Thumbs up:
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Finding Nemo
The Incredibles


Thumbs down:
Bugs Life
Monsters Ins
Cars
Ratatouille

50/50

I'd give Cars a thumbs down, but that's pretty much the only one.

Most of them are at least watchable. Which is to say they pass the "Airplane Test" devised by a friend of mine--meaning that, if you were on an airplane with nothing better to do, you could probably sit through most of them without feeling your time was being wasted.

Stan Winston died.

Thurston McQ wrote:I'd give Cars a thumbs down, but that's pretty much the only one.

Most of them are at least watchable. Which is to say they pass the "Airplane Test" devised by a friend of mine--meaning that, if you were on an airplane with nothing better to do, you could probably sit through most of them without feeling your time was being wasted.

I like watching movies with my single-serving friends.

Darth Snoopy wrote:I like watching movies with my single-serving friends.

Agreed, though of course when I say single-serving-friends, I am referring to my sperm, so we may not be talking about the same thing.

Jack's Sorrow wrote:

Darth Snoopy wrote:I like watching movies with my single-serving friends.

Agreed, though of course when I say single-serving-friends, I am referring to my sperm, so we may not be talking about the same thing.

That's very clever. How's that working out for you?

It always bothered me that Ed Norton had to respond "What?" to that question, just so Pitt could explain it to the audience. I thought the movie was cleverer than that, for the most part. Really, you'd think the two personalities would've been better in tune with each other than that, considering one knew what the other meant by "single serving friends."

David Fincher is better than all of us.

Jack's Sorrow wrote:It always bothered me that Ed Norton had to respond "What?" to that question, just so Pitt could explain it to the audience. I thought the movie was cleverer than that, for the most part. Really, you'd think the two personalities would've been better in tune with each other than that, considering one knew what the other meant by "single serving friends."

I don't think so.

Pitt's character was obviously more aware of Norton, than visa versa. In a sense, Norton contantly being on the defensive, and all the "whats" "buts" "ifs" , played to show him more as the "victim" to the circumstance.

Pitt has to be smarter and ahead of Norton at that stage in the movie. Norton is still a yuppie weasel.

If the Ed Norton "Tyler" accepted the Brad Pitt "Tyler" from the beginning there wouldn't be a movie.

Maybe some of you have more experience with it, but I have never had two seperate personalities operating at the same time within my own head.










And no, "Sheila" doesn't count. We don't talk about "her" anymore...


-------------------------------

Ipsilon: Fight Club is a film released circa 1999. It's good. You should watch it sometime.

I think what really bothers Jack is that pretty much everyone who watched the scene "got" what was meant by "single serving friend" the instant the concept is introduced, thus making it hard to believe that Norton's character wouldn't--even if there *is* supposed to be such a sharp line drawn between his character and Durden's, at that point. Maybe one could argue that he's just devoid of any real sense of humor or common sense, but it's still stretching somewhat to think he would have to have "single serving friend" explained to him.

Thurston McQ wrote:I think what really bothers Jack is that pretty much everyone who watched the scene "got" what was meant by "single serving friend" the instant it was spoken, thus making it hard to believe that Norton's character wouldn't--even if there *is* supposed to be such a sharp line drawn between his character and Durden's, at that point. Maybe one could argue that he's just devoid of any real sense of humor or common sense, but it's still stretching somewhat to think he would have to have "single serving friend" explained to him.

Are you Jack? You are, aren't you. This whole board is full of like 3 or 4 guys just talking to themselves all day.


Wall-E is sure going to have to be good to be better that Fight Club.

PS - I think the "What" was more like a sarcastic delay, not an actual "what."

Like when someone calls you on your shit and you know it, but still try to play it off.

Darth Snoopy wrote:Are you Jack? You are, aren't you. This whole board is full of like 3 or 4 guys just talking to themselves all day.

I am Jack's several-servings friend.

* * *

Darth Snoopy wrote:PS - I think the "What" was more like a sarcastic delay, not an actual "what."

Like when someone calls you on your shit and you know it, but still try to play it off.

Now it just sounds like you are being a Fight Club apologist.

Thurston McQ wrote:

Darth Snoopy wrote:Are you Jack? You are, aren't you. This whole board is full of like 3 or 4 guys just talking to themselves all day.

I am Jack's several-servings friend.

* * *

Darth Snoopy wrote:PS - I think the "What" was more like a sarcastic delay, not an actual "what."

Like when someone calls you on your shit and you know it, but still try to play it off.

Now it just sounds like you are being a Fight Club apologist.

What?

Was that more like a sarcastic delay, or was it an actual "what"?

Thurston McQ wrote:Was that more like a sarcastic delay, or was it an actual "what"?

I rest my case.

What case? The one in which you keep soaps made from rich women's fat?

Sick.

Ipsy has never seen Fight Club?

Okie dokie, artichokie.

He's seen it. He's just not allowed to talk about it.

First rule, you know.

Second one, too, but who's counting?

Chuck Norris is.

I think he lost count at M.I.A. 2--which took place before M.I.A. and therefor(e) should not have been M.I.A. 2. The next M.I.A., which *should* have been M.I.A. 2, was titled M.I.A. . . . aye-aye-aye!

Stallone, on the other hand, lost count at Rocky 5.

(I award myself the coveted Post of the Day.)

* * *

I just occurred to me this was the Wall-E thread.

So I guess I ought to call Red 5 in to remind everyone (myself included) to . . .



"Stay on target!"

Thurston McQ wrote:I think what really bothers Jack is that pretty much everyone who watched the scene "got" what was meant by "single serving friend" the instant the concept is introduced, thus making it hard to believe that Norton's character wouldn't--even if there *is* supposed to be such a sharp line drawn between his character and Durden's, at that point. Maybe one could argue that he's just devoid of any real sense of humor or common sense, but it's still stretching somewhat to think he would have to have "single serving friend" explained to him.

You've got it all wrong, Thursty: the narrator responded "what?" to Tyler's question, "How's that working out for you?" (which was pretty obvious in its meaning), to which Tyler replied "being clever," to which the narrator responded (I misremember exactly) "good, I guess," to which Tyler responded, "well, keep it up then." Then Tyler picked up his briefcase and left (to go where, I've never had any idea, but I guess that was supposed to be a clue that he wasn't real), and as Tyler passed he mumbled "a question of etiquette: do I give you the ass or the crotch?" even though he had an insane amount of room to get by: I can only assume they were in first class, because I've never seen economy seats with anywhere that amount of leg room.

Gee, we sure are excited for Wall-E!!!