#i dislike scorcese | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wonderfulworldofmichaelford · 11 months

Text

Is It Really That Bad?

It’s hard to believe nowadays, but there was a time where the Tim Burton/Johnny Depp duo was known for delivering nothing but certified bangers. Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow… It was just hit after hit when these two joined forces. But in the mid 2000s, something shifted. It suddenly seemed like people were sick of Burton, sick of Depp, and most of all sick of them working together. Sure, Corpse Bride and Sweeney Todd were still well-liked, but once Alice in Wonderland hit theaters people weren’t shy about voicing their dislike of the director and especially the actor. Burton kind of skidded to a halt for a while, while Depp just kept making increasingly worse movies with Disney and generally not doing anything worthwhile after Rango, and while Alice was the breaking point, the cracks started to show in 2005 with a little film called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

An attempt to redo Roald Dahl’s novel about a precocious child touring the candy factory of a wacky candymaker was being planned for a long time, with even Nicolas Cage in talks at one point to be Wonka, and at another point good ol’ Martin Scorcese was attached to direct. But things just kept falling through until Burton got dragged in, and from there he proceeded to get things done and talk the studio out of stupid decisions like killing off Charlie’s dad and making Wonka a parental figure. Ah, but speaking of Wonka, that crucial role needed filling, and it seemed a lot of famous actors were considered for the role by the studio—Robin Williams, Patrick Stewart, Michael Keaton, Steve Martin, Bill Murray, Christopher Walken, Brad Pitt, Leslie Nielsen, Robert De Niro, Will Smith, Mike Meyers, Ben Stiller, pretty much every living member of Monty Python left at the time, Adam Sandler, and Marilyn Manson among them according to TVTropes—and Burton had an interesting idea for his second pick to play the guy:

But instead he went for his first pick, someone who’s actually very similar to Marilyn Manson in a lot of ways! Good ol’ reliable JD himself! Surely this was gonna bring in the big bucks! And... it did! It's the highest-grossing adaptation of one of Dahl's works ever, and Burton's second highest-grossing film!

Critics seemed mostly fine with it, but audiences were a lot more divided. Some people liked that it was a new and different take on the story that stayed a lot more true to the book than the beloved 1971 Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (a movie that Dahl famously hated as much as he did Jewish people, so frankly who gives a shit about his opinion), while others clung to the nostalgia of the Gene Wilder Wonka and treated this new film like a war crime. How dare they remake their favorite movie, even though this isn't a remake, it's just a different adaptation of the same book!

So yes, this movie isn’t the most reviled film out there, but it definitely is incredibly divisive, and what’s more I distinctly recall even as a child being aware of the attitude towards Depp and Burton shifting towards the more negative when this film came out. So I figured it was a high time I see about revisiting it and find out if this second cinematic outing into Wonka’s factory was really that bad, or if it genuinely was a work of impure imagination.

THE GOOD

It may surprise you to hear that this film actually does a few things better than the 1971 film. This is especially evident in the four shitty children touring the factory with Charlie.

The ones from Willy Wonka were, to put it bluntly, dull and forgettable, and came off as far too sympathetic in regards to their fate because none of them aside from Veruca Salt showcased any terrible traits that would lead to them deserving their punishments. In this film, all these kids are assholes, so watching them fall prey to the karmic justice of Wonka's factory is all the more satisfying. We also get to see what happens to them after they get out, which is kind of funny. I’m not gonna pretend that they made them the deepest and most complex characters ever, but with how they updated them and with the young actors they got to portray them, they managed to inject a bit more life into them than you’d expect.

This movie also fixes Grandpa Joe, who is pretty infamous to fans of the '71 film as a total asshole who constantly encourages Charlie to steal and just in general seems like a massive burden to his family. Here, he actually is every bit the sweet old grandpa that you’d expect, and his motivations for wanting to go on the tour are a lot nicer and more sympathetic. He also never tries to push Charlie into a life of crime, which is nice.

Of course, the very best aspect of this movie is Deep motherfucking Roy. He’s the second best dwarf actor out there, only oovershadowed by Warwick “Leprechaun” Davis, and much like Davis was in Star Wars as the ultimate Glup Shitto—Droopy McCool.

And in this film he gets the incredible honor of being every single fucking Oompa-Loompa there is, and he is clearly having a blast and busting his ass. He had no prior dancing experience, but you could not tell with how he’s pulling off all these sick moves while spitting out diss tracks for children like he’s Blood on the Dance Floor. He really is the single best actor in the movie, and that’s not to slander anyone else—Roy is just that good. Like we have a scene-stealing minor role for Christopher Lee as Wonka’s dad, a crabby dentist who hates candy, and as amazing as he is Roy still is better. You better respect this man.

