Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 14:28:24 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2010 7:46:45 GMT -4
My brother eats nothing but sugary cereal and fried chicken, but he is skinny as hell because he works out at the gym for literally hours every single day. That's the other way to eat junk and still be thin. Oh right, I forgot about that. My brother the crazy marathon runner eats like a pig and is really freakin' skinny. He gains weight really quickly if he doesn't run for too many days in a row.
|
|
|
Post by Mugsy on Jun 10, 2010 7:55:39 GMT -4
I'm with Soul. Until I hit 40, I could eat like a pig and not gain a pound. I snapped back to my pre-pregnancy weight within weeks of having my kids. Some people just have a fast metabolism. Not that I think Hollywood should perpetuate that myth, because these people are rare, not the norm.
I also hate when they toss in lines that give unrealistic weights for women. I recall some Cameron Diaz movie, where a character referred to her character as "one hundred pounds of sass" or somesuch. Diaz is thin, but she ain't 100 lbs. But saying it implies to viewers (esp. teen girls) that 100 lbs is a normal weight, even for someone who is quite tall. It sets impossible expectations. Is it so terrible to have said her character was "120 pounds of sass"? Is 120 lbs elephantine or something?
|
|
|
Post by Shalamar on Jun 10, 2010 12:52:08 GMT -4
One-hundred-and-one Pounds of fun That's my little honey-bun Get a load of honey-bun toniiiiight I'm speaking of my Sweetie-pie Only sixty inches high Every inch is packed with dynomiiiiite!
Ahem. I first heard that song when I was a teen, and I quickly did the math. "Hmm ... 60 inches is 5 feet tall. 100 pounds? Okay." (I had a friend at the time who had those exact measurements, and while slender, she wasn't scary-skinny.)
Cameron Diaz ain't no 5 feet tall, however.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 14:28:24 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 17:29:16 GMT -4
There is a scene in Pretty Woman where Julia Roberts was asked her size and she says she is a size eight. I remember at the time there were a few articles about how size eight was the ideal size. How times have changed, I cannot even imagine a movie now where the heroine would ever admit to being anything over a size four.
|
|
normadesmond
Guest
Oct 6, 2024 14:28:24 GMT -4
|
Post by normadesmond on Jun 10, 2010 18:54:02 GMT -4
Stop showing people vomiting in movies. Really. Once upon a time, if a character had to upchuck, he/she bent behind a hedge, car, or wall, we heard the retching, and that was it. Nowadays, I've lost track of the number of films that show the actual spew. If you can't do this, please, tell me when I can expect to see feces exit your actors' behinds. I figure that's the next step on this road to grossing me out so completely that I'll never watch another movie. Note to dguzpy: if you're looking for something to rent, take a pass on Margot at the Wedding. From a review: And get this: Baumbach and Leigh are married in real life. What a nice guy. Let's hope Baumbach-style filmmaking doesn't catch on!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 14:28:24 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 21:01:34 GMT -4
There is a scene in Pretty Woman where Julia Roberts was asked her size and she says she is a size eight. I remember at the time there were a few articles about how size eight was the ideal size. How times have changed, I cannot even imagine a movie now where the heroine would ever admit to being anything over a size four. Personally, I was influenced by freaking Sweet Valley High, where the twins were a "perfect size six". It's so crazy how being a size 0 is so common now.
|
|
tamaradixon
Guest
Oct 6, 2024 14:28:24 GMT -4
|
Post by tamaradixon on Jun 10, 2010 22:18:39 GMT -4
Stop showing people vomiting in movies. Really. Once upon a time, if a character had to upchuck, he/she bent behind a hedge, car, or wall, we heard the retching, and that was it. Nowadays, I've lost track of the number of films that show the actual spew. If you can't do this, please, tell me when I can expect to see feces exit your actors' behinds. I figure that's the next step on this road to grossing me out so completely that I'll never watch another movie. Note to dguzpy: if you're looking for something to rent, take a pass on Margot at the Wedding. From a review: And get this: Baumbach and Leigh are married in real life. What a nice guy. Let's hope Baumbach-style filmmaking doesn't catch on! I saw it when it first came out. Don't remember seeing actual shit though? weird. I thought it was implied shit.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 6, 2024 14:28:24 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2010 7:41:06 GMT -4
I saw it when it first came out. Don't remember seeing actual shit though? weird. I thought it was implied shit. I don't remember seeing it either.
|
|
yournamehere
Guest
Oct 6, 2024 14:28:24 GMT -4
|
Post by yournamehere on Jun 11, 2010 22:21:38 GMT -4
Dear Hollywood:
I will not go to the movies to see films that are 2.5 hours long if they're not friggin' epic in scale. Why does the new "Karate Kid" movie have to be that long? I don't even understand why it should be. Kids IMO shouldn't be sitting in a theater for that long (and that's who the audience is, right?).
And how about "Sex and the City"? Does THAT movie have to be 2.5 hours long?
See, Hollywood should take a lesson from Paul Thomas Anderson. When that guy makes a movie that needs to be three hours long, it's because of the sweeping scope he's trying to portray. When he doesn't, it's because he knows better than to do it.
And for all the crap I give Quentin Tarantino, he at least had the good sense to cut "Kill Bill" into two movies.
Comedies or simple, cliched stories do not need a runtime of more than two hours. And shame on you Hollywood filmmakers for shoving that kind of excess at me.
(Yes, I take it as a personal insult. Movies should be simple affairs, and unless you have a lot of characters to invest in, like "Magnolia" or "Watchmen" or have a lot of new, magnificent things to show me like "Avatar", don't waste my time. Cut the freaking fat or GTFO.)
Regards,
YNH
|
|
romeat50
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 131
Aug 27, 2008 22:34:55 GMT -4
|
Post by romeat50 on Jun 12, 2010 0:18:03 GMT -4
I agree about the excessive running times yournamehere. I liked the first Pirates of the Caribbean despite it being 10-15 minutes too long but it really annoyed me when the filmmakers made the sequels even longer. I don't get why they thought the series needed to be so long. I think the sequels would have been better if they made things simpler and cut down the length rather than expanding it.
|
|