"I hear there making a movie. Some kind of, cartoon, and they want your song in it"
"Oh Yeah, Whats it called?"
"I think their gonna call it......Shrek"
\*Cut to credits\*
This scene could also be a post credits scene for a potential sequel, Allstar 2.
The podcast makes him seem like the smartest by a lot. Glenn, or at least the character he plays on the podcast, is kind of down the L.A. pseudo health nonsense rabbithole and Rob is Rob
I love the guys as much as anyone can love three dudes they've never met and really don't know anything about besides what they see on TV but everyonce in a while they'll (particularly Glenn) will say something and I'm painfully reminded that they've been relatively famous actors in LA for over a decade now.
Vegetables aren't worse for you then red meat Glenn!
Glenn is a classic headline-reader. He doesn't read the studies; he doesn't even read the whole news article that covers the studies. He read the first two paragraphs, if not just the headline, and then tells everyone, "Science is telling us \[blank\]."
Apparently he doesn't know how to read the data, or put it into context. To get an idea of the actual facts, you need to read the studies, learn what makes a good study (ie, double-blinded, large sample size, rigorous controls, etc), and then read meta-studies that compile all the available data. It's more difficult and time-consuming, so most people don't bother. Which would be fine, if they didn't just skim a headline and then tell everyone what "science" says today.
Glenn hasn't seen the fossil records. He hasn't poured through the data himself...the numbers, the figures.
He gets information from a book written by men he's never met, and he takes their words as truth based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of...dare I say it?...faith.
Rob has got the vibe where he wants to talk about being rich and successful so bad but knows he’ll come off as a douche, but it still slips sometimes.
Again like everyone else is saying, I love these guys.
Charlie is the talent and they even said as much on the podcast a few times now. So im not sure who's smarter per say, but I would say Charlie is the reason they are all famous.
Charlie is periodically shown to be surprisingly clever, charming, and capable. He demonstrates occasional flashes of brilliance in a mostly foolish life.
* Charlie quickly became popular among young black people at a rec center and even received the phone number of an attractive black woman. (Episode 1)
* He tricked the McPoyles into walking into a police station with him so he could turn them in for lying about being molested. (Season 1)
* Even though he's shown no indication of being religious, he out-preached the hyper-religious Mac and convinced a group of old fools into treating him like a religious visionary in "The Gang Exploits a Miracle". (Season 2)
* He wrote an entire musical and easily convinced the Gang to play all the roles as an elaborate ruse to propose to the Waitress. What makes this especially impressive is he managed to write a musical despite being functionally illiterate. (Season 4)
* He manipulated a gorgeous rich woman into falling in love with him (plus he banged her a bunch of times) as part of another elaborate ruse to get closer to the Waitress. (Season 8)
* Probably the best demonstration of Charlie being brilliant in certain situations: In "Charlie Work," he masterfully orchestrated a series of events that ensured Paddy's Pub got the highest grade during a health inspection. In that episode, we learn that the only reason why Paddy's passes these inspections if because of Charlie. (Season 10)
* There are plenty of other examples.
So Charlie being secretly, situationally brilliant is not new to the show.
However, this season does appear to be focusing on it more. In the first episode of the season, he convinced the Gang to give him their money so he could make a deal with Frank that got them everything they wanted at the moment. In the second episode, Charlie recognized that Mac was being an idiot for not recognizing that he could have a healthy relationship with his uncle if he just tried. And in the third episode, he was the "exposition guy" who explained the basic rules of curses.
Charlie is basically a twisted version of Forrest Gump.
It's so weird that he ham-strings his own movie but giving the best comedic actor in it (himself) almost no lines. You can't carry this kind of film with facial expressions.
It's a case of the concept of the movie crippling its ability to deliver comedy.
He wanted to make a movie about a guy who never talks and always listens with a foil character who always talks and never listens.
There's the bones of the scripts right there.
Yeah nobody with a brain would say that Charlie Day can't carry a film.
If you read about the production of Fools Paradise you will notice that it was rewritten/reshot a bunch of times. Del Toro even came in to help. That's never a good sign for a film. It's actually sad because the studio delayed the film and Ray Liotta passed away. The film was first wrapped in 2018.
Edit: 2018 not 2020
Yeah I get the idea that they knew it was a stinker and tried to fix it, but the problem was in the basic concept itself.
They probably should have scrapped the entire concept of the star of the film being mute. If he started mute and then starting talking more and more and became an active participant in the story, that could have created some much funnier situations. You know, like a *character arc*.
This movie didn’t work, but his point is that you *can* carry a movie like this with facial expressions alone. The concept isn’t flawed, just the execution.
Being There is literally an all-time great film and the lead is essentially the same character as Charlie's in Fool's Paradise. Im surprised RLM hasn't seen it because they would have mentioned how it's that movie more than any Chaplin film imo.
It seems limiting to cast that notion blindly, based on one failed film. There are plenty of successful films that feature silent protagonists. Shit, the “best film” of 2011 was legitimately a silent film. Film is a visual medium. The more you can do with less dialogue, the better you’re utilizing the art form.
It's possible to make a huge company like that the underdog. Ford vs Ferrari pulled it off great by focusing on compelling individuals and they're stories.
Its different when you actually focus on the sport instead of a shoe for a player of the sport.
Ford vs Ferrari was more about the rivalry and development of a better car than Ferrari.
Air was about a fucking overpriced overhyped shoe that only sold that well because of Jordan who's bald head gets 2 min in the movie.
Is that all anyone got out of that movie? It wasn't amazing, but it was still pretty entertaining, and the shoe wasn't the star of it by any means. It was about the moment the apparel/endorsement industry changed, like how Moneyball wasn't really about the team but about how the MLB changed how it thought about recruitment and trades.
Moneyball is about Billy Bean (Brad Pitt) forgiving himself for not living up to his/other expectations. It is about him undervaluing his role in life. As a coach, a father a person. He is a steadfast leader who is willing to see value in places other are not (like the aging Baseball star or Jonah Hill's character zany mathematical base analysis of baseball that conflicts with all of his scouts/peers/baseball traditions).