Speaking of men to respect: Danny Elfman. Taking lyrics straight from the book and weaving a unique style for each kid—Big Bollywood spectacle for Augustus (that was Roy’s idea), 70s funk for Violet, psychedelic rock for Veruca, and hard rock for Mike—the songs are all genuinely great and fun to listen to. I’d never go as far as to say they’re more iconic than the Oompa-Loompa tracks from the ‘71 film, but I think they function better as songs, and the fact each of them has their own distinct style to set them apart from each other was the right way to go. I do think Mike’s song is the weakest of the bunch, feeling a lot messier than the other three, but it’s not unbearably awful or anything.

THE BAD

The biggest issue with the film is that the two most important characters—Charlie and Wonka—fucking suck.

Let’s start with Charlie. Now, to be clear, I’m not putting any blame on Freddie Highmore—he was literally a child, and even then I think he’s doing his damndest to make Charlie cute and whimsical. The issue here is definitely on the writers, who saw fit to stuff him full of all the syrupy sweet Tiny Tim-esque kind-hearted poor child cliches but forgot to impart a personality to go with them. Charlie is, to put it bluntly, a boring and generic nice guy, and one who ends up feeling like a living plot device to further Wonka’s character development, something that feels especially egregious when his name is literally in the title.

And now let’s talk about Wonka. Boy, is there a lot to unpack with this guy.

Literally everything about this take on Wonka is incredibly awkward and off-putting. The most infamous aspect of him is definitely the look; with his pale skin and dorky haircut he looked a lot like Michael Jackson, who at the time the film came out was going through a very serious scandal where he was accused of doing awful things to children in his big rich guy mansion… which is essentially the plot of this film when you think about it.

But that’s just an unfortunate coincidence! It’s an ugly look, sure, but a good performance could make it palatable, and this was Johnny Depp during his big post-Jack Sparrow renaissance working together with the guy who helped put him on the map. Surely he wouldn’t deliver an incredibly awkward, cringey, and insufferable performance that dials up all his acting quirks to annoying levels, right?

youtube

Here’s the thing: On paper, Depp’s Wonka is honestly not that different than Wilder’s. They’re both weird, quirky, reclusive confectioners with a not-so-hidden disdain for the kids touring their factory and snarky, condescending attitudes. What it all comes down to is the presentation, and to show you what I mean I’m going to use the most batshit comparison you’ve ever seen:

Burton’s Wonka is very similar to Zack Snyder’s Ozymandias.

“Now hold on, Michael,” I hear you exclaiming in utter bewilderment, “how are these two comparable? I know that both are fine with the wonton murder of children if it helps achieve their goals and that a lot of people are weirdly horny for them, but how is this a good comparison?” Well luckily I’m not trying to compare a mass-murdering anti-villain to a quirky chocolatier in terms of character, but in how the adaptation drops the ball with how they’re presented by removing the more warm and positive aspects of them. In Alan Moore’s comic, Adrian Veidt is essentially a relentlessly charming gigachad, an affable and approachable fellow who seems beneath suspicion because he exudes a traditionally heroic warmth. In the movie, however, Snyder chose to portray Veidt as a cold, distant twink who doesn’t seem particularly approachable at all (another case of Daddy Zaddy tragically missing Moore’s point).

This same "missing the point" issue plagues Wonka. Yes, Wilder’s take is just as much a smug asshole reveling in the comeuppance the children are receiving, but he also has a genuine warmth to him which is codified perfectly with him singing “Pure Imagination.” Sure, he’s perfectly willing to traumatize everyone with a demented boat ride shortly after, but Wilder’s performance and the presentation of his Wonks help sell him as a quirky genius who is more likable than insufferable, and you really understand how despite being kind of a dick he is also a beloved figure.

Depp’s Wonka fails as the character in the same basic ways that the movie version of Veidt does: He's a condescending, cold, openly rude, guy who is just genuinely unpleasant to be around despite the movie really trying hard to make him likable and relatable, to the point where unlike Wilder's take it's hard to grasp why this guy gets any respect from anyone. He’s like the proto-Rick Sanchez, except he’s not even particularly funny to make up for it. Maybe this take is more accurate to the book, but if it is it’s really just proof that taking liberties when adapting really is for the best.

And this failure is only compounded by the movie piling on a tragic backstory for Wonka. Yes, Christopher Lee is great, but there is genuinely no need to pile on a traumatic childhood and weird daddy issues to Willy Wonka. The character works best as this weird, trickster mentor figure who dishes out karma to the naughty kids and ultimately rewards the good egg of the bunch. Trying to bring a guy with a magical factory full of dwarfs who do choreographed diss tracks every time a kid falls into the incinerator down to earth and make him relatable is just a mind-boggling decision.

