collapse

* Resources


UDM 4

* Recent Posts

Upsets! / Surprise results. by Oldgym
[Today at 11:31:05 PM]


Grad Transfer Big by We R Final Four
[Today at 11:03:41 PM]


Lay Off The Boos by We R Final Four
[Today at 10:51:18 PM]


Recruiting as of 2/15/20 by shoothoops
[Today at 10:07:17 PM]


Wojo Presser by 94Warrior
[Today at 09:43:25 PM]


Alma mater song before games? by keefe
[Today at 09:33:01 PM]


[Paint Touches] On cusp of Fiserv farewell, Markus marks his masterpiece by Shooter McGavin
[Today at 09:23:01 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???  (Read 8210 times)

Retire0

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7802
  • I feel the master, I feel him.
What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« on: December 09, 2019, 10:49:30 AM »
Ghostbusters: Afterlife trailer dropped this morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvPPbJsSey0



Egon's grandchilden move to his farm and find his stuff. Venkman, Stantz, Zeddemore, Dana & Janine are all making appearances. Egon ghost potentially? Hoping Rick Moranis comes out of retirement for this as well.
New TallTitan bold prediction: Sacar Anim will play in more NBA games than Markus Howard.

TallTitan's bold prediction of Davante Gardner being drafted in 2014.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=27259.msg310060;topicseen#new

ChitownSpaceForRent

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5173
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2019, 10:54:23 AM »
Looks like they're actually trying to make Ghostbusters scary.

Paul Rudd is a A+ casting choice in my opinion.

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15730
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2019, 11:13:38 AM »
Stranger Things meets Ghostbusters.    Hell to the yeah.   
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13382
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2019, 01:14:02 PM »
Mrs. Maisel is back. Enjoyed Ep. 1.

We're also watching Ray Donovan and City on a Hill. The latter has been OK, with Kevin Bacon looking like he's having fun with his over-the-top, semi-crooked-FBI-agent character. The former is has been at least a little ridiculous for a couple years now, but we still enjoy it.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15730
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2019, 01:47:24 PM »
Dublin Murders.   True Detective, only more messed up and with cool accents. 
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • #WeAreBaltimore
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2019, 05:00:20 PM »
Watched Unbelievable this weekend. Outstanding stuff. Great story ans easy to see why all 3 female leads were nominated for Golden Globes.

Thanks to Wades, 82, and CBMG for recommending it.

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5942
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2019, 08:29:30 PM »
Mrs. Maisel is back. Enjoyed Ep. 1.

2, 3 and 4 are even better.  Lol moments  in all three. 

It’s been so good so far that I told my wife I’ll stop watching and wait until the end of the year for her to catch up to me.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13382
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2019, 09:27:21 AM »
Clint Eastwood has defamed a since-deceased reporter, depicting her in "Richard Jewell" as having slept with sources to get stories about the 1996 Olympic bombing despite no evidence that ever occurred.

Warner Bros is defending Eastwood and the studio by pointing to the disclaimer that rolls with the end-of-movie credits: "The film is based on actual historical events. Dialogue and certain events and characters contained in the film were created for the purposes of dramatization."

Nice. Misogyny and character assassination are always dramatically fun!
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

LloydsLegs

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1166
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2019, 10:11:57 AM »
Clint Eastwood has defamed a since-deceased reporter, depicting her in "Richard Jewell" as having slept with sources to get stories about the 1996 Olympic bombing despite no evidence that ever occurred.

Warner Bros is defending Eastwood and the studio by pointing to the disclaimer that rolls with the end-of-movie credits: "The film is based on actual historical events. Dialogue and certain events and characters contained in the film were created for the purposes of dramatization."

Nice. Misogyny and character assassination are always dramatically fun!

Legally, anyway, you can't defame the deceased.  Does not excuse it.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13382
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2019, 10:52:10 AM »
Legally, anyway, you can't defame the deceased.  Does not excuse it.

Thanks for that info. Makes sense.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • #WeAreBaltimore
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2019, 12:29:12 PM »
Just watched The Coinfession Killer on Netflix. Outstanding.

Documentary about Henry Lee Lucas who the Texas Rangers falsely claimed was the most prolific mass murderer in history.

It shows the laziness and arrogance of police everywhere. Most of all the Texas Rangers - a terrorist group formed in the 1800s to first control (and murder) Mexicans and Indians and then to control and intimidate blacks after the Civil War. Seems like the organization is as corrupt as ever.

Jay Bee

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
    • Late Night Hoops
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2019, 12:44:14 PM »
Just watched The Coinfession Killer on Netflix. Outstanding.

