MovieChat Forums > strangluv > Replies
strangluv's Replies
What 'mysteryjdc' posted above was right. Audrey was really the first girl that she bonded with on a more one-on-basis and like a 'girlfriend'. Andie by comparison was more of a friendly mutual acquaintance she knew through Pacey and Jack, but whom she never connected with more than superficially. And Jen - well, even if you could say they patched up their 'rivalry' for good, you can't say they became girlfriends. There was a mutual respect and trust that eventually grew from knowing each other for so long, but let's face it, Joey never fully embraced the idea of Jen as some kind of sisterly figure (even if Jen wanted it).
Audrey was unique, in that she was someone Joey got to first know as an individual (rather than through a group), and she just got to click with her like again, a 'girlfriend' despite her previous tomboy tendencies that usually inclined her toward more male friends. It was very different than her dynamic with the other girls.
Actually, I personally feel like the Joey-Audrey friendship was a bit contrived and hastily put together - like she was transparently rushed in there for Joey to finally get a female companion. Of course I never liked Audrey or felt like she fit in naturally with the cast or with the show's atmosphere. But this was also season 5, where the show was barely worth watching anymore. Still, Audrey WAS written as Joey's first real close female friend.
LOL. And now it's probably on the way as we speak.
Nate Richert is far less famous than Melissa, and he is not the 'Sabrina' of the show. Melissa is. That could MAYBE be why someone is focusing more on her looks. Additionally, whether your triggered feminist mind likes it or not, female sexual appeal is more based more in visuals, male appeal is based more in status. The fact that women are often given more looks emphasis is simply based in human biological design. You have an issue with it, you'd have take it up with nature - not some imaginary patriarchy you probably believe in.
That said, again, Melissa is the star of the show and therefore would receive more attention in discussions of a reboot (she was in every episode and Harvey was outright absent from like one and half seasons). I don't care about her looks, personally, but you also sound like a right hypocrite. You think it wrong and sexist for a woman to be criticized for her looks, yet without hesitation you make the bitchiest comments about Richert's looks. If you're so sensitive and want a world of equality, then shouldn't you be above trashing ANYONE'S looks? Funny thing is, from my own perspective he doesn't even look as awful you as claim. Looks like a pretty regular bald, middle aged guy - nothing 'hideous' there.
But...it's not like he was actually fixated on teens. He spent as much if not more time around the aunts, and besides, like even you said, he never perved out on Sabrina or any of her female friends. This is really over the top. Even if the cat is a manifestation of an adult man, doesn't mean he's automatically a sexual threat to teenage girls. I mean what else were they going to do with the Salem character? Have him cautiously steering clear of Sabrina all the time just because of her age?
LOL.
I know it's been a decade and I doubt the OP will notice, but I (very belatedly) discovered this clip as a result of rewatching PF on Hulu. I just love it, it's so well done! Great work.
Yes, it's the song playing in the biker bar right before the abuse of Cutshaw begins.
I just watched the movie and I'm wondering about this too. Tried Googling it by lyrics and nothing came up, nor anything on the soundtrack listing. Quite weird. Does ANYONE know anything about that bar song??
What I find interesting is the fact of her own sitcom being oft-observed for it's less than 'respectful' depiction of a demographic - the male sex. Wildly hateful generalizations uttered in almost every episode, denigration of dads. But, 'jokes' right? It's cute and 'for laughs'.
(She's also leveled false accusations of abuse against her father, FWIW. Not as a joke.)
She makes one weird misguided joke - about not a demographic but a person, which has [i]debatably[/i] racist undertones, but still obviously intended as a joke (in which she denies racist intentions) ... she's so unforgivably bigoted she doesn't deserve to work again. Despite her long established credentials in advocating for equality and diversity, something attested to by her peers (and which lends validity to her denial).
And I guess it didn't help that she was supporting a president people aren't supposed to like.
Just the usual incoherency of social justice culture.
So, do you think the producers read your post, or what? (Minus the immigrating part, of course.)
Can't believe no one came back and noticed this.
And the way she screamed at him in her usual theatrical manner, like if what her boss did wasn't pretty much EXACTLY what calls for boyfriend butt-whooping. Not that Mark was any paragon of virtue, but I think he was reacting like a pretty normal boyfriend here. Also, being a 'rough around the edges' kind of guy who obviously [i]attracted[/i] Becky for that reason, was she really expecting him to do nothing? (There's a reason she didn't marry David or Dean type.) Yet she acts so shocked, and essentially takes up for her despicable boss over her understandably protective boyfriend.
I could understand not wanting to lose the job, but was it that much of a life or death matter to being putting up with such nonsense from an asshole boss? She's like 16, under her parents' care and still in school, and surely that job isn't going to be her whole life. Even if her future prospects were of concern, losing one teenage supermarket job wasn't going to be the end of everything. It wasn't the last job left in Lawndale!
Idk, I can understand her being a little upset about it, but not THAT upset. There should've been a 'thank you' in there eventually.
"Conservatieve"? Geez, this post was as about pleasant to read as Roseanne Barr singing the national anthem is to hear.
[quote] - He was not an educated person, and didn't even attempt to go back to school. His way with words often included the words "ain't" [/quote]
Oh, the horror.
This word "conservatieve", I am gathering that it means simply anything that rubs you the wrong way? Very well if so, and although there is another word that comes to mind that's spelled somewhat similarly, it doesn't seem to fully meet the criteria you put out.
