to absorb that, as well, in my life. So, believe me, I understand what internalizing that might require.

It's unfortunate that so many folks today haven't learned that, direct threats of physically harming another person aside, words on the internet are just words

I appreciate your sharing your opinion. My opinion is, I think it's unfortunate that people still want to believe that words on the internet are just words; and I think that's a lame excuse to not only be callous to others, but then to also put it on them for failing to accommodate one's callousness. Or, worse yet, to use "it's just words on the internet" to normalize ideas that others translate into actions that can be hurtful or even dangerous.

No two people will always agree, and I don't mind disagreement at all, so this is all good here. Thanks for the convo.

@mechajutaro said:

Maybe, maybe not.

Previously, you analogized reading something that you found disagreeable on a website to being "poked in the eye", and now can't remember where, when, or even whether or not you were "hurt", Mus? Whatever one thinks of Kavanaugh, what you're saying here is already beginning to sound less credible than Blassey Ford's testimony before Congress a few moons back

One can't decide that their intentions are the deciding factor in how their contributions are measured. There's more to it than intentions. That's all

Agreed. The deciding factors boil down to the act that was committed, the amount of measurable harm wrought by that act, and whether or not there's any evidence of malice on the part of the person who perpetrated the act in question. Something written online being considered offensive or objectionable by some isn't comparable to a guy down at the bar pulling a loaded Glock on another patron, after said patron "looked at him wrong", fatally shooting the poor jerk who was staring down the barrel, and then trying to evade responsibility by uttering the words "I didn't mean it"

That's a matter of interpretation. If people continuously ask you to tone down your sex-oriented humor, and you stick our your chin and say "no, deal with it", there are those who indeed feel forced to avoid you or the threads in which you interject that stuff obtusely.

I wasn't being entirely facetious, either on that DRS thread or here on this one. Mike Caine almost certainly did walk away from The Cider House Rules disappointed that he's gotten to ride a horse several times in his career, yet a wet behind the ears novice(who's also not exactly straight as an arrow)like Tobey Maguire ended up having the pleasure of mounting and riding Charlize Theron. And to bring things back around the subject of "Free Guy", it really is incongruous of Blake Lively to show up at The Women's March, regurgitate Woke platitudes before the camera, cajole Reynolds into doing so also, and then in the next breath use her thong clad butt to promote this movie. Apparently, admiring the female form is Patriarchal Oppression, EXCEPT when an actress needs a few bucks in her bank account, so that she can feed her family. The Woke Warriors are no different from congenitally religious people more generally: They've got one set of rule for those of us mere mortals whom they share the planet with, and none that they themselves must abide by

Equating someone who refuses to change his mode of expression, and who also refrains from demanding that those whom he shares cyberspace with change their mode of expression to suit his sensibilities(I've never blocked anyone, nor have I tried to get anyone to adopt my often morbid and salty humor)to "sticking your chin out, and saying No, deal with it" is a matter of interpretation. Following the sort of baroque logic you're putting forth here, Mus, I could just as easily start claiming that I "feel forced" to avoid threads where Woke leaning TMDBers obtusely interject that sort of Stale Left claptrap into discussions which are ostensibly about movies. This ignores the fact that I also have the option of engaging them in a vigorous conversation, like so

Again, you see it your way, and that's fine; but there are others who are just as within their right to see it their way.

Agreed. TMDB guidelines make it clear that, aside from threatening to physically harm another board member or posting links to ISIS's latest beheading, everyone here is free to speak their minds, in whatever way they choose. Open societies only survive and thrive via folks with different ideas and personas sharing their thoughts with one another

We agree! And TMDb agrees, which is why there is a deliberate effort to keep it from descending to a lower level.

Not "descending to a lower level" sounds like a noble goal, until one recognizes just how elastic this notion of "lower level" really is. Those who are fond of spending most their waking hours labelling everything they disagree with "problematic"(then mistaking this sort of nonsense for cogent thinking)would likely go crying to the moderators, the minute they encounter a board member who buys into the The Great Replacement theory, rather than engaging that bored member in conversation, and exposing the less than factual nature of TGRT. It's tough to see how pressuring the moderators into banning those who's beliefs we either disagree with or find outright repugnant actually benefits anyone

And we all have a stake in this. Let's all help each other in this

Indeed. Let's all do our part to bring being hard necked back into vogue, rather than being triggered into a blubbering heap whenever we encounter words and thoughts which jar us at first glance, then confusing this sort of conflict aversion for "strength"

You gathered that? Interesting. I hadn't, and it's the first I've heard that take

Not sure how you missed it, Mus. In the months leading up to IMDB shuttering their comments section, the execs had spoken plainly and frequently about all of this. The increase in users bombarding the moderators whenever they encountered "problematic" sentiments had driven up the costs of doing business exponentially. There were ethnic nationalists and Far Leftists loons on those boards, nonetheless we somehow forgot that these folks are handled by either ignoring them or subjecting their ideas to satire

You have a unique perspective on things, which is cool...just, try to appreciate that your unique perspective is not altogether common.

