USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
TV 20 - Sorry no fancy title
- Thread starter Slap Shot
- Start date
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
40 years ago, Double Dare premiered on TV.
When I was a kid, I wanted to dig around in slime to find a flag.
Now the physical challenge is just getting off the floor without a plan.
When I was a kid, I wanted to dig around in slime to find a flag.
Now the physical challenge is just getting off the floor without a plan.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Watched Malcolm in the Middle again.
Bryan Cranston went from Sitcom Dad to Walter White.
Bryan Cranston went from Sitcom Dad to Walter White.
Kepler
I loafe and invite my soul
Two episodes into East of Eden; it might not suck (yet).
It's hard to imagine a book that deep and philosophical not being utterly soiled by television, but so far at least it's been cromulent. The actors playing Charlie and Cathy are outstanding.
I'm not sure the director understood the book, given some of his choices. If he really means to imply Cathy was abused* as a child, that is utter horseshit and cowardice. The ENTIRE point of the book is some evil is innate. It does not spring from events or conditions. It is not contingent, it is sui generis. So if that is the intent then that choice is an ignoble and ridiculous betrayal of Steinbeck and should be horse laughed out of the room.
* I suspect it was a deliberate tactical choice, playing to a contemporary audience the director did not feel was grown up enough to handle an irredeemably evil female character. That's sad but it may have been a smart marketing choice given the preponderance of small brains.
It's hard to imagine a book that deep and philosophical not being utterly soiled by television, but so far at least it's been cromulent. The actors playing Charlie and Cathy are outstanding.
I'm not sure the director understood the book, given some of his choices. If he really means to imply Cathy was abused* as a child, that is utter horseshit and cowardice. The ENTIRE point of the book is some evil is innate. It does not spring from events or conditions. It is not contingent, it is sui generis. So if that is the intent then that choice is an ignoble and ridiculous betrayal of Steinbeck and should be horse laughed out of the room.
* I suspect it was a deliberate tactical choice, playing to a contemporary audience the director did not feel was grown up enough to handle an irredeemably evil female character. That's sad but it may have been a smart marketing choice given the preponderance of small brains.
Last edited: