alternate headline: man does job
OT: Go See Les Miserables
5*s pan out, look at Mike Hart, Dumb and Dumber. 3* but number 1 in our hearts.
Please, please tell me that this isn't happening.
I'm a fan of musicals and Broadway (although I think Les Mis is incredibly overrated), but:
- Anything Michigan sports related
- Anything related to other Big Ten teams or upcoming opponents
- Stuff about the blog itself
- University of Michigan topics that don't relate to sports
- College sports in general
- Ann Arbor
- Drew Sharp, Ace Williams, Mike Valenti. Saying stupid and/or false things about Michigan in order to get Michigan fans upset is a tried and true way to phish for clicks. Let's not feed the trolls.
- Pro sports of any variety
- Everything else
It was labeled OT.
And it falls under "everything else"
Right...and it's marked OT as a part of "Everything else"...what am I missing?
What's the offtopic policy?
In the offseason, offtopic posts are tolerated. During football season they are discouraged and may be subject to removal depending on how alert the moderators are. What counts as on- and off- topic?
We have a game next week, and as much as I enjoy the topics about what the team is eating for lunch, I do enjoy these topics too.
He marked it as off topic, so I am cool with it.
Wings, I am really excited to see this movie, thanks for further cementing the fact that I must see it.
If you don't like the musical you probably won't like the movie. Seems simple but I think it fits this time.
Right now, we have 6 OTs on the "New" board: They are about a musical, the MLB, gamers, Beanie Wells, someone needing prayers, and the NBA. I'm not sure how "gamers" are any more on-topic than "musicals." Are you and others also on those threads, berating the OP?
It was labeled as off-topic. Brian, Seth, and all declared it offseason after Ohio State game. It may be of questionable interest, but it's not breaking any rules.
Also, from a practical matter, these last two days are probably the most forgiving window for these posts until at least April. With hardly anything of major interest* for the community going on in sports at the moment, the movie posts and PS3 posts and whatnot are a lot less likely to get taken off the board.
*Seriously, think about it. There has been one ranked college basketball game the past two days, one bowl game tonight, the Lions have one game left, no Red Wings and the Pistons don't seem to get a lot of coverage from the board. High school sports are on break and every M team that gets any threads is either out of season or on a break from games.
At. This moment we have 45 comments on W. Kentucky - CMU, because it's that bad out there.
We can blog. On making snow men if anyone wants to get out to the iagand make them.
(Speaking of snowmen, if I hadn't been watching it dvr'd the Dr. Who Christmas Special almost seemed topic worthy to me. That Jenna Louise-Coleman is a peach.)
Ricky Bobby would beg to differ.
It stars Wolverine going against the guy who has come to Michigan Stadium and hangs out with Wolverines.
I mean that in the nicest possible way, but I mean it.
it's that he lacks taste
Go see Django instead.
Didn't he say that he thinks violence in films and media has an influence?
I guess the article I saw on the Huff Post never mentioned whatever you are talking about.
Are you a Log Cabin Republican?
I'm not going to mention the word politics either.
"We cannot turn our back and say that violence in films or anything that we do doesn't have a sort of influence," Foxx said in an interview on Saturday. "It does."
But I digress.
Is he donating his paycheck for Django to the families of the victims? Was told by someone who saw it that this was QT's most violent film (in a good way). Hard to say violence in movies is bad, go see my movie so I get paid more for the next one. Nothing wrong with the view either way; just the consistency.
You can make an argument the other way. You're correct, but he may in fact be recognizing the fact of what he's saying only now. His movie was made months (or years) ago. If he comes out later and says he's not making movies like this anymore, it's really just a change of opinion on his part (but yes hypocritical in the moment if he's still promoting Django)
When I say argue the other way, most of Hollywood is anti-gun, while at the same time producing, directing, and starring in movies in which they do little besides wield many, many guns. Shooting and killing people, often to glamourized effect. Taking no side on either issue, this is blatant hypocrisy. If Foxx is recognizing this fact, he's only seeing what is increasingly obvious to others.
And not feel watching it in movies or video games or whatever contributes to it. One could stand behind their views and not be hypocritical about it. Likewise someone could be pro right to arm and feel violence is movies is bad for people. It's not your politics...just backing how you feel. He may have come to this realization. He can't unmake the movie. But he got a really big check for it. If he feels it's blood money now there are all sorts of charities or advocacy groups that could use the money.