Insofar as the demise of IMDB's comments forum goes, the story behind this is not my perspective, but a well-documented fact

If you think that, because you see it that way, everyone else does or there must be something wrong with them, you may come to see the error in that approach. I've been challenged to absorb that, as well, in my life. So, believe me, I understand what internalizing that might require.

True, Mus, and this sword also cuts both ways. You're being more Hacivat than Karagöz , more Caroline Channing than Max Black is a matter of personal choice and perhaps even inherent temperament. There's nothing wrong with this; hell, our species needs all varieties of folk in order to keep it going. Don't believe though that just because you have a specific worldview, that it's by default the only legitimate worldview. Or that there's something "wrong" with those of us who are more Karagöz than we are Hacivat, more Max Black than we are Caroline Channing

I appreciate your sharing your opinion. My opinion is, I think it's unfortunate that people still want to believe that words on the internet are just words

This isn't a matter of opinion. Words, be they on the written paper or online, are inanimate objects. There's not one incident in recorded human history of a word, sentence, or paragraph growing legs and fangs, then mauling a toddler to death after escaping it's leash, much less growing arms, fingers, and developing the cognitive capacity to pick up an AR-15, then mow down an entire dining room at Burger King. Yes, Andre Brevik read crap online which he then used as a pre-text for mass murder. Reading those words didn't turn him into a mindless zombie who was devoid of all agency though. He made a choice to buy into them hook, line, and stinker, without seeking out opposing viewpoints. Words online and in print are least of the problem here, and in every other scenario where man's inhumanity to man has been blamed on them

and I think that's a lame excuse to not only be callous to others, but then to also put it on them for failing to accommodate one's callousness.

And no one here in The 21st Century Western world is being forced at gunpoint to accommodate someone else's callousness. Anyone who's capable of using a keyboard and participating in a discussion thread is also capable of shredding an irredeemable jerk intellectually, or lampooning that same irredeemable jerk. If one needs tips on how to do this, there's no shortage of examples from which to draw inspiration

Or, worse yet, to use "it's just words on the internet" to normalize ideas that others translate into actions that can be hurtful or even dangerous

Whenever anyone trots this argument out, and inevitably invokes "Mein Kampf" as an example of how words in and of themselves imperil human lives, I'm always prompted to ask them if they've ever heard of The Liberator or One Inc vs Olsen . Lots of us moderns have been hoodwinked into believing that ideas being "hurtful and dangerous" automatically render them immoral. We don't ask "Who are they hurtful and dangerous to?" nearly enough. No disrespect intended Mus, but the sort of thinking you're promoting here equates Hitler's yammerings with literature which called for the abolition of slavery in The US and the dismantling of laws and policies which kept gays out of most forms of employment and also denied them the right to marry. Ergo, the words and ideas expressed in both The Liberator and One magazine were "hurtful and dangerous" to both slaveholders and rabid homophobes

No two people will always agree, and I don't mind disagreement at all, so this is all good here. Thanks for the convo.

Likewise, Mus. I'm looking forward to your reply!!!

The strawman of generalization is annoying. Nobody is or was "labelling everything they disagree with" as anything. We disagree, and can disagree, all the time. Disagreement is not the issue. And, not sure how "blubbering heap" is useful, but your hyperbolized rhetoric is, at least, consistent, of a kind I prefer to avoid more often than not. So, before I get sucked into this rabbit hole for another cycle of endless arguing, I'm not particularly compelled to go back and forth here.

I've said my piece, you've said yours - whether, or to what degree, if any, we're hearing each other - I'm content to let our foregoing stand on its own, let's just move forward.

@mechajutaro said:

Scroll down to the bottom of this page That's how you outmaneuver someone who shows up in a comments section,

Meh.

just to be rude and obnoxious. It's really not hard to do, and no outside intervention from moderators is required

I have never initiated contact with a moderator to deal with anyone. Not sure why you are so compelled to keep harping on this, but if moderators get involved, they are most likely doing so out of their own personal sense of duty to keep things civil/on topic/decent. And, since you brought up the moderators yet again, perhaps the better question may be, why do your "contributions" demand moderator attention so frequently? (Please do not answer me directly, it is a rhetorical question for you to consider, not a new hook upon which to hang yet another argument that has nothing to do with movies or TV).