These are really the only two issues with the film that stand out as excessively bad, but… you see the problem, right? The titular character and the owner of the titular chocolate factory are both bad. One’s a living prop, the other is just an obnoxious asshat who is given unneeded character development that ends up falling flat, and while this would be easy to ignore if they were side characters it’s impossible to let slide since they are the main fucking characters. The whole film revolves around the two very worst things in it, and no matter how good the other stuff in the movie is these elements alone drag it down a lot.

IS IT REALLY THAT BAD?

Look, I’m not going to pretend like this is a great film. If it really is closer to Dahl’s book, all it managed to do is convince me to never read it and solidified my belief that being pragmatic when adapting books to screen is the way to go. It’s also really easy to see how the Burton-Depp fatigue came about, as this is some of the weakest work in both of their filmographies.

But I still feel like there’s plenty to like here. The songs, the bratty kids, Deep motherfucking Roy, it’s all genuinely good shit! There was never a chance it was going to be iconic as the Wilder film, but it’s disingenuous to write it off entirely when it does a lot good things (and a few things better than the '71 version). A lot of people are nostalgic for this one these days, as it's the one this generation grew up with, and honestly? I can't really blame them entirely. It's a decent enough movie, and I honestly think that score it has up there is pretty fair. It's certainly a mixed bag but when it actually succeeds at being charming it does it in its own unique way rather than trying to ape the beloved classic that came before it, and I do respect it for that.

And hey, if Johnny Depp's worst and most annoying movie role is in a movie I'd still say is okay, that's a good thing right? He couldn't possibly ever take a role more cringeworthy and annoying than Wonka in a film that's genuinely shitty, right?

Right?

RIGHT?!

#is it really that bad?#IIRTB #Charlie and the Chocolate Factory #Tim Burton #Johnny Depp #Willy Wonka #Roald Dahl #book adaptation #review #movie review #Youtube

24 notes · View notes

shuttershocky · 2 years

Note

Too many people talk about The Wolf of Wall Street and Taxi Driver, but not about The Age of Innocence, Shutter Island, Hugo, Silence or The Last Temptation of Christ.

I'm kind of ambivalent on most of the films you just listed (though Shutter Island I mildly disliked because of its ending), with the exception of Age of Innocence, which I haven't seen in years but still think is one of the most impactful movies I've ever seen.

Age of Innocence is THE most violent film Scorcese has ever made, and nobody even gets shot in this movie. There's so much quiet but evergrowing anger seething behind every exchange of polite conversation that even if I remember none of the character's names or who even acted in this movie, I still remember what happened and how it felt to watch it.

It was like nobody told Scorcese he was working on a period film and he just read "A man attempts to hide a years long affair with his true love from his wife" and decided to film it like a crime film where nobody ever gets a gun, so the tension keeps ramping up without release until one scene quite literally ends with a stare slow fading to blood red instead of black.

Though what really sticks with me is the ending years later, where the wife had long since died of natural causes and the man on a trip with his son just so happens to draw near the home of the woman he had a love affair with, and I forgot how exactly but something the son says makes the man realize that his wife knew. All those years and she knew he was disloyal to her, and without either he nor the woman realizing, she manipulated both of them to destroy their love affair and protect her marriage without ever even raising her voice or sounding impolite, without ever letting them know she was onto them.

Then at the very end when the man sees the silhouette of his old flame at the window but decides to just leave? As if he was still afraid of his wife somehow interfering even though she's gone? Holy shit. Unreal catharsis. It was like the whole film was slowly pressing on your throat, and only with the credits were you finally allowed to release the breath you didn't know you were holding.

Absolutely unhinged way of directing a period drama. I don't think I'll ever forget that death stare.

52 notes · View notes

msfbgraves · 1 year

Text

Should you think, during the WGA strike, "I might as well go way out there in the search for new media", might I recommend Dutch actor Pierre Bokma, please and thank you?

But Fantine, whoever is Pierre Bokma?

Pierre Bokma would have been as big as Pacino and De Niro, had he been American. Would have been one of Coppola and Scorcese's leading men. Hell, in a parallel universe, he could have been Ice Pick Joe in Goncharov but didn't find the part particularly interesting. He probably turned down Gangs of New York or something. Too much hooha, sets too big, he dislikes flying, I don't know but the man is phenomenal. He is so good that the Emmys noticed even though it was some Dutch no budget television film. I don't know who paid him to go pick it up, that's how much he didn't care.

He's remarkably like De Niro in that he can't live without acting, because, I think, that's the only way he can relate to the world. He is unlike De Niro in that he doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about money, only the meatiness of the part, but if there's no part to be had he literally does improv and sketches, the way McKellen does panto when he feels like it.

If you want to be the biggest snob in film school, going on about the "greatest actor the world has never seen", whatever - except of course for Dutch people, we absolutely know the guy - watch Cloaca, or Tonio or The Resistance Banker on Netflix or the one Dalziel and Pascoe one he's in, or learn Dutch and come see a play of his but to miss out on an actor absolutely on par with the American greats just because his English is accented and he couldn't be arsed to work on that is a crying shame. Man, he's going to be in a series about the Jewish Council, (Joodse Raad), the Nazi instated council of Jewish men who were trying to save their people's lives but were forced to organise the Holocaust while doing it - a topic so painful and controversial no one has wanted to touch it for decades - and I absolutely know he'll kill it.

I don't normally gush about Dutch series too much, because I feel that our actors sometimes take themselves too seriously.

But this guy, people.

This guy is great.

#great actor #foreign movies #pierre bokma #dutch culture #dutch people #just dutch things

6 notes · View notes

chulitas · 2 years

Text

All this talk about Goncharov reminds me of Pauline Kael's original review - she appreciated it for the most part but disliked immensely how Scorcese manages to lose sight of the film's themes and narrative (especially with that underwhelming ending)... I think she really put into words how much I personally struggled with liking Goncharov (no matter how much great shit it has in it) and why his next film immediately after, Mean Streets was special. Instead of another Godfather rehash, he made a "true original."

#goncharov #im sorry but theres a reason this movie is one of this more forgotten works #its good but he would go on to surpass it 100x over

4 notes · View notes

noxandlove · 7 months

Text

sandra hüller should be winning all the awards

i’m a lot more annoyed at scorcese for not giving lily gladstone more material than i am at lily not winning lately…. i mean she gradually disappears - her material + her screentime is simply not enough to get LEADING actress wins in this era. in past decades, sure she would make sense as a winner, but she needed to be an established White industry veteran. also, KOTFM and what scorcese did with it, polished and well-made as it is, is just not something that inspires passion! the "oh this is best of the year" talks! which is why it hasn’t been winning anything in any category. (and i personally have a LOT of problems with its script...)

emma stone, well… the dramatic talent came a bit late in her progression as an actor, but she would be my 2nd place. but - another but - i disliked Poor Things so much. so big meh to her inevitable 2nd oscar win. this is crazy tbh. #justice for isabelle huppert 2016

#baftas #my oscar race thoughts #oscars #text

1 note · View note

f0xd13-blog · 7 months

Text

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Art Deco Joe (@artdeco.joe)

instagram

I don even dislike martin scorcese and robert de niro. I dislike the effect that created. Wasn't robert de niro racially profiled in italy? What's the purpose of being so proud of a place that treats you like shit? I will be proud of being portuguese when they get proud of me coz i already did enough for this country... so the opposite needs to happen. I don have to dress the shirt like we say over here thet have to dress the shirt

#Instagram

1 note · View note

hamliet · 2 years

Note

Who are your favourite film makers/directors? Do you have any recs for live action films specifically? Lately I’ve decided to plow through the imdb top 250 just to see the hype and some of these movies are so dated but at the same time I can see that they’re revolutionary and good in their own way?? (I swear I’m not a filmbro...)

I don't actually love film as a medium, so I don't have one! I probably see only a handful of movies a year and only with other people. It's just not my favorite thing, and I'm also frequently distracted. When I do watch movies I'm usually drawn by the plot or a recommendation, not a name.

I will say that the only strongish opinion I actually have is on filmmakers/directors is that I have strongly disliked just about every Christopher Nolan film (the filmbros are on their way, I'm sure!). But this is a personal opinion, not a "he's actually bad" statement; he's clearly not. He's really great with ideas and themes and concepts, but his movies have little to no exploration of humanity and his characters have no depth.

In contrast, I guess I do actually like Rian Johnson's human exploration in his movies, even if there are some weaknesses otherwise. del Toro is also really psychological and into exploring humanity, so I do consistently like his stuff. Mel Brooks is a classic for comedy even if some of it wouldn't fly today and kinda shouldn't but worked for their time. John Hughes' 80s movies are great. And uh, I don't know.

I'm sorry. Other films I really like I definitely haven't liked other films by the same director. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings I love; The Hobbit not so much. James Cameron's Titanic is great; Avatar is dull. George Lucas, same. Spielberg has some great and some dull ones, I'm generally not interested in Tarantino or Scorcese or even Tim Burton films even if I don't have actual criticisms for them--because it's just usually not my taste (Nolan I do think my point is a valid criticism of something he can and should improve). I also don't touch Roman Polanski or Woody Allen movies with ten foot poles because fuck those guys, but I get why people do resonate with those films and don't judge people for enjoying the art.

#ask hamliet

7 notes · View notes

hohslop · 5 years

Note

tbqh what scorcese said doesnt bother me, its the non-marvel fans using his words as if he was right or as a vindication

Yeah, that’s definitely going around. And I’ll admit it’s pretty annoying to me too. What Scorcese said wasn’t right or wrong, it was simply an opinion. I think people who dislike Marvel/Disney think they’ve won when someone as big and respected as Scorcese agrees with them. And sure, it probably feels good but it still doesn’t prove anything right or wrong.

Bottom line, you either like these movies or not. Nobody’s is in the wrong. Nobody’s more superior because of their opinions.

#martin scorsese #marvel #mcu #cinema #movies #film

6 notes · View notes

harrison-abbott · 2 years

Video

youtube

Marty tends to use music pretty well in his films … don’t you agree?

Lot’s of people dislike Mean Streets, or rate it as average compared to his other films. I’ve never really understood way. I thought it was badass from the first time I watched it. And aside from Taxi Driver it’s the Scorcese film I’ve revisited most.

It’s about a bunch of young men who are inventing as they go along. This is how they directed the movie; Marty was the same age as De Niro and co. And it’s a fun, creative, energetic, laddish film as a result. 5/5 for me.

I don’t understand the doubters.

#mean streets #scorcese #marty

1 note · View note

escapadeist · 3 years

Text

Recently i read a tumblr post by @tibby and @keltik who responded to it about Marvel and here are my views on it and Marvel over all.

The other reasons that people (me incl.) dislike MCU are these, 1. They have movies with characters that are quite flat, not rounded enough for my taste, i feel after watching that movie, that it was just ok, i feel a heightened sense of adrenaline from all the action, but this was action very much choreographed and using special effects and the like and especially, the concept of superpowers, superpowers imo, are not at all close to realistic, i have watched marvel movies, so don't think I'm not speaking from experience, and uk the ones i liked? IM1-2 and only Loki as a character from Thor, ik very popular choices, but uk the reason i chose these? I like the actors, their acting brings out something from a character that's supposedly non-human and godly with farfetched realities and a sense of saviour complex with no consequences. So when u ask me, i hated Thor, CA, and the new Hulk (the older one i liked because of the aesthetic appeal of the movie, plus again, Ed Norton's delivery)

2. Now you will go ahead and say it requires efforts to think up a storyline, but that's all they do, they don't develop their characters, they keep adding in more on the plot, and a thing that bothers me most is how people don't realise the money-drawing that this company is doing, with appealing to what the fans want. (especially those with not much else to do in life than fantasize of their idol superheroes instead function in a realm of reality) no offense, but the instant i hear someone say "oh i love mcu, n I'll defend it till my last breath" what i hear is "i believe these movies are my religion and these characters are my gods, I'm part of a pseudoreal cult that believes rather than solve the problems or search for their solutions in the real world, I'd much rather be satisfied by the barely-there plot of this movie which seemingly always ends happily for the protagonists where they save the world, because the reality of helping the world an ounce bothers me, and my empathy keeps bumming me out so what's the solution to all that? Never growing past a fantasy and reveling in it to escape from reality."

3. Now even from a professional pov, famous directors, like say, Martin Scorcese famously came out vocally against MCU and their banal tactics of creating a storyline that never ends so the money that enters the producer's pockets never ends too. He said it's the end of the movie going culture where u saw actual lives, as close to them as possible being portrayed on screen and inspiring people generations over and finding catharsis and solace in the characters' lives and maybe somewhere applying it in their own. And moreover, don't u see what it does to art itself? The ample number of creators involved in the MCU and the amounts of rejections and dilutions of their creativity they receive just to satisfy a corporate overlord organization that functions on keeping the public engaged, and giving them what they want, (which fyi is what they make us think we want, i hope uk the psychology behind their marketing these movies etc.) It takes away from the silver screen or mainstream the opportunity for niche or indie movie makers n artists to ever reach a platform that can gain their creation any recognition and therefore through the medium of storytelling they get to expand the horizons of not just the possibilities of cinema, but the minds of the viewers as well.

4. I have also read a lot many places that "art isn't always supposed to be deep", or "can't people just for a good time and come back satisfied n happy and not think too much of it's morality or effect on humankind?" And to that i say, yeah go ahead, watch some stupid movie that's about ghosts entering dimensions or superheroes saving the world, the brain needs to rest too and we all need laughs and a period of not too much cognitive effort. But, here lies the problem now, what if all that's ever made henceforth is just that? And what if the organisation that handles the pulse of the market has control over not just it's own releases and their viewer response, but also that of other movies and actors n actresses who act in said other movies and can control how much fame and how much of an audience they can get or momentum they can hold. Uk, DC has been making Superman and Batman shows n movies since the 40s and 50s, but back then it didn't become an all consuming franchise over the film industry because the audience didn't give it that much attention or even if they did they just saw them once or twice in a decade, were satiated and that was it. Now that the marketers of these movies have seen the reduced attention span of this generation and the ease of accessibility and the need for escapism due to low quality of life, they have capitalised on all of that and captivated, rather, held them by the throat and squeezed out every ounce of their limited attention into a continuing series of episode after episode of an ongoing never-ending but also never satisfying and always keeping u wanting for more saga of absolute and utter bullshit. (Excuse my language)

5. Lastly, like I mentioned everywhere up till now, the last is the concept of capitalist greed. U know how corporations run the world on their terms and make people into machines that worship their God that "gives them what they think they want" and then keeps on sucking their souls n money just to keep it's belly full. So yeah, i hope this made sense to you as viewers and fans of this particular franchise and i hope u understand this isn't a personal attack towards the individuals watching Marvel as a fun passtime or so but for those that tout it as the superior form of cinematic experience and storytelling.

So, if u read this and are up for debating on this you're welcome to do so in the comments and reblogs. I have nothing against those that enjoy watching these movies, I'm not here to make your decisions for u or take your choices or freedom away or anything, it's just that fanatism particularly for this franchise needs to be from a conscious perspective too.

Thanks for reading.

- B

#kinda rant #kinda opinion piece #kinda a penny for your thoughts

1 note · View note

fightmewiatch · 7 years

Note

Lethal Weapon for the series ask

❤ Favorite Male: Martin Riggs. Obvs.❤ Favorite Female: I love Trish. But I love Bailey. Hm. Trish. And Bailey.❤ Favorite Pairing: Trish & Rog. ❤ Least Favorite Character: Uh. I absolutely disliked Miranda’s father. Delgado.❤ who’s most like me: Dear god. None of them, which is good, I’m glad for that.❤ most attractive: MARTIN RIGGS. ❤ three more characters that I like: AVERY, Bowman, SCORCESE.

#lethal weapon #Anonymous

4 notes · View notes

xmichaeljacksonx · 7 years

Conversation

100 Michael Jackson Facts

1. Michael Jackson's favorite animated character was Pinocchio

2. When he was a child his favorite books included Rip Van Winkle and The Old Man and the Sea

3. Michael Jackson was very ticklish

4. Saint Vincent, an island in the Caribbean, once issued Michael Jackson stamps

5. The singer once owned a boa constrictor called “Muscles”

6. As a youngster he used to put spiders in sister La Toyah’s bed

7. He played a scarecrow in The Wiz, a movie version of the Wizard of Oz

8. He has two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (one for himself and one as part of the Jackson Five)

9. Quincy Jones nicknamed him “smelly” – a slang term similar to “funky”

10. Jackson described his own voice on early Jackson 5 records as “like Minnie Mouse”

11. He was a big fan of The Three Stooges

12. He is an Exeter City fan

13. He had two llamas called Louis and Lola

14. Thriller spent 37 weeks at number one in the US Billboard chart.

15. In 1984 he won eight Grammys – the joint highest amount ever won by one person in a single year

16. He gave his first public performance at the age of 5 singing Climb Every Mountain

17. He had eight brothers and sisters

18. His marriage to Lisa-Marie Presley lasted only 19 months

19. Jackson paid $47 million for the publishing rights to the Beatles back catalogue in 1985 and sold a share of to Sony in 1995 for $95 million

20. His middle name was Joseph

21. He was born on Aug 29, 1958

22. At the Brit Awards in 1996 Pulp frontman Jarvis Cocker took exception to his bombastic performance of Earth Song and ran on to the stage

23. Jackson was very fond of Mexican food

24. In 1993 Jackson’s dermatologist said he had a rare skin disease called vitiligo, which causes sufferers to lose pigmentation in their skin

