Big Blue Huddle

Talk

In my early 20s I was in a bar with some male friends, and somewhat drunk (albeit not completely bombed) and some guy bumped into me (or I bumped into him). He gave me the usual "why don't you watch where you're going buddy" type of remark, with a facial expression suggesting he was happy to escalate the situation. Instead of just moving on, I got back in his face. I'm 6'2" and have a reasonably square build, but this guy was massive. He had to be 6'5" and easily 270 or more. He was on the heavier side, but clearly very strong. In short, he would have absolutely pummeled me, and he seemed drunk too, so it could have been bad. For whatever reason though I was determined not to back down. Eventually he just moderately shoved me and walked away. He didn't do that out of any sort of fear either, as he was unquestionably going to be the prohibitive favorite in any physical escalation. He was much bigger and just looked and seemed tougher (he had a bit of a thug type persona).

A friend of mine told me later the bouncer told him the guy had been in trouble for fighting/assault before and probably didn't want more trouble. Otherwise a fight would have definitely ensued, and given the state of mind I was in at the time I'm pretty sure I would have been hurt, possibly badly. It was very dumb on my part, and needless to say I have never behaved like that again since in the ensuing 2.5 decades.

Quote from: LennG on October 09, 2021, 07:37:52 PM
This afternoon I got to watch this movie.

I can't say I really liked it, but I did like it better than Dave did. I agree with him on some of the points he made, the movie was choppy and if you were a fan of the Sopranos on TV, I can see where the script of this was nowhere near even a bad episode of the TV series. But that said, I found the younger characters of the series, like the younger characters in The Godfather, to be nicely played. There is a lot of violence, as was the series, mucho cursing et al. If you were a fan of the TV series, this is a must-watch and you have to determine how much you liked, or did not like, this movie.

I LOVED the music of the movie

Couple of questions for you Dave. As I said, it has been quite a while since I watched the TV series and really only saw it in its entirety once. So

If I am correct, Tony never had a father in the TV series--what happened to him as the movie didn't say very much about him?
The Black fellow, Harold, was he in the TV series at all?
Personally, I didn't like the ending of this unless this plays into the TV series later on, that Harold got away with the murder and showed him living the 'high' life at the very end. Again, was he part of the TV series?
And the uncle who was in jail, I don't remember his name, was he in the TV series also? Personally, I think his entire character was wasted here as really, he added limited value to the entire movie.

Overall, since I do love these gangster genre movies, I would give it a B or B- or 3 stars out of 5.

AND, I would add, you could watch this as a stand-alone movie, but like Better Call Saul in relation to Breaking bad, it does add so much more that you know the characters beforehand.

PS--I LOVED when Sil's haorpiece came off and he had to readjust it. Something that never happened in the TV series (I think)

Lenn,

Tony's father is not an active character in the series, as he is dead by then, although there are a number of episodes that show flashbacks, where he is of course played by a different actor.

Tony's father died in the mid 80s from lung cancer or emphysema. At that point, Tony takes over as head of his father's "crew", which included Silvio, Paulie, and Big Pussy.

The black character was never mentioned in the series, nor did the uncle in jail. I fully agree that the uncle in jail was a wasted opportunity as a character. I felt the same way about Tony's father (he had infinitely more personality in the show) and to some extent Junior.

I agree that the younger actors did a strong job.

In the series, Dickie Moltisanti was said to have been a drug addict, which never came up in the movie.

There are definitely some good points to the movie, and I have no regrets for watching it. I just can't say I thought it was particularly good overall.

Quote from: LennG on October 08, 2021, 03:19:30 PM
I want to try and watch this. Do you have to be 'up' on the Sopranos to really 'get' this movie?

It has been quite a while since I watched the Soprano's so ty has been fuzzed up a bit.

Funny, I mentioned that our cable provider, Optimum, gave us a free weekend of HBO a couple of weeks ago. I guess, in anticipation of this new movie. They were showing the Sopranos from season 1 thru its conclusion. I wish I had the time to rewatch it all but I did watch a couple of episodes and really realize how great this show was. I happen to watch the episode when Paulie and Christopher went out into the snow-covered woods to dispose of a body that wasn't all dead yet. They got lost and had to hold up in some beaten old truck and Bobby and Tony had to rescue them. If you just tuned it in and saw that show, you would scratch your head thinking what is all the fuss about, but knowing the characters, Paulie, Christopher, Bobby, etc. made it truly a great watch and so typical of the entire series.
I do really need to rewatch the entire thing.