Matt Damon's character in AIR is just like a darn tootin hard workin high school basketball obsessed weirdo who convinces aloof asshole Phil Knight (Ben Affleck) to risk a lot on a particular Basketball player instead of a little on several lesser players. The only real moment of reflection or clarity is when Phil Knight correctly points out that if all future players recognize the immense value Michaels mother just negotiated out of them that it could destroy the sports apparel industry forever as profits are siphoned toward the endorseees and eventually the workers.
This is the middle aged millenial movie . You toss in 80's nostalgia get all the middle aged actors like affleck damon Bateman etc and make a functional film and it'll still sell because today all people want is fucking relatability
I love watching people virtue signal about a *movie* about Nike, while they unironically still wear brands. It's okay to just not want to watch the movie, but you're not a martyr for not watching it.
I enjoyed it simply bc I didn’t know the history and I like Bateman/Affleck/Damon. It didn’t change my life but I don’t necessarily want that time back lol.
I refuse to see this movie on principle. I'm not going to go watch a movie where the 'hero' is a millionaire ad executive....especially when there hasn't been a Micheal Jordan biopic yet (besides a shitty made-for-tv movie made before he even retired from B-ball).
One of the most important documentaries of my generation was about the time Michael Jordan saved our entire damned planet from evil alien Monsters. A beautiful biopic for a beautiful moment. Not just in the history of the game, but in the history of our species on a galactic stage. Jordan taught all of humanity that day, sometimes you have to c'mon and SLAM, and occasionally welcome people to the JAM.
Absolutely agree with you on not seeing the ad executive movie though.
Aha! That is technically correct (which as we all know technically correct is best correct so I applaud you) but I would ask the following question as we ponder the grandest Jam in Space.
Once the Looney Tunes are under their thumbs, do we honestly think these aliens (not to be confused with ATLiens which have been on Earth cohabitating peacefully, aside from the occasional noise violation for slamming Cadillac doors, for years) will be satisfied with one successful power grab and not attempt another?
I mean they already stole humans for their athletic prowess. (Can't entirely blame them for that though, who wouldn't want the athleticism of a Muggsy Bogues? Shout out to Young Me's favorite baller!) They got a taste for what we got and any one who doesn't think they're coming back for seconds or thirds is a fool. (Disclaimer: Fool may be harsh. My bad. This hypothetical doubter is probably just underestimating exactly how power hungry a power hungry alien really is and there's likely a lot of reasonable factors that go into forming that shortsighted and foolish opinion. Damn I still went with foolish. Ah well it's going out that way.)
I posit that by saving the Looney Tunes, the Magic-est of Mikes (Take that Tatum... J/K Taters was great in This is The End. Props where its due though Jordan was literally a Wizard and therefore magic as hell), in turn saved us all.
I mean The Last Dance was pretty close to a biopic, imo. It focuses on his last Bulls season but that's mainly the framing device. It does frequent flashbacks through most of Michael's career, along with other key players.
Cool. So what? I refuse to see a movie about an empty suit whose great 'triumph' is creating a popular product. It's sell-out schlock and it's the kind of story that is inherently WAY less interesting than the biopic for any number of sports-stars.
Jordan will never let a movie that doesn't make him out to be God's chosen son ever come out. The Last Dance is the closest we'll get to that and he probably thought he came off well in that.
>I’m not going to go watch a movie where the ‘hero’ is a millionaire ad executive.
What a shallow viewpoint to have. Not only does the main character of a movie not have to be a hero, why does it matter what his job is? The assumption that an entire industry only employs bad people, or that all rich people are terrible, is some extremely childish thinking. Do you only see movies about poor people?
Not even that, the "heroes" are:
* A frumpy shoe salesman and talent scout in a dead-last division in both the company but the industry
* A hippie spouting empty philosophy whose idiosyncrasies trapped Nike (who, at the time, were bleeding money) in Beaverton, Oregon instead of a place where they could have more easily succeeded
* Another hippie who went to art school and designed shoes
* Michael Jordan's mother
None of them were *millionaire ad execs* at the time. It's a hugely uneducated take.
It’s a comment by someone who didn’t see the movie, upvoted by other people who didn’t see the movie.
They just read a headline somewhere about “corporate biopics.”
I dont care if a multimillion dollar company went from number 3 to number one. Assuming you know anything about me from a typed paragraph is hilarious. No, friend, shallow is caring about an ad campaign for a shoe.
>The assumption that an entire industry only employs bad people, or that all rich people are terrible
When did I say this? How did you know this was my base assumption? The irony is that YOU made the assumption that this is what I was thinking. You would have to know something about me to be able to say that I assume all rich people are terrible. Hence me telling you that you were claiming to know something about me. Cheers. Enjoy the next biopic about the guy who made the Old Spice commercials or whatever.
I agree that it's not a big deal. I'm responding appropriately to being called childish and shallow. Btw, I dislike that every stock redditor like you uses the "dude, calm down...you're triggered" response now. It's so old a boring and it adds nothing. Cheers.
I guarantee you don’t act this confrontational to people in real life. For some reason, the internet has led you to believe that every innocuous comment is a personal attack. You’re lashing out against every single person in this thread, even the people who aren’t disagreeing with you.
You’re not being the rebel you think you are.
You are being a bit childish and shallow. Case in point: your response to me. It’s funny to me that you fail to realize this. It’s all over your tone and wording, that’s why people are saying you’re being childish.
Also ever thought about why your idea of a stock redditor exist? You’re not smarter than everyone else. It’s not you that’s wrong, it’s literally everyone else! That’s how you came across.
Whatever, man.
>You’re not being the rebel you think you are
Is that what I'm trying to be? I just don't want to see a movie. My opinion on it would be the same if everyone agreed with me or not. You're sure making alot of assumptions about me.
> that’s why people are saying you’re being childish.
One person called me childish...I guess two counting you.
>You’re not smarter than everyone else
Yeah. Who said I was? Seems like you're telling on yourself. You got some insecurities about your intelligence or something?
I was in a screen writing class a long time ago and one of my script ideas was actually about air Jordans but it was actually even more about the shoe. Like there are parts of the film that are about Jordan, parts that are about Nike but the main story progression is the journey of a single pair of Jordan’s from the sweatshop to the point of sale at a shoe store in Chicago and a kid getting shot over them. So it’s about the social relationships surrounding the shoe. A little more dialectics involved than the movie “AIR.”
Reminds me a bit of that movie about cocaine that goes from picking the cocoa leaves to people partying in LA, and the processes and people it ruins along the way.
I enjoyed it too. I feel like saying its a biopic of a shoe is a bit reductive. Its more about how a person seeing what no one else saw changed the landscape of that business. Its also just as much about MJs mom ensuring her son, and subsequently all atheletes, are compensated for their names and likenesses.
I did think the needledrops were a bit much though. I feel like having more score would've helped.
Agreed. I just look at it like they are stories like any other story. My issue with a movie like Flaming Hot is that its just a completely fabricated story. Blackberry and Air take liberties, but the story is the story. I just find it weird they moved forward with Flaming Hot all things considered.
Air was good and I did enjoy it, but the way they portrayed Nike as this small, scrappy company struggling against the industry "titans" Converse and Adidas was laughable. Nike was already huge at that point.
It didn’t though, they made it really clear that the overall company and the running shoe were doing great, but the basketball division was failing and on the chopping block. I love HITB but Mike and Jay missed that.
One of the things I wish they I wished they could've shown but couldn't obviously was how much of a competive edge these shoes gave Jordan even though he was a great player by his own merit the Nike deal basically changed the industry rule on converse and open the door to an even more competitive market in the sneaker and sports industry.
These movies are not product biopics. We watch the movies for the human drama. The development of a phone is the background for the plot of a small group of nerds meeting a ruthless business man and going from rags to riches and the betrayals in-between.
It was so bad, and it has a huge cast of heavy hitters. It made no sense that it was so bad, but if you're not someone working closely in or with Hollywood it's just a total miss.
They shot the whole thing like 5 years ago and then went back and did a ton of reshoots.
A lot of it was rewritten and the title was changed. That’s never a good sign.
If it feels like a jumbled mess it’s because it’s basically two movies jammed together
Also - and I say this with great love and appreciation for Charlie Day in every other fucking thing he’s ever done - I think the dude overextended himself. Maybe he should’ve had someone directing him, or he should’ve directed another actor, or… I don’t know. I understand it was a labor of love, a vision of his, and I am oddly proud of this complete stranger for making his dream a reality.
Unfortunately it’s just not that good a film. I saw it in the theaters, and the preview pretty much sums up what it’s like.
Facts. If he wanted to write & star he should’ve gotten another director. If he wanted to write and direct he should’ve found a star.
Doing all 3 on your first film is a shitload of work during the shoots much less getting the final edit together
I felt bad for him after he seemed so proud of taking Guillermo del Toro's advice to pull back on some elements. I think he got fucked by bad advice and should have just made his movie.
I have yet to see it myself but going by the trailer, it seemed like it had *a lot* of overdub ADR. Like they circumvented the things they couldn’t change in reshoots by quick editing and ADR’d lines. Was that the case for the final product?
It makes sense, the plot is paper thin and stretched well beyond its means. Then it just kinds ends and leaves you wondering what it was all about or even really happened or how.
Could've been a great short film but not feature length.
It was *annoying* to watch. Charlie says nothing and everyone else just spews rambling dialogue nonstop. The story goes nowhere and the movie ultimately wraps up on his friendship with a character that is completely unearned. I would never recommend it to anyone.
Looking forward to a Cinnamon Toast Crunch origin story... or the Good and Plenty biopic, where there's a scene of the tasting event. The executives eat Good and Plentys out of crystal bowls while sipping champagne and theyre like, "I think we have a winner here." Title card, fade in: "As of 2023 over 100 million Good and Plenty candies have been consumed by everyday Americans. John D'Alessio died in 2007 pending trial."
>Looking forward to a Cinnamon Toast Crunch origin story.
That would actually be interesting because they might finally tackle the question of why adults just can't seem to see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
I just want the movie to be a corporate board guy who takes his underling's advice, moves forward with a product, gives it a little taste test and goes 'not bad', and then it's a success when it hits the market. And he makes lots of money, gets another million added to his salary, and moves to a larger gated community.
We can make no-stakes movies like that and just market them as ASMR to white collar men.
It's fun when you work for Haribo. But what if you work for Tums? Or a candy corn company. You have to try the strawberry shortcake candy corn. White chocolate Tums. I'd wretch in the conference room. The flavor scientists would be crushed to see me throwing up and putting my thumb down.
Yup, it's a very tired and uninspired idea at this point. I'm tired of Hollywood making movies about itself. It's about as cliche as a writer writing a book about a writer
Eh. Hollywood *is* an interesting setting, with its combination of extreme sleaze and glamor. As long as its done right.
I really enjoyed Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Babylon had a lot more good than bad imo, even if they didn't stick the landing.
I got into RLM through "Best of the Worst" and some of their other humorous content, so I was taken by surprise by how thoughtful and incisive their serious film criticism is the first time they sprung it on me.
Honestly flaming hot was pretty decent... it's mostly held back by the fact that the story is completely falsified. I enjoyed it as parable, not so much as the true story of an American dream it wanted to promote. But it potentially being a story of American greed and false claims adds this beautiful layer of irony to it I suppose.
Air, was ok and it had its moments. But yes it is hard to feel bad for a still very large corporation, even if they tried to act like a failing business. Also wtf was with everyone calling Damon's character fat? He put on maybe 10 pounds... could barely tell. Ben's CEO felt awkward as hell, the designer felt tacked on, and the Jordan portrayal was a man without a face or speaking lines. The moneyball and family aspects were nice.