25. Thriller is the world’s best-selling record of all time with an estimated 150 million copies sold worldwide

26. Two of his other albums – Bad and Dangerous – are also among the world’s best-selling records

27. He popularised dance moves including the robot and the moonwalk

28. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice

29. He won 13 Grammy Awards

30. Billie Jean was the first video by a black artist to air on MTV.

31. Jackson owns the rights to the South Carolina State Anthem, South Carolina on My Mind.

32. He has waxworks in five Madame Tussauds museums across the world. Only Elvis Presley and Madonna have more.

33. He has sold more than 300 million records worldwide

34. His favourite superhero is Morph from X-Men

35. He had a pet ram called Mr Tibbs

36. His total lifetime earnings from music are estimated at $500 million

37. Jackson regularly wore a black armband to remind people of children suffering around the world.

38. The moonwalk was picked up from street dancers

39. Little Richard wanted to be played by Jackson in a biopic

40. Jackson had a pet python called Crusher

41. In 1984 a French fan committed suicide because he couldn’t have surgery to look like Jackson

42. The video for Scream was the most expensive ever at £3.8 million.

43. A library once accused the singer of owing $1 million in overdue book fines

44. Jackson was a vegetarian

45. He won an MTV award for Best Movie Song in 1994. It was for Will You Be There from the movie Free Willy

46. HIStory was the biggest selling double album ever released in the United States

47. Jackson was given a royal title in the Ivory Coast in 1992

48. Before concerts he would drink Ricola candy dissolved in hot water

49. His birthplace Gary, Indiana, is planning a museum in his honour

50. The singer patented a shoe device that allowed dancers to lean forward at gravity defying angles

51. He was a best man at Liza Minnelli’s wedding to David Gest

52. The largest television audience in US history watched him perform at half time during the 1993 Super Bowl

53. Martin Scorcese once directed a Jackson video

54. A survey in 1997 declared him the Most Famous Person in the World

55. He paid $1.5 million in 1999 to buy for the 1939 Oscar for best film won by Gone With The Wind

56. Jackson once described Elizabeth Taylor as “a warm cuddly blanket that I love to snuggle up to”

57. He recorded a voice-over on The Simpsons

58. Macauley Culkin is godfather to two of Jackson’s children

59. Jackson co-wrote We Are The World with Lionel Richie

60. He is godfather to Nicole Richie

61. He is also godfather to Bee Gees singer Barry Gibb’s son Michael

62. Jackson shares a birthday with Sir Richard Attenborough and actress Rebecca DeMornay

63. At the time of his death Jackson was rehearsing for his greatest comeback, with 50 shows scheduled in London

64. He was four years old when he began singing with his brothers Marlon, Jermaine, Jackie and Tito in the Jackson 5

65. The Jackson 5’s number one hits included “I Want You Back,” “ABC” and “I’ll Be There”

66. In 2002 Jackson caused controversy when he playfully dangled his infant son, Prince Michael II, over a hotel balcony in Berlin in front of fans

67. MC Hammer once challenged Jackson to a dance off

68. In a TV documentary he acknowledged sharing his bed with children but described the practice as sweet, and not sexual

69. During production of a 1984 Pepsi advertisement Jackson sustained burns when an explosion set his hair on fire

70. Jackson’s 13 number one hits on the US Billboard charts put him behind only Elvis Presley, the Beatles and Mariah Carey

71. Jackson’s father Joseph worked in a steel mill

72. Joseph Jackson and his brother Luther were in an R&B band called The Falcons

73. Michael was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness by his mother

74. In a 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey the singer spoke of a traumatic childhood including suffering from loneliness

75. Jackson showed his singing talent at the age of five when he performed at a Christmas recital

76. The family band was originally called the Jackson Brothers

77. Michael was promoted to joint lead vocals at the age of eight and the band became the Jackson 5

78. They toured extensively in the US Midwest from 1966 to 1968

79. Hestrongly disliked the “Wacko Jacko” nickname

80. Wild stories about him included that he slept in an oxygen chamber and that he bought the bones of The Elephant Man.

81. During the world tour for Bad he performed to 4.4 million people

82. His first autobiography, Moonwalk, took four years to complete

83. The book reached the top of The New York Times best sellers’ list

84. Jackson had 8 siblings; 5 brothers and 3 sisters

85. He suggested weight loss and a strict vegetarian diet had contributed to the change in his appearance

86. He paid $17 million in 1988 for the land in California that became the Neverland Ranch

87. The 2,700-acre property had a theme park, a menagerie, and a movie theatre.

88. Its grounds were protected by a security staff of 40

89. Neverland was valued at $100 million in 2003

90. The profits from his single “Man in the Mirror” went to charity

91. In 1991 he signed a contract with Sony worth $65 million

92. In 1992 he founded the Heal the World Foundation which brought underprivileged children to Neverland and made donations worldwide

93. When he visited the African country of Gabon 100,000 people turned out to see him

94. Jackson’s most famous pet was Bubbles the chimpanzee

95. Bubbles was adopted at the age of three from a cancer research clinic in Texas.

96. Bubbles sat in on recording sessions for the Bad album and accompanied Jackson to Tokyo

97. The artist Jeff Koons made a series of sculptures of Jackson and Bubbles

98. Jackson fathered two children with Deborah Jeanne Rowe – Michael Joseph Jackson Junior (also known as “Prince”) and a daughter, Paris Michael Katherine Jackson