Lenn,

I would say you don't need to remember the Sopranos in great detail to watch this movie, although you should know who the main characters are. If you don't, you can still watch it and follow along, but you'll get more out of it if you recall the main characters.

Putting Saints of Newark aside, I strongly recommend re-watching the Sopranos if you haven't watched it since around the time it came out. I have recommended this to a number of people, and they have all been very happy that they did. It is by far my favorite show of all time, and there are so many details in it that are incredible that you will notice more on a second viewing. In my opinion, it is as entertaining as anything ever put on television, and that remains the case today despite all the stuff that has come out since. It would be well worth the investment of the time to watch it again. I am confident you will find the second viewing highly enjoyable. You might find yourself binging even.

Quote from: LennG on October 07, 2021, 12:19:00 PM
I am not embarrassed to say I used to get Playboy delivered for quite a while. Sure the nude ladies were a treat, and the old joke was 'Yes I get it for the articles" but that was also true for me. I loved most of the interviews in every issue and Playboy was very progressive about certain things and, at that time, had a lot of power, and they used it to make changes in norms, etc. It was more than just some dirty old man', Hefner', sitting in his tower, having all these lovely ladies all around him. Maybe I am the only one, but I did enjoy Playboy for its cartoons, its stance on many issues, and, yes, its articles and stories.

I totally believe that. Many of their readers had the same stance you did. Heck, my wife even used to read it, as she was in the publishing business and thought the articles and cartoons were excellent.

And let's face it, if one's sole motivation were erotic content, then there are (and have long been) much more explicit things out there than Playboy.

Just to circle back with my thoughts on this movie (please stop reading here if you don't want anything spoiled):

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




I thought it was just ok. In fact, relative to my hopes and expectations, I thought it was rather disappointing. I felt the acting was strong overall, excellent in some cases, and things like the set design, cinematography, costume design, etc were all really good. All of the above carried the movie to some degree.

What I didn't like was the disjointed pacing that was all over the place and the lack of any real central plot. It was kind of just a meandering mess jumping from scene to scene without ever really drawing you in. I found that aspect of it really disappointing. I also thought the writing and quality of the dialogue was just fair at best and could have been so much better. This was a movie I wanted to like so badly but just couldn't.

It's a bummer, but anyone going into watching this hoping to be entertained to anywhere remotely near the degree that we were by "The Sopranos" is in for a major disappointment. I would go in expecting to watch an average at best mafia movie set in the late 60s/early 70s and leave it at that.

There are some good aspects to this film, like the things I already mentioned. The music is also good and thoughtfully curated. And some of these younger actors that play the young version of Paulie, Sil, and Big Pussy do a really commendable job. It's not a total bust of a movie. But it really needed to be edited and written better, and the plot needed to be tighter and more interesting. Unfortunately it fails on these fronts. My overall grade is a C-. I wish I could say it was better than that, but I can't.

Quote from: MightyGiants on October 06, 2021, 01:03:02 PM
Is Playboy even a thing anymore?

I mean print magazines are dead

Print girlie magazines are dead

So what exactly is Playboy doing and who and how are those products being consumed?

I am pretty certain they completely stopped print and are entirely online now. I would assume they charge for subscriptions and make their revenue that way as well as from advertisers, like any other online publication these days.

I don't know if there is still a "Playboy Channel" on TV, but there was at one stage. That may or may not still exist.

Either way I'm fairly certain they are an online publication now just like anything else that has pivoted from print to online.

I do get the point though that why would anyone pay for Playboy online when there is an unlimited supply of erotic material online that is both free and more graphic, but I guess the answer to that is that Playboy is, and has been, more than just pictures of nude women. It has always been higher brow than and different from other adult magazines, so perhaps they have subscribers that also want to read non-sexual articles that they have been accustomed to getting from the magazine over the years. I have always thought Playboy was a bit like a GQ or even a Vanity Fair that happened to also have pictures of nude women. It was never just straight up smut.

Obviously they can do whatever the hell they please, but I don't understand this from a business perspective. Aren't the majority of Playboy's readers heterosexual males that enjoy the occasional good article but mostly like looking at pics of women? How does a gay man fit into the equation. Since when is that Playboy's audience?

Quote from: LennG on September 29, 2021, 06:53:01 PM
Let me say this again, or ask it, If Oswald was alive and serving his sentence for killing JFK, would you recommend him for parole after 40 years?