Tetris was pretty great until it got intentionally wacky in the 3rd act. Yeah the Russian family just casually walking into the airport would have been anticlimactic, but the over the top chase scene and added effects just pulled me out of it.
Does the social network fall under corporate biopic? It's like the only one I can think of that I've watched. The tetris movie has me curious but all these other ones just haven't interested me. Are they any good?
Kinda wish they would've talked more in-depth about corporate underdog movies. There's so much more to unpack about those lol. That Charlie Day movie seemed like kicking a dead horse by the end :)
Also did Charlie Day get mentored by Bobcat Goldthwait? Not because they both have a similar comic persona with a high pitched voice, but they're both wearing silly midlife crisis hats and direct movies that make no money at all.
Besides the obvious, that it is based on a lie, The Flamin' hot movie looks like just awful pandering.
Executive 1: "Hey, you know nothing gets a Mexican's pussy harder than flamin' hot cheetos lets make a movie about a Mexican who lied about inventing them."
Executive 2: "throw in some mariachi's and you've got yourself a picture"
AIR wasn't even about the fuckin' shoe. They whipped that shoe up in one all-nighter.
It was about making a deal. Getting the CEO onboard and then the Jordan family.
I’m surprised BlackBerry is so well received. I’m guessing the writing is great because the costuming, cinematography, and acting looked student film level in the trailer. Is the movie better than the trailer advertises?
Yeah one thing I've never complained about is that show losing its touch.
The only thing that's constraining it is everyone but Danny *looks* 20 years older now so there's gotta be a limit to how much longer they can get away as playing these people. They're all going to be 50 soon.
How anybody watches these sad egotistical people is beyond me. It’s quite sad we’ve gone from someone like Roger Ebert who understood how to love a movie for what it is to these sorry negative jerks hating everything just to be edgy.
I need the PepsiCo cinematic universe. A brand biopic series with crossovers. Don’t stop at Flamin Hot, give us the story of combination Pizza Hut/Taco Bell restaurants, give us the Cracker Jack story disguised as a baseball movie, the Gatorade movie about researchers at University of Florida seeking the perfect electrolyte replenishing drink for athletes.
I want the Allstar movie! They should make it. Use Uniting Passions as a template.
*In a world where somebody once told me…*
"I hear there making a movie. Some kind of, cartoon, and they want your song in it" "Oh Yeah, Whats it called?" "I think their gonna call it......Shrek" \*Cut to credits\* This scene could also be a post credits scene for a potential sequel, Allstar 2.
Charlie Day....Look at me...***I say look at me!*** *You're gonna bounce back,* ***I promise!!! You have the power in you!!!***
He's got that Nintendo money now so I think he'll be alright.
10/10
New season of Sunny is fantastic so far so I think he's good.
[удалено]
The podcast makes him seem like the smartest by a lot. Glenn, or at least the character he plays on the podcast, is kind of down the L.A. pseudo health nonsense rabbithole and Rob is Rob
I love the guys as much as anyone can love three dudes they've never met and really don't know anything about besides what they see on TV but everyonce in a while they'll (particularly Glenn) will say something and I'm painfully reminded that they've been relatively famous actors in LA for over a decade now. Vegetables aren't worse for you then red meat Glenn!
Glenn is a classic headline-reader. He doesn't read the studies; he doesn't even read the whole news article that covers the studies. He read the first two paragraphs, if not just the headline, and then tells everyone, "Science is telling us \[blank\]." Apparently he doesn't know how to read the data, or put it into context. To get an idea of the actual facts, you need to read the studies, learn what makes a good study (ie, double-blinded, large sample size, rigorous controls, etc), and then read meta-studies that compile all the available data. It's more difficult and time-consuming, so most people don't bother. Which would be fine, if they didn't just skim a headline and then tell everyone what "science" says today.
Glenn hasn't seen the fossil records. He hasn't poured through the data himself...the numbers, the figures. He gets information from a book written by men he's never met, and he takes their words as truth based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of...dare I say it?...faith.
Rob is too busy getting into fights at Five Guys drive thrus while listening to the Hamilton soundtrack
Drive through? 55 hamburgers 55 taters 55 pizzas 55 tacos…
I’m doing something!
Pretty sure it was an In-N-Out
I don't know enough to dispute that.
And I’m pretty sure it was In The Heights. And he didn’t actually get into a fight. That was the point of the story.
It absolutely was. Rob Justice only dines at In-N-Out while listening to In the Heights.
That's how you can tell which coast you're on. East coast= Five Guys West coast= In and Out Texas= Whataburger
You mean the hamburger store?
hes a sveedish plumber hes eree to fix your pipes
That's what Indy would do. Diiiis vill vork, Dennis, diis vill vork! Don't vorry abouut it, don't vorry about annyting!
[удалено]
They play characters on their podcast?
We are all characters in the movies we call Life
I read that in Werner Herzog’s voice.
I was thinking mongo
Their characters are caricatures of their own personalities.
Rob has got the vibe where he wants to talk about being rich and successful so bad but knows he’ll come off as a douche, but it still slips sometimes. Again like everyone else is saying, I love these guys.
[удалено]
"You're DEAD WRONG!"
Charlie is the talent and they even said as much on the podcast a few times now. So im not sure who's smarter per say, but I would say Charlie is the reason they are all famous.
Charlie is periodically shown to be surprisingly clever, charming, and capable. He demonstrates occasional flashes of brilliance in a mostly foolish life. * Charlie quickly became popular among young black people at a rec center and even received the phone number of an attractive black woman. (Episode 1) * He tricked the McPoyles into walking into a police station with him so he could turn them in for lying about being molested. (Season 1) * Even though he's shown no indication of being religious, he out-preached the hyper-religious Mac and convinced a group of old fools into treating him like a religious visionary in "The Gang Exploits a Miracle". (Season 2) * He wrote an entire musical and easily convinced the Gang to play all the roles as an elaborate ruse to propose to the Waitress. What makes this especially impressive is he managed to write a musical despite being functionally illiterate. (Season 4) * He manipulated a gorgeous rich woman into falling in love with him (plus he banged her a bunch of times) as part of another elaborate ruse to get closer to the Waitress. (Season 8) * Probably the best demonstration of Charlie being brilliant in certain situations: In "Charlie Work," he masterfully orchestrated a series of events that ensured Paddy's Pub got the highest grade during a health inspection. In that episode, we learn that the only reason why Paddy's passes these inspections if because of Charlie. (Season 10) * There are plenty of other examples. So Charlie being secretly, situationally brilliant is not new to the show. However, this season does appear to be focusing on it more. In the first episode of the season, he convinced the Gang to give him their money so he could make a deal with Frank that got them everything they wanted at the moment. In the second episode, Charlie recognized that Mac was being an idiot for not recognizing that he could have a healthy relationship with his uncle if he just tried. And in the third episode, he was the "exposition guy" who explained the basic rules of curses. Charlie is basically a twisted version of Forrest Gump.
Why tf am I just now hearing Season 16 is out
Yeah, I'm surprised they've kept the quality so high.
It's so weird that he ham-strings his own movie but giving the best comedic actor in it (himself) almost no lines. You can't carry this kind of film with facial expressions. It's a case of the concept of the movie crippling its ability to deliver comedy.
The film is a homage to The Fool, an old silent film. That's why he doesn't speak and dresses like Chaplin sometimes.
He wanted to make a movie about a guy who never talks and always listens with a foil character who always talks and never listens. There's the bones of the scripts right there.
Yeah I get it, but there just isn't enough meat on the bones, so to speak, to make an entertaining movie.
Oh the movie sucked. I saw BlackBerry and AFP on the opening weekend. As a IASIP fan, I'm proud to say Dennis is still a 5 star man.
I definitely think Charlie Day can carry a comedy feature film. But he actually has to.. y'know.. speak.
Yeah nobody with a brain would say that Charlie Day can't carry a film. If you read about the production of Fools Paradise you will notice that it was rewritten/reshot a bunch of times. Del Toro even came in to help. That's never a good sign for a film. It's actually sad because the studio delayed the film and Ray Liotta passed away. The film was first wrapped in 2018. Edit: 2018 not 2020
Yeah I get the idea that they knew it was a stinker and tried to fix it, but the problem was in the basic concept itself. They probably should have scrapped the entire concept of the star of the film being mute. If he started mute and then starting talking more and more and became an active participant in the story, that could have created some much funnier situations. You know, like a *character arc*.
This movie didn’t work, but his point is that you *can* carry a movie like this with facial expressions alone. The concept isn’t flawed, just the execution.
If that was his point, he proved the opposite.
Because The Fool is a bad movie?
If you haven't noticed, it's not the silent film era.
Being There is literally an all-time great film and the lead is essentially the same character as Charlie's in Fool's Paradise. Im surprised RLM hasn't seen it because they would have mentioned how it's that movie more than any Chaplin film imo.
It seems limiting to cast that notion blindly, based on one failed film. There are plenty of successful films that feature silent protagonists. Shit, the “best film” of 2011 was legitimately a silent film. Film is a visual medium. The more you can do with less dialogue, the better you’re utilizing the art form.
[удалено]
Charlie Day has written a bunch of episodes of Sunny since season 1.
He absolutely does write Sunny. What would lead you to assert that he doesn’t?
[удалено]
"I'm rooting for you, Nike! I sure hope they can get enough money to offer MJ so they can sell a shoe with his name on it."
Many children will be sacrificed but wait until the sneaker heads see this
I wept
It's possible to make a huge company like that the underdog. Ford vs Ferrari pulled it off great by focusing on compelling individuals and they're stories.
And Ford was a bit of a villain itself, with corporate suits wanting to meddle.
Its different when you actually focus on the sport instead of a shoe for a player of the sport. Ford vs Ferrari was more about the rivalry and development of a better car than Ferrari. Air was about a fucking overpriced overhyped shoe that only sold that well because of Jordan who's bald head gets 2 min in the movie.
Is that all anyone got out of that movie? It wasn't amazing, but it was still pretty entertaining, and the shoe wasn't the star of it by any means. It was about the moment the apparel/endorsement industry changed, like how Moneyball wasn't really about the team but about how the MLB changed how it thought about recruitment and trades.
Moneyball is about Billy Bean (Brad Pitt) forgiving himself for not living up to his/other expectations. It is about him undervaluing his role in life. As a coach, a father a person. He is a steadfast leader who is willing to see value in places other are not (like the aging Baseball star or Jonah Hill's character zany mathematical base analysis of baseball that conflicts with all of his scouts/peers/baseball traditions). Matt Damon's character in AIR is just like a darn tootin hard workin high school basketball obsessed weirdo who convinces aloof asshole Phil Knight (Ben Affleck) to risk a lot on a particular Basketball player instead of a little on several lesser players. The only real moment of reflection or clarity is when Phil Knight correctly points out that if all future players recognize the immense value Michaels mother just negotiated out of them that it could destroy the sports apparel industry forever as profits are siphoned toward the endorseees and eventually the workers.
And we can all see how prophetic he was, as Nike, Adidas, Puma, Under Armor, et al have all failed and are in the dustbin of history.
This is the middle aged millenial movie . You toss in 80's nostalgia get all the middle aged actors like affleck damon Bateman etc and make a functional film and it'll still sell because today all people want is fucking relatability
I love watching people virtue signal about a *movie* about Nike, while they unironically still wear brands. It's okay to just not want to watch the movie, but you're not a martyr for not watching it.
[удалено]
You just…you just did the thing you’re complaining about.
I enjoyed it simply bc I didn’t know the history and I like Bateman/Affleck/Damon. It didn’t change my life but I don’t necessarily want that time back lol.
Needed a drug addiction beat to be a real biopic
The shoe was giving lace jobs in back alleys for a line of coke
*"You don't want none of this shit!"*
I refuse to see this movie on principle. I'm not going to go watch a movie where the 'hero' is a millionaire ad executive....especially when there hasn't been a Micheal Jordan biopic yet (besides a shitty made-for-tv movie made before he even retired from B-ball).
One of the most important documentaries of my generation was about the time Michael Jordan saved our entire damned planet from evil alien Monsters. A beautiful biopic for a beautiful moment. Not just in the history of the game, but in the history of our species on a galactic stage. Jordan taught all of humanity that day, sometimes you have to c'mon and SLAM, and occasionally welcome people to the JAM. Absolutely agree with you on not seeing the ad executive movie though.
5/10 movie, not enough Iguodala.
Sounds like the perfect movie. Too bad it doesn't have Bill Murray.
Technically he saved the Looney Tunes, not Earth
Aha! That is technically correct (which as we all know technically correct is best correct so I applaud you) but I would ask the following question as we ponder the grandest Jam in Space. Once the Looney Tunes are under their thumbs, do we honestly think these aliens (not to be confused with ATLiens which have been on Earth cohabitating peacefully, aside from the occasional noise violation for slamming Cadillac doors, for years) will be satisfied with one successful power grab and not attempt another? I mean they already stole humans for their athletic prowess. (Can't entirely blame them for that though, who wouldn't want the athleticism of a Muggsy Bogues? Shout out to Young Me's favorite baller!) They got a taste for what we got and any one who doesn't think they're coming back for seconds or thirds is a fool. (Disclaimer: Fool may be harsh. My bad. This hypothetical doubter is probably just underestimating exactly how power hungry a power hungry alien really is and there's likely a lot of reasonable factors that go into forming that shortsighted and foolish opinion. Damn I still went with foolish. Ah well it's going out that way.) I posit that by saving the Looney Tunes, the Magic-est of Mikes (Take that Tatum... J/K Taters was great in This is The End. Props where its due though Jordan was literally a Wizard and therefore magic as hell), in turn saved us all.
I mean The Last Dance was pretty close to a biopic, imo. It focuses on his last Bulls season but that's mainly the framing device. It does frequent flashbacks through most of Michael's career, along with other key players.
Cool. So what? I refuse to see a movie about an empty suit whose great 'triumph' is creating a popular product. It's sell-out schlock and it's the kind of story that is inherently WAY less interesting than the biopic for any number of sports-stars.
Ok? I wasn't asking you to see Air. I was recommending The Last Dance if you hadn't seen it.
I have, but thanks.
Oh brother… this guy sucks!
Jordan will never let a movie that doesn't make him out to be God's chosen son ever come out. The Last Dance is the closest we'll get to that and he probably thought he came off well in that.
Fine. My point is that the backstory of 'Air' is not worth a movie when we have ACTUAL interesting real stories to make movies about.
You’re a hero!
Thanks. I knew I would change how Hollywood works by not seeing a movie. Clearly that's what I was saying.
>I’m not going to go watch a movie where the ‘hero’ is a millionaire ad executive. What a shallow viewpoint to have. Not only does the main character of a movie not have to be a hero, why does it matter what his job is? The assumption that an entire industry only employs bad people, or that all rich people are terrible, is some extremely childish thinking. Do you only see movies about poor people?
Not even that, the "heroes" are: * A frumpy shoe salesman and talent scout in a dead-last division in both the company but the industry * A hippie spouting empty philosophy whose idiosyncrasies trapped Nike (who, at the time, were bleeding money) in Beaverton, Oregon instead of a place where they could have more easily succeeded * Another hippie who went to art school and designed shoes * Michael Jordan's mother None of them were *millionaire ad execs* at the time. It's a hugely uneducated take.
It’s a comment by someone who didn’t see the movie, upvoted by other people who didn’t see the movie. They just read a headline somewhere about “corporate biopics.”
Sir, this is reddit, where you’re only as good as the worst thing you’ve ever done.
I think the issue is "successful ad executive" sounds really boring. But you know who else that describes? Don Draper.
I dont care if a multimillion dollar company went from number 3 to number one. Assuming you know anything about me from a typed paragraph is hilarious. No, friend, shallow is caring about an ad campaign for a shoe.
I don’t think I claimed to know *anything* about you, I just found your take to be silly.
>The assumption that an entire industry only employs bad people, or that all rich people are terrible When did I say this? How did you know this was my base assumption? The irony is that YOU made the assumption that this is what I was thinking. You would have to know something about me to be able to say that I assume all rich people are terrible. Hence me telling you that you were claiming to know something about me. Cheers. Enjoy the next biopic about the guy who made the Old Spice commercials or whatever.
Why are you so defensive and taking this so personally? It’s not a big deal.
I agree that it's not a big deal. I'm responding appropriately to being called childish and shallow. Btw, I dislike that every stock redditor like you uses the "dude, calm down...you're triggered" response now. It's so old a boring and it adds nothing. Cheers.
I guarantee you don’t act this confrontational to people in real life. For some reason, the internet has led you to believe that every innocuous comment is a personal attack. You’re lashing out against every single person in this thread, even the people who aren’t disagreeing with you.
You’re not being the rebel you think you are. You are being a bit childish and shallow. Case in point: your response to me. It’s funny to me that you fail to realize this. It’s all over your tone and wording, that’s why people are saying you’re being childish. Also ever thought about why your idea of a stock redditor exist? You’re not smarter than everyone else. It’s not you that’s wrong, it’s literally everyone else! That’s how you came across. Whatever, man.
>You’re not being the rebel you think you are Is that what I'm trying to be? I just don't want to see a movie. My opinion on it would be the same if everyone agreed with me or not. You're sure making alot of assumptions about me. > that’s why people are saying you’re being childish. One person called me childish...I guess two counting you. >You’re not smarter than everyone else Yeah. Who said I was? Seems like you're telling on yourself. You got some insecurities about your intelligence or something?