It seems inherently hypocritcal to me. If one believes art has the power to inspire, doesn't it also have the power to corrupt? If the finale to Beethoven's 9th is an anthem of Universal Brotherhood, isn't the compelling evil of Hannibal Lecter or Dexter and invitation to examine one's darker side?
It doesn't seem logical to assume only the good things affect behavior. If a movie, song, or painting has ever pumped someone up, or inspired one to do wonderful or charitable things, it follows that those same things can depress or lead to harmful/hurtful behaviors.
Then I can see the hypocrisy in it. One can also believe a movie doesn't really make people better or worse people; or distinguish popcorn entertainment from art. I don't see that as hypocritical. Then it's simply a matter of whether one agrees if they are right or wrong; they can have consistent if erroneous beliefs.
Knowing how much of a dick bag Foxx normally is, I doubt a cent will go to anywhere but Jamie Foxx.
Sort of funny story. Last night I bought a ticket for Django, and mistakenly stood in the line for Les Mis for about 10 minutes before I realized it was the wrong line. Thank Jesus I asked somebody if I was in the correct line, because that would have been an unwelcome surprise once I walked in the theater.
My wife and kids saw it last night, but I opted out and stuck with Netflix at home. The chick flick potential for Les Miserables kept me away and my wife came away unimpressed with the movie anyway.
pics or gtfo
les miz is in no way a chick flick. Yeah sure its a musical so there is singing but the in the play version at least has some of the most beautiful music I've ever heard. Also if you ever read the novel by victor hugo you would understand this is nowhere near a chick flick, it touches on the struggle of poverty, what people will sacrifice for their children, the struggle to reform after committing a crime and the obstacles faced by ex-felons, the desire to overthrow oppression and more. Seriously you may not want to see the movie but don't not see it because it is a chick flick. Also read the novel by victor hugo, he is a hell of writer and a lot of the things discussed in the novel closely mirror many problems still in society today.
and think it has anything to do with history suggests that you will never know anything about anything, ever.
The teacher in me is weeping after reading your post.
Are you a student or a teacher, just curious? Based on your "students don't attend games in time" rant, I thought you were a student.
Recent grad. I teach secondary physics, biology, and math at a district in Wayne county.
i.e. the Victor Hugo novel, not the idiotic musical? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Yep. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you don't preface your argument with idiotic. Nobody is claiming Hugo's novelization is complely factual.
is much more educated than you and is weeping after reading your post and thinking that you might expose your innocent students to the concept that les miserables is a good representation of culture or history.
I think it does a good job of illustrating the lack of hope and oppurtunity faced by those in poverty and who are oppressed which is accurate of the time and could be useful to articulate that but obviously it is not a factual account of history.
So it is dick measuring contest you want. I could whip out my list of publications in PNAS from my research career or my several degrees. However, what good will that do. Thanks for actually reading my earlier post where I said Les Mis is NOT factual at all.
Took my wife to the broadway show many years ago. It's in contention for the longest three hours of my life. It just wouldn't end. Painful.
June 1832. 1789 this was not.
A fan of revolutions? Both the French and Russian revolutions saw some of the worst human rights violations in history. Yes, there were some terrific ideals EXPRESSED(such as thr Declaration of the Rights of Man) but few were acted upon. The mere fact tha the French would rebel THREE more times(1832, 1848, and 1871) ought to tell you how ineffective that revolution ultimately was. Then you must consider that these revolutions gave birth to authoritarian regimes equaled by few others in history.
1832 was a crucial time in history? Huh? You did have the creation of Belgium, and the Nullification Crisis in the US, but this period is nowhere near as important as 1776, 1789, 1848, and 1871.( I suppose you can include The Chartist Movement in England in the years between 1838 and 1848 as well. )
That won't creep her out.
Her pix + with this corresponding online bio *really* won't creep her out.
Can a mod erase this poor girl's quasi bio here? It's creepy and rcmbtarded.
Are you sure you're 23?
With this post.
Edit: returned the up vote because the OP was technically ok. Down voted this one for being douchetastic.
You know your social life is pathetic when you go on MGoBlog to brag about getting a girls number after seeing Les Mis (with your dad). Seriously, don't you have a friend you could call. You sound like a 15 year old going on his first ever date.
(FYI, I don't have a problem with the thread. I just think your "Cool Stroy Bro" comments about meeting girls at the movie reflect poorly on you. Please make some real friends.)