No, I would not. I consider first degree murder very different from attempted murder though.

Quote from: LennG on September 29, 2021, 04:37:45 PM
Sometimes, in a word YES.

Certain crimes should be life imprisonment, without ever being eligible for parole. That is the next step when the death penalty was abolished?

I understand the point you are making, 40 years is enough, MAYBE for a non-murder, but for a crime, especially one that is so grievous or against say the President, sorry, but I still believe that not being put to death, but serving the rest of your life in prison, is the way it should be. Harsh, maybe, but it needs to be done.

I am all for reform also, but not for specific cases. Guys rob banks, do dastardly deeds, even rape, in the end, there is no family saying that their loved one has no chance for getting out and enjoying some part of their lives, but the guy who murdered them now can. I find this wrong.

I hear what you're saying. I still think life in prison without even the possibility of parole for an attempted murder is extreme. I believe in a firm stance on crime and punishment, but there are limits. I don't want the US to be Singapore.

As for giving harsher sentences for attempting to kill certain kinds of people, I have a hard time institutionally valuing one human life more than another. If you're going to have a very harsh sentence for the attempted murder of a president, what about a vice president? Supreme court justice? Pope? What about a nobel prize winning doctor or scientist? How about a war vet? How about a fireman who has saved children from burning buildings? The President is an important, valuable person, but he or she is not the only living being worthy of such a description. I think when you start getting into the game of deciding whose life is worth what and trying to coordinate prison sentences accordingly, you get yourself into a pretty thick swamp of moral ambiguity and judgment pretty quickly. Also, who exactly has the power to make those decisions about whose life is worth what? Is that done by Congress? If so, that sounds crazy to me.

I certainly understand your viewpoint, but the idea of life in prison without the possibility for parole for attempted murder seems extreme to me. He's been locked up for 40 years for attempted murder. Surely it would have been less than that if it were anyone other than a President or someone of similar stature like the Pope, so he has already done extra time given who the victim was.

I'm not justifying what he did in any way, but 40 years seems sufficient to me for a crime that did not kill anyone or violate children in any way. There have been plenty of criminals who have been released from prison for worse crimes that caused much more death and suffering and did more damage. For example, should serial child sex abusers get treated better than this guy? How about someone like Robert Chambers, the preppy murderer who strangled a young woman to death in Central Park? How about traitors like Chrisotpher Boyce and Daulton Lee who sold high level government secrets to the Russians for cash? All of the above have been released from prison despite their crimes, some quite some time ago.

Should we just automatically lock everyone up forever who did anything really bad, with zero chance of ever getting out? I'm not sure I agree with that.

Quote from: tomeee on September 23, 2021, 04:16:01 PM
Pink Floyd to answer the OP question.

Grateful Dead

Marshall Tucker Band

Allman Bros

Outlaws

Lynyrd Skynyrd

Santana

Neil Young

Jackson Brown

I can go on and on. I have seen literally 100's of concerts inclding all of the above

Great list.

No Doobie Bros?

I recommend "Impeachment: An American Crime Story."

Excellent re-enactment of the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton scandal. It is told mainly from Lewinsky's perspective. Seems very well done so far. Has very good actors like Sarah Paulson and Clive Owen, among others. It is on the FX channel here in NY. Episode three is tonight at 10pm.

The argument that the only reason there is a scientific consensus is because all the scientists have been paid off by the government sounds like QAnon type stuff to me.

Apparently there was no obvious reason why the father should have been on this remote and somewhat out of the way road. If that's the case, this may have been an intended meeting that went bad. I think we can safely assume that the shooting of the father is linked to the deaths of his wife and son. If not, that would be an almost impossible coincidence.

So assuming they're linked, I see three possibilities here:

1. The father was actually the intended target in the first killing, plus maybe his son. Presumably for revenge against the son's actions and the father's attempts to cover them up.

2. The father was involved in something illegal or very shady and was in over his head or otherwise seen to be a liability somehow. The bad guys killed his family to send him a message, but they then decided that that wasn't enough and that he also had to die.

3. The father actually paid to have his family killed (maybe there was another woman in his life, maybe he saw his son as too much of a liability), and whoever the killer was got nervous that the father would reveal him in a police investigation, so he wanted to cover his own tracks. Perhaps this was a meeting to discuss the options and the killer got nervous and decided to just kill him (but didn't hit him cleanly).


I think 1 is the most likely by far, but one cannot rule out two or three. Of course, it may also have been random, but that seems exceptionally unlikely.