Documentary about Henry Lee Lucas who the Texas Rangers falsely claimed was the most prolific mass murderer in history.

It shows the laziness and arrogance of police everywhere. Most of all the Texas Rangers - a terrorist group formed in the 1800s to first control (and murder) Mexicans and Indians and then to control and intimidate blacks after the Civil War. Seems like the organization is as corrupt as ever.

#FakeNews #Lies

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • #WeAreBaltimore
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2019, 01:09:28 PM »
#FakeNews #Lies

We know he killed 3 people. That is a far cry from 600. It is entirely possible he may have committed some others even though there is not ONE single bit of physical evidence that he did.

Now that DNA evidence is available, his DNA does not match even one single victim. But for the few police forces that aren't too lazy to re-open cases, the DNA evidence has produced the real murderers who have since been punished.

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4999
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2019, 02:17:23 PM »
Clint Eastwood has defamed a since-deceased reporter, depicting her in "Richard Jewell" as having slept with sources to get stories about the 1996 Olympic bombing despite no evidence that ever occurred.

Warner Bros is defending Eastwood and the studio by pointing to the disclaimer that rolls with the end-of-movie credits: "The film is based on actual historical events. Dialogue and certain events and characters contained in the film were created for the purposes of dramatization."

Nice. Misogyny and character assassination are always dramatically fun!

Legit question, did Clint Eastwood write the screenplay? I get the pile on to Eastwood, but if he didn't write the script why is it his responsibility for the film to be "historically accurate". One note, Olivia Wilde is the actress who plays the person in question, she has come out to vigorously defend the role and her performance, if she supports the portrayal why is it an Eastwood problem only?

I will say this, given all the inaccuracies that happen in film and television, it is somewhat interesting this is the one that drove some attention to that. Also, I was listening to a podcast that was discussing this and they made a really good point.....the work of journalists is vital but ultimately very, very boring to put in a film.....so a lot of screen writers put stuff in that isn't true just to make the content more interesting. I think the sex with sources stuff is lazy screen writing to make things interesting.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • #WeAreBaltimore
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2019, 02:40:42 PM »
Legit question, did Clint Eastwood write the screenplay? I get the pile on to Eastwood, but if he didn't write the script why is it his responsibility for the film to be "historically accurate". One note, Olivia Wilde is the actress who plays the person in question, she has come out to vigorously defend the role and her performance, if she supports the portrayal why is it an Eastwood problem only?

I will say this, given all the inaccuracies that happen in film and television, it is somewhat interesting this is the one that drove some attention to that. Also, I was listening to a podcast that was discussing this and they made a really good point.....the work of journalists is vital but ultimately very, very boring to put in a film.....so a lot of screen writers put stuff in that isn't true just to make the content more interesting. I think the sex with sources stuff is lazy screen writing to make things interesting.


I agree, Eng.

Personally, I have no interest in Eastwood's "brand". Have never cared for the message in his films going way back.

That being said, he has every right to make the kinds of films with whatever message he wants to portray. It's just a movie, and like any film based on a real event, is not intended to be 100% accurate. Or even anywhere close to 100%.

I choose not to partake in the garbage he peddles. Others can decide for themselves.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13382
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2019, 07:03:03 PM »
Legit question, did Clint Eastwood write the screenplay? I get the pile on to Eastwood, but if he didn't write the script why is it his responsibility for the film to be "historically accurate". One note, Olivia Wilde is the actress who plays the person in question, she has come out to vigorously defend the role and her performance, if she supports the portrayal why is it an Eastwood problem only?

I will say this, given all the inaccuracies that happen in film and television, it is somewhat interesting this is the one that drove some attention to that. Also, I was listening to a podcast that was discussing this and they made a really good point.....the work of journalists is vital but ultimately very, very boring to put in a film.....so a lot of screen writers put stuff in that isn't true just to make the content more interesting. I think the sex with sources stuff is lazy screen writing to make things interesting.

Interesting viewpoint. I still don't like the idea of taking a real person, who did her job well and is now deceased, being "defamed" in absentia -- whether that's Eastwood, the screenwriter, Wilde or all of the above.


I agree, Eng.

Personally, I have no interest in Eastwood's "brand". Have never cared for the message in his films going way back.

That being said, he has every right to make the kinds of films with whatever message he wants to portray. It's just a movie, and like any film based on a real event, is not intended to be 100% accurate. Or even anywhere close to 100%.

I choose not to partake in the garbage he peddles. Others can decide for themselves.

I have liked many Eastwood films, have disliked some, and have been "meh" on others. I let each stand on its own merit.