I think it's pretty obvious he's reading the "did you forget your purse" commentary and over-compensating with a story about how it helps him with babez.
So how about them lions?
When I said we may have an identity problem!
You are way-over selling it dude. It was good, not great. My girlfriends brother was sitting next to me and fell asleep during it. If you have never seen the musical you will probably be confused and a little bored. They recorded the singing live which sacrificed a lot of the theatricality. I like the musical a lot and this just doesnt compare. It is a good movie but does not even remotly deserve to be best picture.
A little bit of singing, quite a bit of singing, or tons of singing like omg when the fu#k are they gonna stop singing?
There are maybe 2 pages of spoken dialogue in the whole show
Even in the movie?
Not sure there were more than a handful of non-song lines.
In this movie at least they sung the songs "live" in the filmed scene so there was more acting to music than lip-syncing to a soundtrack.
I'm about to head out to dinner. Do you need me to pick up some tampons for you on the way back?
Stop at Bed, Bath & Beyond on the way? Starbucks latte?
I'd much rather see Django Unchained. F that musical shit
Looking at your avatar.
Musical...as in movies. I don't care for musical cinema films, but obviously love music
But knowing what you meant I'd also say a lot of people are out there who would still say your avatar isn't really music. And them "F'ing that" wouldn't be any more fair than your post.
I am really looking forward to seeing it. I'm not worried about whether or not anyone else thinks its cool or not.
I'm actually a really big musical fan, but this thread is over the top. Yeah, it's OT and you marked it as such, but that doesn't mean you need to make a forum post about everything lame movie you really liked.
I've been known to pop in my RENT DVD on occasion when I'm home alone. I'm not ashamed of it, but I'm not starting an MGoBlog thread about it either.
Your rent DVD is not newsworthy. Les Mis is, by most accounts, the biggest news in entertainment right now.
So, apples, oranges, something, something.
Also, there's NOTHING to talk about right now anyway and the board is dead as a doorknob. Anyone whining about this deserves to be negged to oblivian.
Oh my that is rich. The "biggest news in entertainment right now." Spare me the "news" coming out of the Left Coast. My wife watches enough of those evening television programs stalking "celebrities" lives for me to understand what "news" is. Last week it was that actress "forgetting" to wear undergarments, followed by her faux anger. Congratulations lady, whoring yourself does get you noticed. I've heard enough blabbering from the no talent hacks in Hollywood for two lifetimes. I can't wait to see them all pat each other on the back at award shows for "acting," whatever the hell that is. Half of the "actors" are famous for no reason other than that photogenic appearance and their "career" is based off of living fake lives, sleeping their way to the top, doing illegal drugs, and essentially being good liars.
This is a goddamn football message board, discussion about a musical is about as far that as possible. Would anyone like to discuss the best way to make an omlet in another thread? That is more on-point than this drivel. I swear the only reason this topic was created was for that boy to brag about his exploits talking to a real woman. Bah! You think she is going to take him seriously as a man meeting him in a musical, might as well take ballet lessons you ninny.
Like a crotchety old guy?
Glass houses. At least they do a good acting job.
Some "goddamn football" fans like ballet and musicals. Why should they be unwelcome here? Take your gender normative nonsense back to the 1950s. Or you can go join the fools on the RCMB.
Don't like musicals? Don't open the thread!
so you indulge yourself in a diatribe that threatens to outrival the Odyssey in length, touching on such hot-button issues as the leading lady's genitals and your opinion of Hollywood acting? Wheee!
Geez, the insecure RCMB'ers are out in full force tonight.
I'm sure I'll hit a movie in the next week or so, but I'm thinking I'll wait for Les Mis to come out on video. Probably will go see Django, but not sure yet. I actually have never seen a Tarantino film in theatres.
That just seem to be wanting to call the whole thing "homo." Never got the whole "I'm too manly for the theater" thing. Or really anything else. Always sounds insecure. And particularly bad when the Wall Street Journal just ran an article on how Michigan along with Carnegie Mellon have the theater departments that are having the most success with putting people on Broadway.
I don't know if the general sentiment is that theater isn't manly, just that this is a super weird post for a sports blog. Most of the OT posts are about things that many sports fans tend to enjoy - pro sports, video games, etc.
I'm not saying people shouldn't go see the movie, or that I necessarily wouldn't enjoy it, just that it's a super weird post for a college football blog.
