[Cause]

QuickTidal, on 17 August 2026 - 12:27 PM, said:

Cause, on 11 August 2026 - 07:23 PM, said:

Spiderman Brand new Day was a fun movie. I enjoyed it.

The ending though:

Spoiler

felt Surreal. I actually wondered if a dying spiderman was having a dream sequence or if Jean was maybe trying to give him an ideal vision as he died.

He never dies. She breathes for him the first time sitting beside him in the building where he fell. They make a point to show her doing it.


The punisher gets to a dying spiderman who its established was a mile away, gets him to a hospital, and strolls in without a care.

Jean breathes for him there whole time, so the time it takes Frank to get to him doesn't matter.


He doesnt wear a mask, is presumably a highly wanted and dangerous fugitive.

Who? Frank? Yes technically he is, BUT the context is important here. Detective DeWolff is on Spider-man's side throughout the film, and as such Frank's connection to Spider-Man and him being the one who brought him in would stay DeWolff's (and therefore the department's) hand on apprehending him. There is also the fact that Wilson Fisk's Anti-vigilante task force (who are mainly the ones who wanted Frank) has been disbanded as of the end of DD:BA Season 2 and Fisk stepped down as Mayor. So whoever is in charge of NYC is not longer really as interested in Frank. But mostly, it's DeWolff's influence that would keep the law at bay...the Hospital staff don't care, they are interested in saving Peter's life not Frank Castle.


Then a period of time that's hard to establish passes, enough time for a crowd to gather and for spideys room to get filled with flowers and cards. Punisher apparently made sure no one snuck a look at Spideys secret identity and he is snoozing on the couch next to spideys bed in the hospital. So do they not know he is the punisher or is the whole Hopsital agreeing to not just call the cops?

No one in the hospital would know who Frank was. His Punisher identity is not a wide open thing...only the Anti-vigilante task force cared, and they are disbanded. The Regular cops have not put up his face on TV or the papers. There is also a deleted scene with Claire Temple (the Night Nurse from DD) showing her making sure they worked around his mask...and HIPPAA laws still exist in the MCU I think.

Also how did the punisher shoot into a secure room without windows?

Huh? Jean Grey telekinetically blew everything out in the previous scenes. The whole side of the building is missing in the entire scene while she and Peter are in his head. Frank just shoots through the hole.

I got you.

See red answers.

Spoiler

HIPA laws sure but gunshots are also a mandatory report.

I’m not familiar with the daredevil tv series stuff. Still the punisher is a mass murderer even if he murders criminals. Im sure the regular cops are still interested. I also think given spider man, jean grey, the hulk and damage controls involvement ie the whole movie the fbi, cia, shield, sword or whatever else goes on the mcu would show up.

I mean we can hand wave away anything if we want to, the man has the powers of a spider. I’m not gonna get too hung up on this but the ending had a very strange surreal feeling for me. It just did.

[QuickTidal]

I get you, I just felt the movie explained it enough...considering movie-logic to boot. I think DeWolff being a police detective completely on Peter's side is a big part of that ending but YMMV.

[Tsundoku]

From Laika Studios (Coraline, ParaNorman, Kubo and the two strings):



https://www.laika.com/our-films/

In development:
"LAIKA’s President and CEO Travis Knight (Kubo and the Two Strings, Bumblebee) will direct the stop-motion adaptation of the international bestselling fantasy novel Piranesi by Susanna Clarke, with a screenplay by renowned screenwriter Dave Kajganich (Bones and All, Suspiria). With over four million copies sold and from the New York Times bestselling author of Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, Piranesi is an intoxicating, hypnotic novel set in a dreamlike alternative reality."

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 21 August 2026 - 08:15 AM

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Well, shit! Guess I have to read Piranesi now — it's been sitting on my shelf, unread, for far too long.

[QuickTidal]

So I saw this trailer in front of THE ODYSSEY and I thought, MAN this looks really good! Plus Andrew Garfield is always amazing. So I was already excited to see it....

But now I've found out that it's actually a Robin Hood origin story that was originally titled THE RISE OF ROBIN HOOD?

I'm even more in now. I like Robin Hood stories as much as I like Arthur stories

[polishgenius]

I like Robin Hood stories but I think linking his legend to a real historical person and series of events that definitely had nothing to do with Robin Hood and the rise of that legend is a weird choice.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 27 August 2026 - 02:39 PM, said:

I like Robin Hood stories but I think linking his legend to a real historical person and series of events that definitely had nothing to do with Robin Hood and the rise of that legend is a weird choice.

Except that's not true.

The Peasants Revolt (Wat Tyler's rebellion) of 1381 (thus after the Black Death and DURING the Hundred Years War) apparently DID originally inspire the Robin Hood legend...and it wasn't until said legend was rewritten in 1521 that the story was pushed back to take place in 1190's and involve the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart, Prince John, ect. to be more "romantic"

EDIT: I spoke to a historian buddy about it yesterday.

#TheMoreYouKnow

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 27 August 2026 - 02:47 PM

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 27 August 2026 - 02:46 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 27 August 2026 - 02:39 PM, said:

I like Robin Hood stories but I think linking his legend to a real historical person and series of events that definitely had nothing to do with Robin Hood and the rise of that legend is a weird choice.

Except that's not true.

The Peasants Revolt (Wat Tyler's rebellion) of 1381 (thus after the Black Death and DURING the Hundred Years War) apparently DID originally inspire the Robin Hood legend...and it wasn't until said legend was rewritten in 1521 that the story was pushed back to take place in 1190's and involve the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart, Prince John, ect. to be more "romantic"

EDIT: I spoke to a historian buddy about it yesterday.

#TheMoreYouKnow

I can't really speak to what sources your friend has and I'm not a historian, but while his first known appearances being in the 1300s and it only being later pushed back is a known thing, I've never ever heard his origins linked to Wat Tyler- and a quick scan over wikipedia now tells me that the earliest known mentions of him- in passing but in a manner that says it was already a known story orally then- predates the Peasants Revolt.

I suppose it's plausible that at some point or another some details from that did get added to the legend, but nothing specific about Tyler and the revolt lines up with the tropes of Robin Hood, except that resistance to authority and societal injustice is involved.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 27 August 2026 - 04:20 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 27 August 2026 - 02:46 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 27 August 2026 - 02:39 PM, said:

I like Robin Hood stories but I think linking his legend to a real historical person and series of events that definitely had nothing to do with Robin Hood and the rise of that legend is a weird choice.

Except that's not true.

The Peasants Revolt (Wat Tyler's rebellion) of 1381 (thus after the Black Death and DURING the Hundred Years War) apparently DID originally inspire the Robin Hood legend...and it wasn't until said legend was rewritten in 1521 that the story was pushed back to take place in 1190's and involve the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart, Prince John, ect. to be more "romantic"

EDIT: I spoke to a historian buddy about it yesterday.

#TheMoreYouKnow

I can't really speak to what sources your friend has and I'm not a historian, but while his first known appearances being in the 1300s and it only being later pushed back is a known thing, I've never ever heard his origins linked to Wat Tyler- and a quick scan over wikipedia now tells me that the earliest known mentions of him- in passing but in a manner that says it was already a known story orally then- predates the Peasants Revolt.

I suppose it's plausible that at some point or another some details from that did get added to the legend, but nothing specific about Tyler and the revolt lines up with the tropes of Robin Hood, except that resistance to authority and societal injustice is involved.

I actually think it makes vastly more sense as an origin: Post-Black Plague trauma, and levies against the peasants for the Hundred Years War (they didn't ask for) by the king would be a much better push for someone to organize and rebel against the nobility/king than a noble coming back from the Crusades had his land grabbed by the Prince and Sheriff...so it works for me.

[Macros]

But is anyone's heart cut out with a spoon?

[QuickTidal]

Macros, on 27 August 2026 - 04:57 PM, said:

But is anyone's heart cut out with a spoon?

why a spoon?

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 27 August 2026 - 04:36 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 27 August 2026 - 04:20 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 27 August 2026 - 02:46 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 27 August 2026 - 02:39 PM, said:

I like Robin Hood stories but I think linking his legend to a real historical person and series of events that definitely had nothing to do with Robin Hood and the rise of that legend is a weird choice.

Except that's not true.

The Peasants Revolt (Wat Tyler's rebellion) of 1381 (thus after the Black Death and DURING the Hundred Years War) apparently DID originally inspire the Robin Hood legend...and it wasn't until said legend was rewritten in 1521 that the story was pushed back to take place in 1190's and involve the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart, Prince John, ect. to be more "romantic"

EDIT: I spoke to a historian buddy about it yesterday.

#TheMoreYouKnow

I can't really speak to what sources your friend has and I'm not a historian, but while his first known appearances being in the 1300s and it only being later pushed back is a known thing, I've never ever heard his origins linked to Wat Tyler- and a quick scan over wikipedia now tells me that the earliest known mentions of him- in passing but in a manner that says it was already a known story orally then- predates the Peasants Revolt.

I suppose it's plausible that at some point or another some details from that did get added to the legend, but nothing specific about Tyler and the revolt lines up with the tropes of Robin Hood, except that resistance to authority and societal injustice is involved.

I actually think it makes vastly more sense as an origin: Post-Black Plague trauma, and levies against the peasants for the Hundred Years War (they didn't ask for) by the king would be a much better push for someone to organize and rebel against the nobility/king than a noble coming back from the Crusades had his land grabbed by the Prince and Sheriff...so it works for me.

I don't mind it at all as an origin story and setting for Robin Hood. I'm just not sure about making him into Wat Tyler, specifically.

[Tsundoku]

QuickTidal, on 27 August 2026 - 05:22 PM, said:

Macros, on 27 August 2026 - 04:57 PM, said:

But is anyone's heart cut out with a spoon?

why a spoon?

BECAUSE IT HURTS MORE!

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 27 August 2026 - 06:25 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 27 August 2026 - 04:36 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 27 August 2026 - 04:20 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 27 August 2026 - 02:46 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 27 August 2026 - 02:39 PM, said:

I like Robin Hood stories but I think linking his legend to a real historical person and series of events that definitely had nothing to do with Robin Hood and the rise of that legend is a weird choice.

Except that's not true.

The Peasants Revolt (Wat Tyler's rebellion) of 1381 (thus after the Black Death and DURING the Hundred Years War) apparently DID originally inspire the Robin Hood legend...and it wasn't until said legend was rewritten in 1521 that the story was pushed back to take place in 1190's and involve the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart, Prince John, ect. to be more "romantic"

EDIT: I spoke to a historian buddy about it yesterday.

#TheMoreYouKnow

I can't really speak to what sources your friend has and I'm not a historian, but while his first known appearances being in the 1300s and it only being later pushed back is a known thing, I've never ever heard his origins linked to Wat Tyler- and a quick scan over wikipedia now tells me that the earliest known mentions of him- in passing but in a manner that says it was already a known story orally then- predates the Peasants Revolt.

I suppose it's plausible that at some point or another some details from that did get added to the legend, but nothing specific about Tyler and the revolt lines up with the tropes of Robin Hood, except that resistance to authority and societal injustice is involved.

I actually think it makes vastly more sense as an origin: Post-Black Plague trauma, and levies against the peasants for the Hundred Years War (they didn't ask for) by the king would be a much better push for someone to organize and rebel against the nobility/king than a noble coming back from the Crusades had his land grabbed by the Prince and Sheriff...so it works for me.

I don't mind it at all as an origin story and setting for Robin Hood. I'm just not sure about making him into Wat Tyler, specifically.

He’s not.

Tyler is being played by Comso Jarvis.

[polishgenius]

Fair enough.

I guess I just assumed from the description of 'Garfield is the leader of the rebellion' that he was, you know, the leader of the rebellion, but that's marketing for you. If he's not playing Tyler that makes the project a lot more palatable.

[QuickTidal]

Watched some older movies I've never seen but have always wanted to.

NIGHT SHIFT - this one is great, and Winkler and Keaton bounce off each other well. Shelly long is also great in it, but it's hard post-CHEERS/FRASIER to see her as anyone but some variation of Diane Chambers. Had no idea it was a Ron Howard film, nor that Burt Bacharach did the score. Anyways, lots of fun.

THE WOMAN IN RED - The poster for this movie is INDELIBLY inked on my brain from my youth, I would see it in theatres and amongst the few other things that gave birth to me libido (Lea Thompson in Howard the Duck being the other major one)...Kelly LeBrock (who I didn't know at the time) in the red dress being blown around by some unseen wind...I was 7 but sufficed to say this movie always fascinated me. Anyways, I love Gene Wilder, he's funny as hell usually. And bonus this had Gilda Radner in it too. But the content? Woof. A bunch of dudes who cheat on their significant others convincing the lead guy that he should pursue some model whose underwear he saw when her dress blew up over a subway grate...like wait what? Like he spends the whole movie (while his friends lives are collapsing due to their cheating) trying like hell to lie to his wife, kids, and everyone else in pursuit of sex with this stranger...who eventually wants him to pursue her...only to learn as he's in bed with her that she's married too...and the closing moments of the movie is him on a ledge going "Oh, what am I doing? I'm a happily married man!" and then jumping to the waiting firemen below and as he falls he sees a hot news woman smiling at him and he thinks about this stuff all over again....I mean....are you okay....Gene Wilder? What a strange ass movie....like zero morals unless you count the men getting caught for their transgressions? But that feels like it's not as prevalent as it should be? also the comedy was constantly overkill. Gene Wilder comedy is subtle (if at times loud)...but this was "Hey Hammer the same joke home over and over and over again....that will make it funnier!"....no."

