replyingreplyingkinnison--disqus
replyingreplyingkinnison
replyingreplyingkinnison--disqus

My best explanation for the slant of the Times' story and it's ultimate success: It likely confirmed a lot of biases and misconceptions many of the Times' readers (particularly the suburban ones) already had about black men and urban areas - namely, that both were very dangerous and ought to be avoided. As any rural

"Great Job, Internet!" is like a well-meaning but clueless Dad who keeps bringing up way past it pop culture tidbits he picks up from coworkers and "The Wall Street Journal" in a desperate attempt to "connect."

The heavy aging of Michael Corleone was one of the odder choices of "The Godfather, Part III" (admittedly, there were a few). If Part II ends in 1959 and Part III picks-up in 1979, that's a span of 20 years. The Godfather, Part II was released in 1974, Part III in 1990, which was a span of 16 years. You're only

Much as I love A.V. Club, your criticism could plausibly be leveled at much of what gets published here. Indeed, it's a frequent jab against "serious" writing about pop culture in general. To a certain extent, you just have to accept that it goes with the territory.

Well, I don't really know about all that. I do know I watched a "Planet of the Apes" marathon this weekend, and that franchise did a surprisingly good job of addressing a lot of the themes discussed in this article in a pretty nuanced and intelligent manner, in spite of progressively diminished production values.

Here: if you have a mitsake… and I have a mitsake… and I have a
straw; there it is, that’s the straw, see? Watch it. My straw reaches across the room… and starts to drink your mitsake, I… drink… your… mitsake! [slurp] I drink it up!

The funny thing about that is that "Star Wars" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" were both, essentially, high class updates of very cheap serials from the 30's and 40's. That was much of the novelty of them: to see the sort of rip-roaring adventure yarn that young audiences used to enjoy at the matinee, only done with

I sort of describe the trend the author writes about as the "…only darker" cliche. As in, listen to somebody in Hollywood describing how they're going reboot or revive some beloved property, and they'll inevitably tell you that what will be different (and why you should pay to go see a new version of something you

Funny but I didn't much care for Spectre, mainly because I thought it featured too much of the moody, emo Bond of recent years, what with the whole family relationship backstory and some more mourning for Judi Dench's M and Vesper Lynd mixed in. Really, I've always regarded the current trend for superficially moody,

"[O]r some kind of out of the box creative decision whether it be casting/writing/directing…" I for one have fatigue of seeing James Bond movies that are supposed to be showing us a new/different/grittier take on James Bond. It's getting to be like Superman at this point: Just let Bond be Bond. Save the existential

I rather like the team of M/Moneypenny/Q they've had for the last two films. I think you could actually do a pretty successful series that focuses on them, perhaps working with the other 00's.

Bonds don't really get better with age. OK, maybe Moore recovered from "Moonraker" with "For Your Eyes Only," one of his strongest outings. But then "Octopussy" was pretty mid-grade Bond, and "A View to a Kill" was a clunker. Even Connery's run was diminishing returns after "Goldfinger" (though I'm still partial to

I really and fervently hope that if they cast a new actor they go back to the episodic Bond gets an assignment, Bond beds sexy girl, Bond foils villain's plot, Bond beds sexy girl (not necessarily the one I've already mentioned) format. It's OK if they want to have a continuing role for SPECTRE like in the 60's

I heard in an interview somewhere (probably with one of the DVD releases) that whole thuggishness lurking beneath the polished exterior persona really came from Connery, who was a footballer, body builder, lorry driver, and all-around working class bloke before taking up acting.

With Alec Guinness as Obi Wan taking the Jimmy Stewart role?

Great job depicting what it would be like if Alfred Hitchcock had cheesy digital effects at his disposal, was no longer able to tell a completely coherent, mostly visual story with just a few carefully chosen shots, and also shared George Lucas' tendency to continually tinker with his movies to their detriment,

Yes, and the key skill really is the synthesis, particularly ability to draw the right conclusions from the information that has been found, collected, and organized. If you've ever worked in a specialized field and seen the media report on it, then you probably know that it's entirely possible for journalists to get

I think it's sort of a mistake to assume that journalists know that much about, well, anything. Maybe if they're at a publication that covers one specific thing (like a trade magazine or a site like A.V. Club, which focuses on pop culture) and you're asking them about that topic. But I never assume somebody who's job

Yes he probably wouldn't. Do note that in using those quotes I meant to emphasize the writer's characterization of MadTV as the "dumber" of the two shows, and not to literally suggest that Lorne Michaels was involved in editing this article.

Was this write-up edited by Lorne Michaels? For example: