Things that you know will be shit

[westlondonmist]

1 hour ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

You are dismissing all stand up comedy then? All a stand up show is an evening with the comedian where they run through a few pre practiced anecdotes. 

Are you dismissing the fact I said shit anecdotes, which is different to ones told by a pro comedian?

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

2 minutes ago, westlondonmist said:

Are you dismissing the fact I said shit anecdotes, which is different to ones told by a pro comedian?

Are you dismissing the fact that not all pro comedians tell good anecdotes?

[Scratch]

I don’t know if you know, but Rick Stein quite likes Cornwall.

[organizedkaos]

Podcasts might render them less relevant these days as they often achieve the same intimate long form interview effect.

Having said that I went to see "An Evening With Ottolenghi" and enjoyed it. Almost no anecdotes nor practical informmtion but I came away from it p inspired. Hearing people who are good at something and passionate about it has an infectious energy. Maybe it's just that our human brains are a bit dumb and the effect of being in a room with a person talking about something very relevant to them (even if they've no idea you're there) connects us to them. I'm not even a big fan (although like any other person who likes to cook i've made many of his recipes) I just like going to things and it seemed like it might be interesting.

Edited February 27, 2024 by organizedkaos
Crookers - Love to Edit

[Sergio Mendacious]

The last immersive Wonka event didn't go too well, either

[Devon Malcolm]

 

[IANdrewDiceClay]

This new Ghostbusters film looks a bit shit. The fact they are titling them all like they are In Your House pay-per-views isnt encouraging him, but it just looks like Doctor Who wink wink shite to the camera. Actually preferred the 2016 one to the new one. At least it didnt have Harold Ramis coming back as a mute ghost.

[The Gaffer]

On 2/26/2024 at 12:40 PM, Loki said:

Speaking of...

Every year like clockwork he rises from the dead, this time with bloody Holland in tow.

The two uncles at the wedding who come up to you at the bar and whisper if there's any sniff going about. 

[Merzbow]

13 hours ago, IANdrewDiceClay said:

This new Ghostbusters film looks a bit shit. The fact they are titling them all like they are In Your House pay-per-views isnt encouraging him, but it just looks like Doctor Who wink wink shite to the camera. Actually preferred the 2016 one to the new one. At least it didnt have Harold Ramis coming back as a mute ghost.

The last one was possibly the worst bit of nostalgia bait ever recorded, fucking awful stuff.

[Sergio Mendacious]

1 hour ago, Merzbow said:

The last one was possibly the worst bit of nostalgia bait ever recorded, fucking awful stuff.

Bearing in mind that I haven't see either of the new Ghostbusters, the lady one at least sounds like it wants to be a comedy. The newer one really does sound like nostalgia bait, and also like a shit tumblrisation of the "IP", where it's given a load of weird reverence, and forgets to be good or funny. Again, I'm that twat who is commenting on it without seeing it.

[Carbomb]

The only issue I had with the 2016 remake was that it was a remake. 

There was no reason why, with that cast, it couldn't have been the long-awaited sequel, with some cameos or support from the originals. All they had to do was a "30 years on" scenario where Ghostbusters are now a nation-/world-wide franchise, with new teams springing up everywhere, and "certificated" by the original team, who are now retired from the frontline game and are just corporate.

This way, we could've had our cake and eaten it. Not just in terms of getting both the nostalgia and the freshness of new faces, but it could have also been set in a city other than New York, with new ghosts and paranormal concepts to play with. I reckon one set in LA, with all the "ghosts of Hollywood", could've worked, or maybe Chicago, with all the dead mobsters.

[Devon Malcolm]

I quite liked Afterlife and the new spooks were really good but there's no denying the last 20 minutes or so of it were embarrassing.

[neil]

13 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

There was no reason why, with that cast, it couldn't have been the long-awaited sequel, with some cameos or support from the originals

Well the reason why is because that would mean writing a whole new thing rather than just taking something that exists and making some tweaks. Far too much effort for modern popular cinema!

[Chest Rockwell]

25 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

I quite liked Afterlife and the new spooks were really good but there's no denying the last 20 minutes or so of it were embarrassing.

Yeah I felt the same. The end was shit but on the whole I thought it was solid.

[Sergio Mendacious]

32 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

The only issue I had with the 2016 remake was that it was a remake. 

There was no reason why, with that cast, it couldn't have been the long-awaited sequel, with some cameos or support from the originals. All they had to do was a "30 years on" scenario where Ghostbusters are now a nation-/world-wide franchise, with new teams springing up everywhere, and "certificated" by the original team, who are now retired from the frontline game and are just corporate.

This way, we could've had our cake and eaten it. Not just in terms of getting both the nostalgia and the freshness of new faces, but it could have also been set in a city other than New York, with new ghosts and paranormal concepts to play with. I reckon one set in LA, with all the "ghosts of Hollywood", could've worked, or maybe Chicago, with all the dead mobsters.

Should have been set in the Potteries, Stokebusters.