Ugh.

It DOES, however, make me want to see the original French film Wilder based his script on, Pardon Mon Affaire...as I hear it's leaps and bounds better.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 11 September 2026 - 11:44 AM

[QuickTidal]

We watched all three of the BACK TO THE FUTURE movies with the kids and they loved them...but it allowed me as a long time fan to pick out my two favourite scenes in the movies.

The first is in the first movie, when Marty is in 1955 and has basically allowed his own mom to glom onto him as a crush and he comes back to Docs place in the garage with the deLorean talking about their plans. Doc is wearing his goggles on the top of his head and his hair is wild out the back. Lorraine shows up and Doc covers the DeLorean....she comes in and has convo with Marty about if he might invite her to the dance. Doc walks around in the back of the scene giving Marty raised eyebrows and quizzical looks as he realizes that she's crushing on her own son...it is a MASTERCLASS by the comedically trained Christopher Lloyd in giving an incredibly communicative performance (to the audience and Marty) without uttering a word. It's SO good. HERE if you want to see what I'm talking about.

MY other fave scene is at the end of BTTF 2 when they basically show you the ending of the first film again, and then Doc dancing down through the fire trails left by Marty leaving and hollering about their success...he smiles and turns to the side as the music gently stops as it did in that first film...only for the score to CRASH back in and BTTF 2 Marty comes careening around the corner and bolts towards 1955 Doc....it's not like they tried to change what happened, they let the end of BTTF play out exactly how it did, and just when the scene should cut it grabs everyone and yanks them back into the frame. Just chefs kiss.

Runner up moment is a few minutes earlier when Joe Flaherty's Western Union delivery guy gives Marty the letter from 1885 and he goes "Hey are you okay kid? You need any help?" and Marty just goes "there's only one man who can help me"...fist pump worthy.

And HERE are both those moments too.

[Tiste Simeon]

It does make me wonder how Marty's mum felt in the 80s when she sees her son begin to look exactly like this dude she used to have a crush on. Might be a bit trippy.

[QuickTidal]

Tiste Simeon, on 21 September 2026 - 02:15 PM, said:

It does make me wonder how Marty's mum felt in the 80s when she sees her son begin to look exactly like this dude she used to have a crush on. Might be a bit trippy.

Right?! Although to be fair, I would have a hard time remembering someone from high school who I knew for a few days and never saw again 30 years later.

Also, this movie and Howard the Duck produced my very first ever crush, Lea Thompson.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 21 September 2026 - 04:02 PM

[QuickTidal]

Look, I hate Tarantino...I have hated Tarantino for a long time....whether it's his liberal use of the N Word in his films under the guise of art, or his near CONSTANT cribbing of superior asian films from the middle of the 20th century down to scenes and shots. He does this knowing that MOST of his western audience will not know that Kill Bill is just Lady Snowblood dressed in white American trappings, or that he's not just homaging Shaw Bros. films, but aping them entirely and casting people from them to hide the fact that he's a mediocre copier and not some film genius. He's a former Video Store employee who happened to strike it big by making a grindhouse style crime film at JUST the right time in there 90's when "gritty" came back in. His repeated asinine moments in interviews, or on the street where he's a dick to pretty much everyone. And lastly his undying love of the war criminal from that country...

I don't like him.

I hated ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA....not because it was just a boilerplate story couched in and around the Tate events...but because of his MASSIVE disrespect of Bruce Lee. He took a massive asian acting and martial arts hero (someone who basically kicked off western attention to films coming out of the east...a genre he has spent his entire career profiting off of) and turned him into a cocky joke that his "WWII war hero white guy" could beat down. Shannon Lee was accurately mad about this fact. I was too. Using an actual famous martial fighter as a bouncing board for your stupid attempt to show your lead character is a badass is a crutch. He could have built that legend in a thousand different ways that would NOT have disparaged the memory of a king in the eastern and western film industry. But no, he chose tearing down Lee instead.

Anyways, when I heard David Fincher was making a sequel to OUATIA I was like ...oh good, maybe they will get someone else to write it an d it could be decent...but no such luck, Tarantino insisted on writing it....so OF COURSE they bring up the Bruce Lee thing in the new tailer and of course Fincher put it at the top of the trailer.

Ugh. Fuck Tarantino, and fuck Fincher too for not pushing back on that in the script.

Anyways, it doesn't look good.