• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Movies/TV Shows

Montana said:
I think there was a time I might have agreed, caring about historical accuracy all the way down, but in 2023 I think the value of having as much representation on screen as possible, particularly with a disregard to oppressive/caste roles in a given society supersedes that.

I don’t want minorities having to think about their peoples oppression or lack of upward mobility in every single period piece they watch…..I’m glad if there are roles filled by people who they can identify with, and see themselves in on screen. That outweighs any value “historical accuracy” might provide me.

End of the day, none of these actors look identical to the historical figures they’re portraying….Olivia Coleman looks nothing like Queen Elizabeth….and Claire Foy looks like neither of them. Their nose, eyes, voice, lips, forehead are all different….but we can easily suspend disbelief and believe they are the Queen when we watch the Crown.

….if I can do that, I can go one step further and also ignore skin colour. Especially if we’re talking about who were/weren’t courtiers, courtesans, etc.
Click to expand...
And there was also a time when I might have seen your point but we now live in a world where white people are trying to tell us that slavery was beneficial to slaves and that the Confederacy was made up of honorable people. I don't want people to watch period pieces in which there is 21st century diversity. I want people to see the world as it really was so that no one is under any illusions, especially if it's a historical drama about the time when certain people today would say that America was "great".
 
Montana said:
no one would love removing minorities from those roles, and replacing them with white people….more than those exact people you speak of.
Click to expand...
Yes, but on the other hand phony diversity in historical films makes it look like minorities had it good back in the day. The important historical lesson is that there was no diversity in the so-called "good ol days."
 
I think number of people who would believe their people hadn’t been oppressed in the past, due to some more balanced representation on screen would be infinitesimally small tho, and the pros outweigh the cons.

…like, I care more about those historical lessons being accurately depicted in history books, than largely frivolous entertainment vehicles.
 
JackBurton said:
Seeing a lot of 30 th anniversary stories about the Fugitive. That's one really great action film.
Click to expand...
Never caught any of the reruns on TV but I do remember the old Letterman skits parody of the show (though at the time I really didn't get the reference to the old series):



It didn't effect me in any way from enjoying the 93 film like the way Tarantino seemed to imply his watching (multiple times) of "Kentucky Fried Movie" did impact somewhat his viewing of "Enter the Dragon" (which he hadn't seen in its original run until after watching that parody of the film).
 
This seems to be a new, modern-day trend where people don't want to acknowledge what basic, universal words mean for fear of what that might do to them.

It's an... interesting strategy.
 
I'm not sure how a pre-nup ever gets enforced then. If you follow all the rules, make sure the fiance has an independent lawyer, agree to pay for the legal fees whatever they may be...what else can you do to have a valid agreement?

If someone is old enough to get married, they're old enough to understand what a contract is and what the consequences of breaching it are, especially after the independent lawyer advises them on it, free of charge. It's really pretty ludicrous the way that the pre-nups mean nothing when it comes time for them to govern the breakup situation. What's the point?

This is not some passionate case I'm making. Personally, I'm not even sure I believe in pre-nups, and envision myself not having one. But legally speaking, either make pre-nups enforceable as long as all the rules are followed, and only break them apart when the parties didn't take all the required steps in advance, or otherwise just say they're all unenforceable. I've seen so many people get crushed with a fortune in legal fees to uphold a perfectly valid pre-nup, and even still fail and have the court make its own ruling on what is fair under the circumstances. But it's not about fairness at that point, no more than it's any fair for the bank to have given someone a 2% mortgage two years ago and now they could be lending out that same money to their customers at 7%. They signed the contract, it's done.
 
My understanding is that prenups can be pretty difficult to enforce these days (if you have the $$ to dispute it), so while I’m sure she knew what she was signing for the most part, her lawyers are doing their job to get her what she probably deserves.

I don’t think she deserves half his entire worth or anything (given what he came into the relationship with), but they’ve been married ten years during which time he landed Yellowstone…which for all we know she encouraged him to take….or was a positive enough influence on his life that he was able to position himself for it, or whatever. (billion other reasons she could deserve it).

She’s also the mother of one of his kids, they were together a long ass time, and they’re relatively close in age…..so it doesn’t strike me as a gold digger situation.

She’s absolutely worth some of those earnings over that span….curious to hear what it is he is offering/versus what she's asking for.


edit: they were married 18 years....all the most reason she deserves a proper settlement.
 
Last edited:
I’m pro-woman in the divorce context, from the standpoint that I don’t ever want to see a woman devote years of her life to someone and then get nothing when he cheats or dumps her or loses his mind.

But the refusal to enforce pre-nups can encourage break ups too, and I similarly don’t want to see some woman want to fuck over a devoted husband because she knows the pre-nup means nothing at the end of the day. In that situation, she should get whatever the pre-nup says if she just wants to end it and he hasn’t done anything to warrant it.

In the Costner case, it’s particularly annoying. Because he’s still going to pay her a fortune per the pre-nup, but now she wants to say fuck the pre-nup because I’m accustomed to more during the marriage. No, fuck that, live with the deal.
 
Do you have any good sourcing on what the pre-nup agreed to pay her?

my lazy google search said he set aside $1.5m for her…..if that’s true, it’s absurd. He likely made that for an episode or two of Yellowstone.
 
Then don't sign the pre nup and don't get married to Kevin Costner?

She wasn't stopped from pursuing a career while they were together, she founded a boutique handbag company that appears (lazy google search) to be worth 5-7 million dollars and 129K a month in child support isn't nothing.

I get the intent behind wanting to ensure that she isn't ass out after a divorce, but I don't think ~8 million in net worth and 129K a month qualifies as ass out. She married a guy who had already been smashed in a divorce settlement once and he was clear about not wanting to get married without rock solid contractual protection. She agreed. If she hadn't agreed, he probably doesn't agree to marry her because he had just learned an 80 million dollar lesson.
 
zeke said:
Yeah god forbid some 20 something woman didn't fully understand the legalese (or care to) in a document prepared by the most expensive lawyers for her celebrity husband.
Click to expand...

If I can get a guide book on when it's cool to infantalize 30 yr old women and when it's not, that would be awesome.

I was under the impression that we're not supposed to do that stuff because they're just as capable as us men folk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top