To put a blatant, perverse fabrication in a film that, ironically, is about fabrications ... pretty shameful.

A lot of my journalist friends already say they won't plunk down their $10 (or whatever) to support this film -- which of course is their right (and yours). I haven't decided yet. The Jewell story is very interesting to me, and I think I'll be able to be disgusted by the lies Eastwood & Co. are spewing while still getting something about the film overall. Or maybe not. I'll see.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

Benny B

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5942
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2019, 11:17:08 PM »
Interesting viewpoint. I still don't like the idea of taking a real person, who did her job well and is now deceased, being "defamed" in absentia -- whether that's Eastwood, the screenwriter, Wilde or all of the above.

And yet.... Nixon, anyone?
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny.  Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13382
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2019, 11:20:06 PM »
And yet.... Nixon, anyone?

There was a movie about former Laker great Norm Nixon?
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13382
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2019, 08:00:21 AM »
"Jewell" getting panned by many critics for Eastwood and writer Billy Ray maliciously smearing the Atlanta reporter as a drunk who screwed her way to her scoops.

Chicago Tribune:

In 2005, anti-abortion and anti-gay domestic terrorist Eric Rudolph confessed to the Centennial Park bombing, which claimed one life and injured 100 others, but Ray and Eastwood do not make him the bad guy in "Richard Jewell." They instead villainize the media, specifically a reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution named Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who deserves her own redemptive film after the savage slander that is portrayed.

Ray and Eastwood lean into the ugly stereotype that female journalists are drunken floozies who get their tips through sex.

When journalists are under physical and philosophical threat more than they've ever been, why paint them to be the scourge, and not the actual terrorist, Eric Rudolph, who went on to claim more victims and who is completely absent from the film?


Wall Street Journal:

The production comes with an asterisk concerning its own allegiance to the facts of the media madness.

“Richard Jewell” has much to recommend it. The story is compelling—from hero to reviled heel in no time flat. In a jauntier time it might have been raw material for social satire; in our day it’s a cautionary tale about abuse of power by the press and government alike. But then there’s the problem causing the current controversy, a sequence that has Kathy Scruggs ( Olivia Wilde ), one of the two print reporters who broke the story of Jewell being the FBI’s prime suspect, sleeping with an FBI agent played by Jon Hamm in order to obtain her scoop. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Scruggs’s employer at the time, insists that the film’s portrayal of this flagrantly unethical behavior is fiction, and has demanded that the filmmakers issue a disclaimer acknowledging the use of dramatic license.

Did she or didn’t she? There seems to be no evidence that she did, and Scruggs can’t defend herself; she died in 2001 at age 42. But this is a movie review, not a piece of investigative journalism about the journalistic practices of a movie that takes journalism to task. All I can tell you for sure is that the sequence, regardless of its veracity or mendacity, tears the otherwise finely woven fabric of the film to tatters.

The Kathy Scruggs character, as written by Mr. Ray and played by Ms. Wilde under Mr. Eastwood’s direction, is a retrograde refugee from third-rate film noir, a seductress variant of Hildy Johnson, the hilariously unscrupulous crime reporter played by Rosalind Russell in the classic 1940 Howard Hawks comedy “His Girl Friday.” She’s out of place here, stylistically and dramatically, and, as I said, her sleaziness is gratuitous. It won’t sell any tickets, and it certainly isn’t needed to make the case that the media, like the FBI, acted very badly. This lapse apart, “Richard Jewell” is a useful, substantial motion picture, but what were they thinking?

NPR:

This film about the smearing of an innocent man is itself a hit piece. And unlike that unfortunate AJC story, it's an utterly intentional one.

AP:

But the venom reserved specifically for Scruggs is mystifying. Scruggs, who died in 2001, is shown not just as overwhelmingly arrogant and bitter but as a reporter who sleeps with a source (Jon Hamm’s FBI agent) for the scoop. In a film that otherwise strives for accuracy (screenwriter Billy Ray based it on Marie Brenner’s 1997 Vanity Fair article “American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell”), it’s a glaring and offensive invention that perpetuates a false and misogynistic view of female journalists, let alone of Scruggs. “Richard Jewell,” about larger powers running roughshod over an innocent individual, enacts the very injustice it depicts.

It’s a shame because the rest of “Richard Jewell” is often a thought-provoking docudrama with a singular protagonist.


Sad.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2019, 08:29:39 AM »
Clint Eastwood has defamed a since-deceased reporter, depicting her in "Richard Jewell" as having slept with sources to get stories about the 1996 Olympic bombing despite no evidence that ever occurred.