99. The couple divorced in 1999 and Rowe gave full custody rights to Jackson

100. Vitiligo, the skin disease from which he suffered, affects 1 to 2 percent of the population

~Courtesy of The Telegraph

#daily telegraph #telegraph #michael jackson #king of pop #facts #100 facts

121 notes · View notes

sunshinetoday · 7 years

Text

Movie Ask

Thank you @thereshopesomewhere for tagging me and sorry I took ages to answer 🙈🙈

What is your…

All time favorite movie: Out of Africa

Movie you’ve seen again and again: Mamma Mia

Movie that makes you feel inspired: Wonder Woman, Nanny McPhee

Movie with cinematography you love: Dark Knight Rises, Schindler’s List

Movie that scares you: The Ring and basically any good thriller/horror movie😂😂

Movie that makes you cry: Sophie’s Choice, The Green Mile

Movie that comforts you: Any Meryl Streep comedy

Movie you dislike: Anything with vampires, Johnny Depp or Tom Cruise

Movie you hate that everyone loves: I don’t think I have one like this

Movie you love that everyone hates: Good question :)

The first movie you remember watching in theatres: Lion King

The last movie you watched: Logan

Favorite genre: Drama or Comedy, depends on my mood

Favorite animated movie: Wall-E

Favorite Disney movie: Hercules

Favorite Movie Musical: Grease (cause I already mentioned Mamma Mia)

Favorite horror movie: Scream

Favorite drama: The Hours

Favorite comedy: The new Ghostbusters, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Favorite fantasy/sci-fi: Star Wars

Favorite documentary: BBC Planet Earth

Favorite sequel: Star Wars VII

Favorite director: Martin Scorcese, Sophia Coppola, Christopher Nolan

Favorite Actress/Actor: Meryl Streep

A line of dialogue that’s stuck with you from any movie: so many...

A line of dialogue you dislike from any movie: probably a lot, I just can’t remember.

I tag @thisisnothappening , @baronessblixen, @schmoopielove @allyinthekeyofx

#movie asks

7 notes · View notes

msfbgraves · 1 year

Note

Yeah, the cheating could have been forgiven if Terry had not come back from that fight with Michael and taken all his anger and frustrations out on poor Daniel who had nothing to do with this. So Terry wakes him up at night, takes him from the pups, fucks him disrespectfully and brutally like a whore despite Daniel not really wanting it (which, in itself gives me almost marital-rape vibes which is disturbing enough), then continues to be angry at Daniel for being angry with him after what he did, and leaves his own pups with his friends to THEN get drunk and fuck a random Omega knowing that Daniel is so hurt and angry??? And then “apologizes” by “groveling” and pretty much buying and paying for some gifts, a car, and a vacation? And then fucking Daniel again on the trip and getting him with child, all while hating when he even brushes the hand of another Alpha. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Lmao, un-fucking-believable.

Hell, I might have been more understanding if this had happened very early in their marriage before any pups, and they were still wary about each other. Hell, I’d let it go even if this happened while they were engaged.

But to do all of this, and know what you did while Daniel doesn’t for what, decades?? To come back after this, and have Danny go right in back to cooking and cleaning and taking care of you and all the pups, and loving you and letting you have him physically all while being totally clueless that his husband stuck his dick in another Omega and broke his marriage vows??? And just have people pass it off as a “thing Alphas do”???? Well, John didn’t and that says it all.

Sorry, that’s it for me. I enjoyed this fic up until now, but that’s just grotesque, and honestly made me really dislike Terry. Being a MobAU I was expecting murder and crime, etc, but for someone who claims to love his Mate so much and then do all this to him is a big NO for me in a Silverusso story. Thanks for all the fills nonetheless and the good writing, but I honestly think this took away from the story not just for me, but for a lot of others as well. I can’t go back to reading this and seeing cute, romantic Silverusso scenes knowing what Terry did. It’s your story and you can write what you want but…I think this was a huge mistake.

Nonnie, I completely understand anybody's decision to follow a story or not, as long as they enjoy it and the protagonists. I myself stopped watching Breaking Bad, a story I enjoyed very much up until then when the protagonist did something I really didn't like.

But I wasn't aware that I could make a mistake by truthfully answering a question about my own protagonist. A question I had not asked for. People have been asking me to write this story, in my own time, for free. Apparently Nonnie, up until now, you have been enjoying all this free labor. Most of which was in direct response to questions from people. I did not even post things hoping for a reaction. This whole story, apart from the very first post, is me doing you and others a favour. How can I make a mistake in not doing people the exact favour they seem to want but won't articulate? Nonnie what did I promise you? What do I owe you? You have not even given me your pseudonym!

What social contract says that a morally gray protagonist must be completely and utterly transformed by love? The gangsters in Coppola's films aren't. In Scorcese's films. Or Leone's work. They murder, they rape, they cheat. They're hypocrites. And then they're not. The films deal with the fallout of that mess. Of their awfulness. And their decency and love.

This has been tagged mob au from the start.

Some asks want me to focus on the love. Others want me to focus on the strife. I want to stay true to my characters.

You could have stopped engaging with this and I wouldn't have been any the wiser. Now I got scolded for giving people a gift.

That hurts.

2 notes · View notes