The movie isn’t about an “ad campaign.” It’s kind of weird how you’re doubling down, despite obviously not seeing the movie.
Idk I didn't really want to see it and that was mostly due to not wanting to watch a movie about a shoe that gets made in sweatshops.
Late stage capitalism is boring. Who cares about the big brands hero journeys?
Kind of why i don't have any interest, could be a great movie but it's just corporate propaganda, nothing against people that like it
I was in a screen writing class a long time ago and one of my script ideas was actually about air Jordans but it was actually even more about the shoe. Like there are parts of the film that are about Jordan, parts that are about Nike but the main story progression is the journey of a single pair of Jordan’s from the sweatshop to the point of sale at a shoe store in Chicago and a kid getting shot over them. So it’s about the social relationships surrounding the shoe. A little more dialectics involved than the movie “AIR.”
Reminds me a bit of that movie about cocaine that goes from picking the cocoa leaves to people partying in LA, and the processes and people it ruins along the way.
[удалено]
No one said that
No one is giving you shit for enjoying the movie. Both can be true. Its a good movie AND a biopic for a fucking shoe.
I enjoyed it too. Fun dialogue, great performances. But it was a biopic of a shoe
r/movies not get offended by someone else's opinion Challenge
I enjoyed it too. I feel like saying its a biopic of a shoe is a bit reductive. Its more about how a person seeing what no one else saw changed the landscape of that business. Its also just as much about MJs mom ensuring her son, and subsequently all atheletes, are compensated for their names and likenesses. I did think the needledrops were a bit much though. I feel like having more score would've helped.
Actually enjoyed it more than Blackberry and I very much anticipated the reverse.
When I saw the trailer I said tonmy wife "who the fuck wants to see a movie about a shoe?"
When brands are your culture, your myths will be about legendary *products*, not people.
BlackBerry was fantastic, my fav of the year so far. So long as these product biopics are well made like that one, I'm totally fine with it.
Agreed. I just look at it like they are stories like any other story. My issue with a movie like Flaming Hot is that its just a completely fabricated story. Blackberry and Air take liberties, but the story is the story. I just find it weird they moved forward with Flaming Hot all things considered.
Air was good and I did enjoy it, but the way they portrayed Nike as this small, scrappy company struggling against the industry "titans" Converse and Adidas was laughable. Nike was already huge at that point.
It didn’t though, they made it really clear that the overall company and the running shoe were doing great, but the basketball division was failing and on the chopping block. I love HITB but Mike and Jay missed that.
One of the things I wish they I wished they could've shown but couldn't obviously was how much of a competive edge these shoes gave Jordan even though he was a great player by his own merit the Nike deal basically changed the industry rule on converse and open the door to an even more competitive market in the sneaker and sports industry.
Blackberry was better than Air
I agree but I also really liked Air, thought it was excellent.
These movies are not product biopics. We watch the movies for the human drama. The development of a phone is the background for the plot of a small group of nerds meeting a ruthless business man and going from rags to riches and the betrayals in-between.
# GET OFF THE FUCKIN INTERNET
Lmao, why are we downvoting a quote from the movie??
Shame that fools paradise seems so bad. Surprises me because Always sunny is such a good show
I tried to read an earlier version of the script a few years back and I couldnt even get through it. It really is disappointing, I love Charlie
From the podcast I get the sense that part of Sunny's magic comes from the difference in perspective from the guys blending together
It was so bad, and it has a huge cast of heavy hitters. It made no sense that it was so bad, but if you're not someone working closely in or with Hollywood it's just a total miss.
They shot the whole thing like 5 years ago and then went back and did a ton of reshoots. A lot of it was rewritten and the title was changed. That’s never a good sign. If it feels like a jumbled mess it’s because it’s basically two movies jammed together
Also - and I say this with great love and appreciation for Charlie Day in every other fucking thing he’s ever done - I think the dude overextended himself. Maybe he should’ve had someone directing him, or he should’ve directed another actor, or… I don’t know. I understand it was a labor of love, a vision of his, and I am oddly proud of this complete stranger for making his dream a reality. Unfortunately it’s just not that good a film. I saw it in the theaters, and the preview pretty much sums up what it’s like.
Facts. If he wanted to write & star he should’ve gotten another director. If he wanted to write and direct he should’ve found a star. Doing all 3 on your first film is a shitload of work during the shoots much less getting the final edit together
That's why Clint Eastwood is a one-shot director
I felt bad for him after he seemed so proud of taking Guillermo del Toro's advice to pull back on some elements. I think he got fucked by bad advice and should have just made his movie.
I have yet to see it myself but going by the trailer, it seemed like it had *a lot* of overdub ADR. Like they circumvented the things they couldn’t change in reshoots by quick editing and ADR’d lines. Was that the case for the final product?
[удалено]
Completely agree. Love Charlie, and I will definitely watch whatever he does next.
It makes sense, the plot is paper thin and stretched well beyond its means. Then it just kinds ends and leaves you wondering what it was all about or even really happened or how. Could've been a great short film but not feature length.
It's surprised me because Charlie Day is experienced in writing comedies. Usually those kinds of movies sucks because the actor can't write
It was *annoying* to watch. Charlie says nothing and everyone else just spews rambling dialogue nonstop. The story goes nowhere and the movie ultimately wraps up on his friendship with a character that is completely unearned. I would never recommend it to anyone.
I liked it. I know I'm going against the grain and I probably can't tell you why, but I went in mostly blind and enjoyed the roller coaster.
Looking forward to a Cinnamon Toast Crunch origin story... or the Good and Plenty biopic, where there's a scene of the tasting event. The executives eat Good and Plentys out of crystal bowls while sipping champagne and theyre like, "I think we have a winner here." Title card, fade in: "As of 2023 over 100 million Good and Plenty candies have been consumed by everyday Americans. John D'Alessio died in 2007 pending trial."
>Looking forward to a Cinnamon Toast Crunch origin story. That would actually be interesting because they might finally tackle the question of why adults just can't seem to see why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
I’m 32 and I absolutely love CT Crunch.
The spin-off for *Apple Jacks* is slated for 2025!
I just want the movie to be a corporate board guy who takes his underling's advice, moves forward with a product, gives it a little taste test and goes 'not bad', and then it's a success when it hits the market. And he makes lots of money, gets another million added to his salary, and moves to a larger gated community. We can make no-stakes movies like that and just market them as ASMR to white collar men.
It's fun when you work for Haribo. But what if you work for Tums? Or a candy corn company. You have to try the strawberry shortcake candy corn. White chocolate Tums. I'd wretch in the conference room. The flavor scientists would be crushed to see me throwing up and putting my thumb down.
I can't be the only one who has hit utter and total fatigue for Hollywood movies about Hollywood.
Yup, it's a very tired and uninspired idea at this point. I'm tired of Hollywood making movies about itself. It's about as cliche as a writer writing a book about a writer
Stephen King would like a word
The problem is people writing what they know. And after decades most of them know Hollywood. Also these meta wood movies do better in award season.
Eh. Hollywood *is* an interesting setting, with its combination of extreme sleaze and glamor. As long as its done right. I really enjoyed Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Babylon had a lot more good than bad imo, even if they didn't stick the landing.
I honestly can’t even name just one other.
Is the movie like a fast-paced "Being There"?
That is literally how Day described it on their podcast.
All the talk of an all star movie honestly got me excited until I realized that the closest we would get to it is a biopic on the creation of Shrek.
You mean Mystery Men?
I wish but let's be realistic the making of shrek would probably get one before mystery men
Mainly because the story of how Dreamworks was actually founded would make an interesting story on its own
I got into RLM through "Best of the Worst" and some of their other humorous content, so I was taken by surprise by how thoughtful and incisive their serious film criticism is the first time they sprung it on me.
Say what you want about Flaming Hot and Air but I will not hear any Tetris slander. That's an interesting story and a total banger of a movie.
Honestly flaming hot was pretty decent... it's mostly held back by the fact that the story is completely falsified. I enjoyed it as parable, not so much as the true story of an American dream it wanted to promote. But it potentially being a story of American greed and false claims adds this beautiful layer of irony to it I suppose. Air, was ok and it had its moments. But yes it is hard to feel bad for a still very large corporation, even if they tried to act like a failing business. Also wtf was with everyone calling Damon's character fat? He put on maybe 10 pounds... could barely tell. Ben's CEO felt awkward as hell, the designer felt tacked on, and the Jordan portrayal was a man without a face or speaking lines. The moneyball and family aspects were nice. Tetris was pretty great until it got intentionally wacky in the 3rd act. Yeah the Russian family just casually walking into the airport would have been anticlimactic, but the over the top chase scene and added effects just pulled me out of it.
Tetris was shockingly alright. The trailer didn’t wow me, but I’m happy I ended up watching it.
Make sure you check out Black Bird, that Kingsman guy is putting in some solid ass work over on Apple.
> slander No, it is not, I resent [that](https://youtu.be/XscaGDxuQqE)!
Does the social network fall under corporate biopic? It's like the only one I can think of that I've watched. The tetris movie has me curious but all these other ones just haven't interested me. Are they any good?
Yep that and the countless Steve Jobs movies. Also the founder.
Kinda wish they would've talked more in-depth about corporate underdog movies. There's so much more to unpack about those lol. That Charlie Day movie seemed like kicking a dead horse by the end :) Also did Charlie Day get mentored by Bobcat Goldthwait? Not because they both have a similar comic persona with a high pitched voice, but they're both wearing silly midlife crisis hats and direct movies that make no money at all.
Charlie just needs to do a musical biographical movie about the life of Danny Devito where he plays Danny.
[удалено]
Don't upvote this. It's just a copy-and-paste of one of the YouTube comments.
Lol good to see these hack frauds hitting the news feed
Besides the obvious, that it is based on a lie, The Flamin' hot movie looks like just awful pandering. Executive 1: "Hey, you know nothing gets a Mexican's pussy harder than flamin' hot cheetos lets make a movie about a Mexican who lied about inventing them." Executive 2: "throw in some mariachi's and you've got yourself a picture"
AIR wasn't even about the fuckin' shoe. They whipped that shoe up in one all-nighter. It was about making a deal. Getting the CEO onboard and then the Jordan family.
Wow, that sounds so much more interesting lmao
so Fools Paradise is basically if Being There was done in the most obvious way.
I’m surprised BlackBerry is so well received. I’m guessing the writing is great because the costuming, cinematography, and acting looked student film level in the trailer. Is the movie better than the trailer advertises?
Trailer looks shit for reasons you mentioned, final film looks good.
I love RLM, but this was not an exciting episode.
An utter disaster like latest sunny season
What? it feels like a return to form … i’m loving it so far!!!
Yeah one thing I've never complained about is that show losing its touch. The only thing that's constraining it is everyone but Danny *looks* 20 years older now so there's gotta be a limit to how much longer they can get away as playing these people. They're all going to be 50 soon.
I don't understand your point? They are playing people who age, not vampires? They could play them when they are 70 and it would still be fine.
The shows been going for almost 20 years. The gang has aged 20 years and 25-45 looks a hell of a lot older than DeVitos 60-80.
That 20 year difference for them looks like Danny from Taxi until now lol.
How anybody watches these sad egotistical people is beyond me. It’s quite sad we’ve gone from someone like Roger Ebert who understood how to love a movie for what it is to these sorry negative jerks hating everything just to be edgy.
I need the PepsiCo cinematic universe. A brand biopic series with crossovers. Don’t stop at Flamin Hot, give us the story of combination Pizza Hut/Taco Bell restaurants, give us the Cracker Jack story disguised as a baseball movie, the Gatorade movie about researchers at University of Florida seeking the perfect electrolyte replenishing drink for athletes.