Warner Bros is defending Eastwood and the studio by pointing to the disclaimer that rolls with the end-of-movie credits: "The film is based on actual historical events. Dialogue and certain events and characters contained in the film were created for the purposes of dramatization."

Nice. Misogyny and character assassination are always dramatically fun!


You cannot defame the dead.  Law 101. 


But keep working hard to defend the indefensible what they did to that man.  And gee, media and Hollywood piling on Eastwood....gob smacked and shocked.


Looking forward to seeing it tonight with the family.



"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2019, 08:35:31 AM »

I agree, Eng.

Personally, I have no interest in Eastwood's "brand". Have never cared for the message in his films going way back.

That being said, he has every right to make the kinds of films with whatever message he wants to portray. It's just a movie, and like any film based on a real event, is not intended to be 100% accurate. Or even anywhere close to 100%.

I choose not to partake in the garbage he peddles. Others can decide for themselves.

American Sniper
Mule
Unforgiven
Million Dollar Baby
Bridges of Madison County
Gran Torino
Mystic River

And who can forget Sully

Lots of garbage he has peddled apparently as a director.   ::)
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

lawdog77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 709
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2019, 08:50:51 AM »

You cannot defame the dead.  Law 101. 



Just because it is "legal" per se, does not mean it is moral. I haven't looked  at all jurisdictions, but I am surprised some do not have a civil remedy for this, especially in cases involvimg famous people, who have products their brand is still selling.


On an aside, this topic reminds me of a part of Repo Man, involving John Wayne.

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2019, 09:00:27 AM »
Just because it is "legal" per se, does not mean it is moral. I haven't looked  at all jurisdictions, but I am surprised some do not have a civil remedy for this, especially in cases involvimg famous people, who have products their brand is still selling.


On an aside, this topic reminds me of a part of Repo Man, involving John Wayne.

The irony is the media defames people every day and there is rarely anything people can do...especially when they say “oopsie”.  End of the day, we don’t know if what she is accused of is right or wrong.  Unlike journalists who are supposed to report the facts, this is a movie and not a documentary at that.

Take a look at the movies depicting Ayers, Cheney, Kennedy, and other public figures and every single one of them people came out saying there were parts that were untrue, false, etc....easy Google search points them all out and yet mostly a whimper about it.  In this case, well one of their own might be in the cross hairs and that shall not stand so the pushback begins.  The buckets of ink to defend others misrepresented in movies (which we don’t even know if that is the case here) ran dry in the past?
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13382
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2019, 09:01:04 AM »

You cannot defame the dead.  Law 101. 


But keep working hard to defend the indefensible what they did to that man.  And gee, media and Hollywood piling on Eastwood....gob smacked and shocked.


Looking forward to seeing it tonight with the family.

Well, I have not defended the media in this case. Indeed, I did the opposite, came right out and said that the media and law enforcement "didn't cover themselves in glory here." But I guess you have the same problem with the truth that Eastwood does.

I have absolutely no problem defending a female journalist who was smeared with false accusations. But keep working hard to defend every possible attack on anybody associated with journalism because, you know, all journalists are evil enemies of the American people. Why would you defend this smearing? Doesn't seem very moral for a guy who likes to wear his Christianity on his sleeve.

Anyhoo, enjoy the movie. Reviewers seem to think it is largely a decent film. Just do explain to your kids -- who certainly are old enough to understand -- that these kinds of dramaticizations are not "truth." And do explain to your daughter how often women who try to compete in fields dominated by men are often smeared by cowardly, easily threatened men.

Finally, spend a few hours over the weekend also watching Spotlight and All the President's Men with your kids. Not only are they great films, but I know you would want them to have all sides of every issue. They should see how journalists can be heroic, too.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Scoop game threads."

-- Obi-wan Kenobi

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2750
Re: What are you watching in 2020 (or re-watching)???
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2019, 09:06:58 AM »
But keep working hard to defend the indefensible what they did to that man.  And gee, media and Hollywood piling on Eastwood....gob smacked and shocked.

I haven't read through the entire thread carefully, but has anyone in this thread defended what they did to Jewell?  I haven's seen that, but maybe it's here.

The issue, as I understand it, is that the movie includes a character that is based on (and has the same name as) a real person and added fictionalized behavior.  Legal or not, I think that's pretty crappy.  Of course, no movie is going to be 100% true. However, I think if you're making a "true" story and using real-life people, there is a certain obligation to not unfairly disparage them with salacious fictional changes.  I don't think it matters if they're living or dead.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.