It looks like I was referring to your post when I wasn't. More the "I WOULD NEVER SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT" posts. I mean, you ask about a guy's manhood when he misses Michigan Footbsll game because his wife wants to go shopping. Not because he sees a movie where people sing. It's not like it was a "you have to go see Twilight" post.
Edit: and I'd say in the video game thread if you yelled "too off topic" I'd still disagree, but it'd be fair. If you said "what are you, 12? You still play video games? Do you live in your Mom's basement?" that would be the equivalent and unfair and I would object.
I'm not questioning the guy's manhood, but I might be questioning his intellect if he thought he'd get any different response than the one he's getting.
I think your post was fair game. Others seem to be trying to prove something to themselves. (As they all read a blog by a guy who listens to music like Morrissey. Brian's not exactly in the caveman club.)
Why should it be so weird? I happen to be a Michigan football fanatic, a flute player, a singer, a theatre major, a musical theatre lover, a man, and a heterosexual.
Maybe it is weird as it is, but I thought "Leaders and Best" meant thinking of things that are "weird" as normal before everyone else does. I totally encourage this post and condemn fools who seem emasculated by the idea that fans of football and fans of musicals are not mutually exclusive.
Yazz flute by any chance?
But I will admit that I am open to watching one. I would like to see one on Broadway(as well as traditional plays).
I much prefer the spoken word to the sung, but I appreciate music enough to recongize the skill and talent involved in performing these plays.
Blue collar folks don't care much for staged drama. Unlike Europe, where all classes grow up enjoying Shakespeare, drama is very much a signature of a bourgeois lifestyle. Just look at the price of tickets on broadway and the required attire to attend such performances. Only people who make a comfortable living( starting at around $100,000) can afford to attend such an event.
For the common man, their entertainment involves drinking beer, gambling, and watching sports. The drama they prefer are often violent, gritty, or both. Urbanity is not to be found here.
Meh. Location is more an indicator.
Going to a Lions game can be as expensive as a broadway show. You don't have to earn $100,000 to do anything. I earn less than half that and I have paid for a trip to Europe. I think buying a broadway ticket would be a little cheaper.
It's about priorities and managing money. I for one love drinking beer, gambling and watching sports. I also love art, cinema, and travel.
I like to think of it as having an open mind and being smart with my money so I can do a little of everything.
in several forms of culture v. sporting events. In Chicago, a Lyric Opera subscription costs a good deal less than Bears season tickets (as little as $20 per ticket opposed to an average of $110 per Bears season ticket). In the luxury seats this is even more pronounced, where a club or box seat at a Bears game is, on average, nearly 200% the cost of comparable seating at the opera.
Further, the Fan Cost Index the NFL tracks for the Bears is a little north of $600, which would buy a family of four a set of seats to The Book of Mormon (I believe the most popular act in town at the moment) and dinner at one of the mid-range restaurants in the Theatre District.
for some talk about our SC matchup and the bowl. No problem with this OT topic, just saying. . .
If you have an interesting or new angle on it. It'd be welcome.
No need to apologize.
But a Packers fan? That, sir, is unspeakable.
I have no use for musicals, but you have very right to post this. HOWEVA, when you define a message from a movie or play (ie. entertainment) as more important than 'meaningless' sporting events (ie. entertainment) on one of the most popular sports blogs on the Internet...I gotta call foul.
It's a bubble gum pop movie based on a bubble gum cop musical that bastardized a good novel. Go to the library FERGODDSAKE
The themes it represents have been expressed over and over and over and over and over and over and....well, you get the point.
Les Miserables is a great novel, but if you want to read a book that was truly transformative then I would suggest reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin". It isn't anywhere near Les Miserables in terms of quality of writing, but the impact this book had was much greater than Les Miserable. It often is cited as being of the sparks that set off the explosion we call the Civil War.
Haven't seen it and probably won't, but I think it's interesting that it's getting panned by a lot of critics, and yet ordinary moviegoers seem to really like it. I'm not a big fan of musicals, unless they star The Who or The Stones.
and I refuse to watch or eat anything french because FRANCE SUCKS!
I'm a grown ass man. I love boobs, football, beer, trying to fix shit myself and movies where shit blows up. But I also love all things Les Mis. The book, the countless movies, the play, the soundtracks and especially this cinematic rendition (except for that crappy new song they did). Liking this movie as nothing to do with being manly or not. It's an incredibly powerful story that spawned some of the greatest music ever made regardless if you dig musicals or not (I for the most part do not). For those who enjoy Les Mis but didn't like this movie, ok, I get it. You can at least admit Eponine, Gavroche and Fantine were done incredibly well. And for those who don't like Les Mis, I feel sorry for you. One thing though, despite my enjoyment of the movie, I must ask, why the hell are why talking about this on MGoBlog?
Go see Django. You will be less miserable. Great movie
Tarentino has been meh for over a decade. I haven't seen a movie he directed I fully enjoyed since Pulp. Probably unpopular here, but Kill Bill sucked, and it's a joke he's making a third.
You didn't enjoy Inglourious Basterds?
Basterds was a hideous mess that seemed to have little direction. There's at least thirty minutes of that movie that could be cut, and nothing would be lost of what little integrity the movie had.
It takes more than two good actor performances to make a movie good. Outside of Pitt and the Jew Hunter, they were all horrible.
But the fact you think Melanie Laurent was horrible discounts pretty much your whole credibility on the film.
Was going to say the same thing re: Laurent.
Basterds had some moments that languished. Some for good effect, some not. 30 minutes is pretty hyperbolic, but yeah I don't think it is unreasonable to say 15 minutes could have been cut.
I loved the long bar dialogue scene. And the opening scene was crucial in establishing the main villian. The long dinner scene in the second act was a bit much I thought.
I think leaving too much in is an easy trap for writer/directors to fall into. The project is theirs from conception and they know the minor details better than anyone. Therefore, they want to keep everything because they see each shot as vital. Need a strong partner to say "No, we don't really NEED this."
That said, I think it is pretty weak sauce and snobish to be overly critical of something that is widely accepted as very good.
So studios aren't forcing them to edit to "what the audience wants/will sit through" anymore. For the most part that's a good thing. But sometimes it lets a director go unchecked with no checks or balances. I like the amount of time needed to tell the story; but every thought the director had doesn't need to be up there on the screen. If you want to go see a movie this weekend, you better schedule some time-
Hobbit 2 hr 50 min
Django 2 hr 46 min
Les Mis 2 hr 38 min
Lincoln 2 hr 29 min
Skyfall 2 hr 25 min
And that's not counting previews. Now some of those needed every minute and you never looked at your watch. Others could have done without 15 minutes here or there. But when This is 40 and Jack Reacher are over 2 hr 10 min each, there's a problem.
who thought Spielberg's cut of Lincoln wasn't very good? The acting was top notch, the script was good, but I thought the end of the final act was completely superfluous, among a few other minor complaints for time/conciseness.
Les Miserables is my most favorite musical ever and it's not close. I have seen it 5 times and honestly the very best was at the Fischer Theatre in Detroit.
The movie is significantly different than the stage but undoubtedly good. I thoroughly enjoyed.
Threads like these are why I cannot WAIT for Brian to restore the old up/down voting as promised. Not because I want the OP to get cratered but because these are exacatly the type of threads that are impossible to moderate. Do you take it down? Not if people are interested in the topic. But with the old system in place the people could decide if this was something worth posting and discussing. And the OP would reap the points benefits or pay the the price depending on how the topic was recieved.
There are no adults on the interwebz.
being able to sit through a musical. I find them annoying as hell, I hate when someone breaks out into a song every other minute, I like dialogue. I probably will see it on Blu-Ray or netflix, we'll see.
Also, I loved the Liam Neeson version, that was a great flick, it just seems so soon to make another one.
Again with the hyperbole. I mean, you got ripped the other day for starting a thread with hyperbole and you do the same thing here. Did you not learn anything?
I honestly don't have a problem with you starting a thread about Les Mis. I do have a problem with you pulling the same shit you have in the past that people have brought up in those threads. Not all criticism is personal. You can learn a lot from it and become a better poster.
I'm sure this will likely get me all negged to hell but reading many of these comments on here is pretty disheartening. It's already hard to read the majority of posts here as something always comes back to masculinity or lack there of. Just taking a moment to remind you all that there are many types of loyal Michigan grads / fans that don't fit the mold. Many of these comments on this thread are the reason why many young people can't get out of the state of Michigan fast enough! Just saying...we all love big Blue and should respect our differences
But what makes you think the posters saying what you object to are from the State of Michigan? They could be from anywhere.
That's a fair point....I really should have looked at their locals before making that connection. Simply trying to make the point that these types of "opinions" are a big part of why the population of Michigan is dwindling so quickly. Hell, half my friends in Chicago are from Michigan but I met them here!
To Chicago for a long, long time. It's not anything new due to any "climate."
Agreed but you don't have to do much searching to find that young people are leaving the state of Michigan at record numbers. I'm merely bringing up that, in my opinion, some of that migration has to do with the political / social climate in Michigan the past 10 years. It's changed since I left in 02', that's for sure.
The bigger part of it is jobs and money. People put up with all sorts of social climates if the economy is there.
Not the bigger part, this is the only part.
Completely agree. I know several people in academic science who left Michigan because of women and GLBT rights.
I personally find the staunch anti-Les Miserables contingent within our fair state to be one of its' major selling points...
In all seriousness, I'm fairly certain Michigan's completely shite economy is the reason young people are leaving en masse, not the cultural retardation you seem to imbue every one of its remaining citizens with...but thanks for playing.
Stop drinking so much Riesling this late at night.
You must be confused. This is not a Kentucky Basketball blog nor a New York Giants blog.
Has every right to post this. Every poster also has the right to share their opinion. I don't get the uproar.
Firstly, people are leaving for want of jobs, not because of a lack of passon for musicals.
Secondly, people everywhere do not appreciate music. It is a class thing. Yes, there are people in every class who do or do not appreciate musicals, but for the most part people who enjoy musicals belong to the genteel class who work with their brains and not their brawn. (This is why the 1% vs 99% paradigm fails in sociological terms. The cultural differences among Americans who make $40,000 and $100,000 is significant.)
Thirdly, you need to leave your bubble and interact with the ho polloi more. Your statement reads like a bourgeois white man commenting on inner city blacks: Everyone painted with a fan brush, nothing with a round brush.
I don't understand why such a big focus of the movie's promotion is that they recorded the vocals live on set, rather than separately in a studio. People that have seen it: can you really pick up on the creative freedom that this method apparently offers the actors? Just curious, as they have really highlighted this in the trailers I've seen.
I'd say the sound comes off as recorded, so that's not something the audience notices. It's a bit more spoken word singing, rather than song singing at times. So it's less musical, but more acted.
I think the difference is it's more like a film for the actors, so when they're in the scene they're emotionally in the moment which might hurt the singing but helps the acting. I don't think Anne Hathaway gave the best vocal performance I've ever heard of "I Dreamed a Dresm" by any shot, but it was certainly the most heart-wrenching version I've heard.
But I'm not sure how familiar you have to be with musicals, or musicals to movies, to notice any difference.
AH's ad lib performance is heart wrenching and there aren't dry eyes in the house, which is not the case in the musical. On the other hand while Jackman is very good, he is not Colm Wilkinson (nobody is). I was only "mildly disapponted" in Jackman's preformance of Bring Him Home which is my top musical song of all time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsYnhVITf9E.
Bottom line Hooper sacrifices some (not much) sound quality for live acting and emotion that he hopes connects audiences more than in the musical.
btw I am more ashamed that I watching the Motor City Little Ceasar's Bowl too
That was one of the best cameos ever.
In my opinion J. Mark McVey can be as much Jean Val Jean as Wilkinson has been. McVey has logged over 2,000 appearances as JVJ on and off Broadway. Of course Wilkinson was the great cameo in the movie. Also, the guy from under the cart was Thenardier on Broadway for a while.
Les Mis is very good movie, a great broadway show, and a classic book. This has been a great year for films. The Dark Night Rises and Argo were very good films. Lincoln is a must see for you and your kids. Zero Dark 30 is another must see (dont take kids) and my dark horse this year is Life of Pi (3d) directed by the brilliant Ang Lee. It takes time to figure this film out.
also completely transcended what most people come to expect from a Bond movie. Sam Mendes signing on long term with the franchise would be some very welcome news out of Hollywood.
If it didn't fall in the heart of the season.
I'd add the Avengers, which didn't have the emotional heft of others, but was just about as well as you can do a popcorn movie for fun, entertainment, humor, and caring about characters while balancing not only the characters, but actors. And as the cumulation of many movies in a style never before done on film, it was no easy task.
