Oh, sorry ita !. I guess I'm not really sure what you want to know, then. If you want to know whether you want to know the spoiler or not, I'm not sure what else to say that I didn't say in the "why" of why I spoiler-fonted.

Also, we're in the middle of day-of-release testing - which is going well...NOT! - so I'm basically doing drive-by catch-ups and posts and am a bit distracted. If my tone sounded defensive, it's sounded that way about everything today.

Just trying to work out what in a biopic makes a spoiler--and you've answered. Choice of events was one, and choice of satellite characters is another.

In general, you mention spoilers for Lincoln as a punchline (cf (ha!) the episode of Happily Divorced that Colin is in (also spoils The Hobbit)) not a precaution. So I was treating it like a precaution and trying to get more details.

It was also the casting of this character as well. I figured Spader had been mentioned enough to not count, and Lee Pace's characater's position is obvious from his first moment on screen, plus we'd talked about him being in the movie already. This other one was a total surprise to me.

Just so I know the pulse of the room--are we considering casting a spoiler, or just in this case where the character even appearing is a spoiler?

I think it was only spoilery in conjunction with the other part I said. I don't think the actor's appearence on screen would have indicated what direction the character was going to go in or that just knowing they were in it would have given anything away, though either might have set certain expectations.

To clarify, I don't think knowing an actor in a movie is spoilery unless they are already known to be a particular character which usually means a sequel.

Haven't seen the movie, but the idea that there is a spoiler for anything in a biopic about the most chronicled President in history is intriguing.

the idea that there is a spoiler for anything in a biopic about the most chronicled President in history is intriguing.

I think you can have spoilers for a biopic in the same way you can have spoilers for an adaptation - knowing what the real history is doesn't mean you know exactly what version of the story will wind up onscreen. There were many MANY people avoiding Hobbit spoilers (even if they'd read the book) since they didn't want to know what was changed/left out/where the movie ended in relation to the book, etc.

What Jess said. That was exactly my thinking in white-fonting what I did.

I saw Identity Thief, and first off if you read that there's something after the credits, don't stay for it. It's just audio, and it's a repeat of an exchange from the movie that's not even that funny. Odd choice.

Anyway- the movie itself entertained me. In general I am the stiff prudish one on the road trip with the whack-a-doodle, and I still would kick Zach Gallthingy in the nuts. But I am apparently enslaved by Melissa McCarthy, and she continues to entrance. And Bateman is clearly an expert sympathetic straight man.

So it was that version of that story that worked for me. A lot.

Sat with weirdos, though. There was a red band trailer, and the people to the right said "They can do that?" ... just about the red band, not about the contents of the trailer. And when, during the movie, someone got FOOD ON THEIR FACE, the people to the left of me exclaimed "Oh no!"

Yeah, those are going to the bet worst things that happen in this movie, for sure.

Also, please don't Shazam during the movie. Maybe they need to say that explicitly.

Hmm. Having just read this article [link] complaining that Melissa McCarthy is playing too many loud crass and obnoxious characters, and also there is a joke made about her physical unfitness, and you shouldn't make that joke.

I'm a little sceptical of an article that says a woman should play sweeter and warmer characters and ease up on being a "spectacle".

The role she plays in Identity Thief has remarkable abandon. There is pretty much nothing that character will not do. But that also speaks to a range that the author is claiming she lacks. I don't remember the nuanced Bridesmaids character in such a way that Sandy 2.0 is a horrible thing--this character has two orgasms in this movie, at least--one solo, and one with a partner, and I think that alone is pretty remarkable. Never mind the fact that she is, yes, unfit (as we saw in some of the trailers) but she's also strong and able to defend herself. The whole fucking movie is about how remarkable she is--it's not just a redemption, it's a revelation. She's sexual, sweet, funny, insecure, looking for love, able to love back when she gains confidence, irrepressible-- she's a million things, and yes, a couple of them are loud and unable to run far, but the author is not mentioning anything you don't see in the trailer. There's a reason you pay money to see the whole thing--because there's more than in the previews.

Grr. I feel like the article is "Can't you just cross your legs at the ankles and not the knees?" whereas an "I don't like that kind of comedy" would be more apropos. That's a good enough reason to dislike the movie, but not a good enough reason for her to stop playing roles that include those facets.