Still, your issue seems to come down mostly to the fact that Dan was an imperfect man, who struggled with many things, and apparently that he spoke in a manner different from say, Frasier Crane. Still, this sounds suspiciously like almost every other character on the show, given the environment. (And like a lot of normal blue collar men in real life.) He wasn't an abuser, deadbeat, adulterer, bully, drug addict or ever had real hate in his heart. He could be temperamental, a bit less than cultured, he ate a poor diet, wasn't always on the same page as his kids - but then those kids weren't exactly angels, were they? Then there's his lovely wife, who well...need we get into it? (Add both his sister and mother-in law to that and see how you'd turn out!)
He had his problems, for sure, he also had a lot to deal with, but nothing that was irredeemable. You leave out the fact that worked hard, was a faithful husband and caring father, helped people he cared about when they were in trouble and had a killer sense of humor.
We must understand that "the issue is never really the issue..." It isn't really about Friends or about the time period it came out in. Big Bang Theory, which is like the closest thing to a 'new Friends' even though it just ended, has been routinely criticized for being 'problematic', and trust me this consensus will only worsen among these critics. These critics I refer to are of course not normal people like you and I, but those insufferable naggers we all know who live to be offended. (Those whom indeed once dubbed themselves 'woke' but now even chastise YOU for calling them that.)
Friends might seem like a show that was harmless and even pretty liberal in its time (a lesbian wedding in the first season FFS!), a show that to NORMAL people to would be hard to understand as 'offensive'. But anything made that long ago will just too obviously trigger the type of people who look to be triggered. Between a show considered to be offensive even back its own day and which tried to be so, like Married with Children, and lighthearted fare like Friends, there's virtually no difference in the eyes of woke scolds. If it's old, it's offensive just by having existed. HOWEVER, these people can easily watch anything on the air right now and also become offended, unless its something that makes painstaking efforts to be woke-adjacent (which is why non-woke-adjacent content are getting harder to find). -Actually no, even the most woke content can still offend wokies. They throw liberals from 25 years ago like the Friends creators under the bus, and why stop there?
Sure they'll respond to offensive content in old programs by often telling us "Thank God how far we've come", but on the other hand these same people aggressively bemoan the systemic systems of systemical oppressions that seemingly just CANNOT be overcome even now. Lest someone THEY disagree with mention how far we've come, they will quickly decry how NOT far enough we've come for it to matter. It is all about their need to force everyone to adhere entirely to whatever their views proper thinking are at any given moment (which is a rapidly changing thing and very deliberately so). It is about forcing blind compliance and allowing themselves to feel like they're in total control. It may seem easier to have offended them 20 years ago without trying to, but you can almost just as easily do so now without trying to.
There is no winning, as they are just waiting with bated breath for the opportunity to correct you, reprimand you, cancel you. They live for these opportunities to scold you in the name of signaling their high-minded superiority. Because so often throughout their own personal lives, they have felt weak and utterly powerless. They were and still are, weak people, which is why the seek power.
Truly, these people must be pushed back on. They are approaching something even Orwell couldn't have imagined. We should ignore, disregard and RIDICULE them while we still can, because believe it or not, these fighting tactics actually work. Also, take comfort in enjoying watching whatever the hell you want, because you're in a luckier place than they are to not be cursed by this need to work yourself up into self-righteous rage over entertainment.
Yeah, for me it went straight to advanced stage. I suspect I have maybe a month left.
^Yes, this.
You sure are pathetic.
I agree, though I have to say the millennial generation WERE exposed to a TV landscape of laugh track sitcoms growing up. They are children of the 90s after all, who were experiencing it in both sitcoms of this era [i]and[/i] the thousands of reruns from older eras (Nick at Nite anyone?). It just seems like people nowadays are pretending they don't really remember them. Even much older TV viewers are exhibiting this behavior.
I can kind of understand finding audience laughter a bit irritating and sometimes distractingly overdone, but more as a mild passing annoyance than something actually infuriating. Like for me I'm just too used to it from so much of the TV I watched growing up to be so phased let alone viscerally disturbed by it. The way some are so vocal in their outrage makes them sound like they're ragging on a new TV trend rather than one of the oldest/longest existing ones in TV history, widespread enough through the likes of old reruns over the decades that there's little excuse for virtually any TV viewer to be overreacting to it.
[i]where at the end of the day it's all the same dull, reactionary conservatism.[/i]
Which somehow we've gotten to the point that one could have their professional or personal life ruined for openly expressing. Because of that muh 'enlightenment' that you're a cockroach (or NAHZEE) for mildly disagreeing with. And nice try, but it's very hard to top being more offended than someone who cries at being 'misgendered', or claims yoga is a form of white cultural oppression or that video games are 'misogynistic and unwelcoming' for having attractive women in them.
"Not all media is going to conform to the view that cross dressing is insanity especially in this day and age."
Of course not, for better or worse. Funny thing though, is that approved media narratives (or so-called 'enlightened' culture) don't necessarily reflect how the majority of people think and feel. And these 'masses' have a right to their thoughts..
"And to add, it's ironic to be triggered by a fictitious show and affirming that it does damage"
It's not being 'triggered' to disapprove of intentional assaults on accustomed-to norms. You could call it being offended, but the newer concept of 'triggered' goes deeper than that (which your side should already know, it originated with you). Expressing a critical opinion is different from screeching for something (or someONE) to be censored/shut down(/fired) accompanied by apologies that won't be accepted.
We can see that our baby crossdressing prime time sitcom character (whom would be nowhere to be found just ten years ago) has shown up without threat of sabotage from less than receptive viewing audiences.
"by Neo-Nazi assholes who were broadcasting live from their mother's basement."
*eyeroll* That good old 'enlightenment', any wonder everyone is not on board.
[i]BTW it doesn't take a made up to shut down everything that upsets me down term like "SWJ" to hate Trump. [/i]
It's "SJW", first of all. Second of all, what??