I do not like the "new" James Bond. Agent 007 is not some muscle-bound behemouth who looks as though he has been bashed in the face a few too many times. Bond is suave and mature, intelligent and daring... this new character could be interchanged for any superficial action character. Connery was by the far the best, though Pierce Brosnan played Bond well.
On the "rough around the edges" to the "probably enjoys musicals" (see what I did there) scale, it's probably go-
Craig is one of the best Bonds ever. He provides a "depth" in his character that Brosnan and certainly Moore could never touch.
There's also the issue of Casino Royale and Skyfall being much more serious films than even Dr. No, Goldfinger, or one of the other early Connery films, which makes Craig seem especially deep in comparison.
Connery might be the better Bond, but Craig is a better actor than he was at the same age, in my opinion.
Isn't that more about the movies themselves than Craig? There's less of the punny wit that made the early Bond movies great, but more action. I think that the Bond movies have suffered from trying to compromise dialogue for explosions. It might be more of why the recent movies have seemed more serious.
Is the only move Craig is good in
in Munich and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Admittedly I haven't seen him in much else, but I think he's been good to very good in what I've seen.
Wow. For all the posturing we do about being an educated fan base, some of you really are quite uncultured. Not a huge fan of Les Miserables or musical theatre? Fine, people have different tastes in art. The "lol, Gay" reaction many of you seem to have to this is embarrassing though, even for a sports blog.
Wish I could give this comment 100 thumbs up! Couldn't agree more...
When I went to the games in Lawson I cheered for Western for fear of being killed by drunken "Lunatics" but other than that I try to stay a member of the neutral party. My thought was cheer for the school you're paying tuition to while you're there (this theory never worked football wise, having grown up with both parents grads of UM).
Ahem. I don't think sports fans generally disparaging a Hollywood production of a musical (which, if you believe the singing was all recorded live.... I have a bridge to sell you and the rest of the sheep) is not indicative of being "uncultured." That is the same argument hippie musicians and modern artists use to defend their "work". Don't like painting created by a man vomiting paint onto a table? You don't understand or appreciate art.
I don't like musicals. I find them to be boring and unrealistic... really, who sings in everyday life? So sue me. I'll be sure to create a thread detailing my latest hunting adventure, particularly detailing the kill shot that will get all the hippies knickers twisted up. We saw how well that discussion was handled last time it came up. Perhaps it is best that hobbies weren't discussed on a football website.
I don't care much for musicals either, but that's not the point. The reaction this thread has received from many hasn't been along the lines of "I don't care much for musicals as an art form because I feel that their romanticized depiction of everyday existence fails to adequately capture our experiences in a relatable way like good theatre should." It's been more like "Ha, you dropped your tampon." The former I find acceptable. The latter should only be uttered by bros sporting tribal tats and affliction shirts. Also, a few threads down is a video game thread that's been civil enough. Lets not pretend that the negative reactions here have solely been because this is OT.
"You think she is going to take him seriously as a man meeting him in a musical, might as well take ballet lessons you ninny."
Which would kinda be like me saying the only women you'd get who would like the fact you were a hunter probably don't have all their teeth.
Except that would just be an unfair stereotype that is in no way true; and not a bit homophobic in addition.
Thank you. Some of the posts on here are especially embarrasing for a fan base that prides itself on being cultured and educated. Congrats all of you that are calling those of us that enjoy going to the theater as "gay," you have shown proof we are no better than the brah's on RCMB.
While I respect your opinion, I just think musicals of any sort blow. Randomly breaking out into song or dance is pretty damn annoying in my opinion.
My ad at the top of the page is for Spank! The Fifty Shades Parody Musical now.
But High Jackman's career started on Broadway/in theatre and he's been singing for years...Russell Crowe also has CDs out...them being able to sing is basically the least surprising thing ever.
There’s an outtake of Hugh Jackman in his X-Men Wolverine makeup, costume and scissor claws and Sacha Baron Cohen in his Ali G getup with a Michigan warmup suit and skull cap, singing a new song called Master of the Big House. . . . Soon to be covered by JDK and Rey.
My snowflake on this thread:
Les Mis: Fine topic of discussion. I did a few musicals myself back in the day and enjoyed it. I enjoy listening to that kind of music and if I weren't so cheap, I might go see it.
OP: Not especially respectful of a woman's dignity. "To get ass, you gotta have class". OP obviously hasn't gotten the first and doesn't have the second.
A good way to end this thread...
for the thoughts. Dont mind the mindless homophobes, an unfortunate segment of our fanbase.
was brilliant. Tarantino is a genius. I was very disappointed that a family decided to bring their young daughters, including a 3 year old, and ended up sitting right behind me. I mean, they only threw out the "N" word about 200 times on the screen. Talk about some bad parenting..
If it makes you feel any better, my dad too me took me to see Invasion of the Body Snatchers when I was four years old and to The Shining when I was six.
Other than the people buried under my basement floor, there have been no ill side effects.
But seriously, I like Tarantino, but his fascination with the "N" word is downright obnoxious. Makes me think that it is a projection/overcompensation thing.
Haven't seen Django, but is it unrealistic? I never thought it was used past my believability level in previous movies.
For those of you keeping track at home, things covered so far here include: Jamie Foxx's views on gun violence, terrible pick-up advice, a ranking of the best James Bond actors, reasons for why young people hate Michigan, and how to balance fandom between multiple schools.
I'm not even mad, I'm impressed.
One of the greatest movies of all time eh?
I think it's time to return to what matters most:
South Carolina, Michigan combine to eat 750 lbs of steak, 750 lbs of chicken, 900 lbs of ribs & 1,600 coconut shrimp at Outback Bowl dinner
Now I'm hungry. Thanks.
I saw it tonight and it was phenomenal. Sam as eponine was cast beautifully. Her time on broadway allowed her to carry this difficult part. Hugh Jackman, aka Mr. Broadway, is great as usual. Russel Crow was alright. Not the most perfect casting. I did like Sasha Baron Cohen as the inn keeper. He always has great comedic timing. The music is beautiful. I hope to see it on stage someday, hopefully on Broadway or at West End.
That they chose her for the 25th Anniversary concert. (Now for sale....or every song on YouTube.)
I'd say a lot of the tours at this point are as good as the major stages. Try and at least once see the full production rather than local. The music is the same, but the barricade on stage is a pretty impressive sight.
of civilized discussion... but this thread has killed the dream I dreamed.
To dream the impossible dream!!!
College football, culture, and intellectual pursuits make a lumpy stew. I am still watching the world burn.
Ever wonder why everyone, from Kim Kardashian, to Paris Hilton, to Lindsay Lohan is bumping out pop records over the last few years? It's this thing called "tech-no-lo-gy."
Pro audio technology nowadays is such that anyone and their own asshole can be made to sing like Etta James or Frank Sinatra or Elvis. The software auto-tunes, corrects pitch, adjusts timing to make sure it's on beat, layers, adds effects, and can take anyone and make them sound good. I'm not talking about T Pain effect either. That intentionally exaggerates the correction to make it robotic.
Watch Moulin Rouge (or don't really, it's about as chick flick as Les Mis) but when I saw that movie, Nicole Kidman and Ewan MacGregor (sp) sounded pitch perfect. Wasn't them. It was all technology.
Sound production is my hobby, and I've corrected many a horrible singer.
Anyway, so while Ann Hathaway and Hugh Jackman may be decent singers in RL, I assure you what you heard in that movie was probably a magnitude of 5 to 10 times better than what actually came out of their vocal chords.
That technology still must not be very powerful then, because 90% of the stuff that I am hearing on the radio nowadays by female vocalists still sounds like dogshit from people who have absolutely no training or talent.
Man card...hand it over bud
That movie is supposed to be amazing.
America, bustin' caps in punk mother fuckers since 1776.
Whenever I watch a musical like Les Miserables, I am reminded of the part of "Eddie Muphy Delerious" where he makes fun of Elvis movies because Elvis would just sing all of his lines.
"Hey, Elvis, want some lemonade?"
<singing> "Lemonnaaaade.... that cool refreshing drink."
This thread (most comments, not OP) shows the absolute ugly of this board. I came here to get away from childish name calling and ignorant comments.
MGoCommunity should be ashamed of itself for making us look like some Sparty board.
Let them cling to their guns and tats and antipathy to people who aren't like them...
Yeah, this is something that really belongs on a Michigan sports blog. I'd like to think all posts, including OTs, must be at least minimally sports-related.
That is all.
Could you provide a list of what is and is not allowed? I thought that the fact that the moderators left this (and many other OT posts) active indicated that it in fact was allowed. But now you have taken it upon yourself to let everyone know that this does not belong on the MGoBlog board. Interesting. Please let me know under what authority you were granted this right.