mordorbund

As for why these newer movie musicals don't seem to be as good as the ones of yesteryear, I think that's because there were just so many! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_films_by_year Musical film was standard in the 30's - 50's (and still a significant portion in the 60's). That meant that actors, editors, choreographers, and directors all had experience with musicality on film. It was probably easier to assemble a competent team. Also related to the raw numbers, only the good ones get remembered . If only 1 in 100 are good, then a decade can produce 3 good ones if it churns out 30/year but only 1 or 2 good ones if it's only producing 15/year. Then you remember the good handful from the last decade without recognizing that the dozen old ones you enjoy span 4 decades.

I enjoyed Evita when it came out (I was a teenager at the time and I think this may have been my first modern musical). You might get a kick out of Siskel and Ebert's review (and Ebert trying to draw Siskel into a critique of ALW's style ). As for musicals done in the last 20 years..... The Bad Les Miserables has already been commented on and I agree (I have to emphasize that casting Hugh Jackman is every bit as disappointing to me as Russell Crowe). The Producers fell flat for me because it felt like they were just filming a stage production. When I see a movie I want it to be a movie. If you want to see Springtime for Hitler, look up the Chicago version on youtube. Mamma Mia probably could have worked for me if I was more of an ABBA fan (generally I'm not a fan of jukebox musicals because of the plot challenge) and Remington Steele was fixed. Mary Poppins Returns (and most of the Disney live-action remakes) didn't work for me because it felt like it was banking too much on nostalgia. Tangled fails for me on a major plot point that happens in the finale (I think there was a few other issues I had with it but I'd have to watch it to remember). I'd be willing to give it another go on @The Folk Prophet's recommendation. Moana still has a residue of Frozen's "subvert expectations - but don't really" problem. You can't pretend like you're breaking new ground by having a character point out that you're still following the classic formula ("You're a princess, and that's a cute animal sidekick." Also, what happened to the cute animal sidekick she already had? Chekhov's pig?). I also don't like it because Lin Manuel Miranda should not sing. You cast yourself in you own plays when you're too poor to afford actors. You're past that stage. Hire actors. Hire singers. Rock of Ages is another jukebox musical, so that's already a big strike against it. I don't know that there's a universe where I'd enjoy the story either. My biggest annoyance was the characters being too self-aware that they're playing goofy characters. Into the Woods suffered from the axe. It should have focused on two or three themes and really stuck with those. Instead it tried to be a highlights reel and lost its teeth. Middle of the Road Dreamgirls and Hairspray are probably good adaptations of their plays, but the story for Dreamgirls doesn't really move me and Hairspray is too over-the-top for me. I think La La Land may have gotten close. The overall plot is ho-hum, but it had visual and musical themes that worked for me. I think it should have engaged more in the philosophic theme that it introduced in the band conflict (I get bored with relationship conflicts). The Good The big exception to jukebox musicals is Across the Universe. The storylines are loosely connected (my friend said he went in with the expectation that the plot is "how many Beatles songs can we pack into one movie") but the visuals are great. Julie Taymor directed it (she created the visual look for The Lion King on Broadway) so it's really the visuals for me. I seem to remember enjoying Enchanted, and would probably find it more memorable if I had kids when I first watched it. The Phantom of the Opera. I know the objections to it about Butler's voice. He get yell-y at parts and I could live without that. As for TFP's objections about him being a pretty-boy -- I think he has to be to some extent. The story doesn't take the time to show Christine first falling in love with a voice and then confronted with a monster figure. So instead he's shown to have a public monster persona (which she excuses because he's so dreamy) which he blames on his hidden monster face (rather than a total public deformity). I also think it works visually.

St. Peter recently made some changes for lawyers so that their lifespans are based on billable hours. It keeps JAG honest.

Sounds like polyandry to me.

"impaired" is better than "broken"?

Well, yes and no.

I might as well come clean. Passionate Service Leader is not a real calling. I made it up as a joke.

It’s worth seeing some of the reactions from the first 2 minutes and again at the 5 minute mark.

What's the utility of this revelation? Consider for a moment that your child called you and said they've considered the evidence and are now firmly in the flat-earther camp. How does that change day-to-day actions or relationships? It really doesn't. They may be insufferable when conversation circles around to the moon landing or air travel, but that can be handled by placing firm boundaries. "I disagree with you and you know where I stand but I value our relationship enough not to bring it up again. I ask the same courtesy from you." If your child uses this revelation as an excuse not to engage in plural marriage then you'll find that you agree more than you disagree. If your child uses their revelation on polygamy as a lens to view the Restoration, I would hope they could be like David Whitmer - who had significant differences of opinion on Joseph's revelations and how the Church should be run but held fast to his testimony of The Book of Mormon. Similarly I would hope your child would hold fast to that testimony which they've already gained. Once again, if this is the path chosen, you'll have quite a bit in common and can continue to share that. Finally, it's possible that your child is taking a big step to leave the Church of Jesus Christ. Just so you know, 2/3 of those who leave the Church leave religion altogether. Even if this does happen, there are still some values that your child will keep. You can focus on those values you continue to have in common.

Oldie but goodie.

Oh, they'll still vote......

How does a person get this calling? (Asking for a friend (who needs a good mouth-punch))

I haven't seen many tantrums. I've mostly seen people calling out pearl clutchers for their irrational fear and asking that they not get the force of law to back up their nagging.

@Godless Looks like I got my threads crossed. Feel free to reply in this one or in @Fether's.

Since you have decided to engage with this thread and you seem to be the sort of person the OP was asking to hear from, would you mind explaining what your understanding of Critical Race Theory is? Do you think the examples in this thread are actually examples of CRT or are they actually something else? Additionally, do you think there are areas (either in the theory itself or in the application) where CRT goes too far?

I would get the renewal as a courtesy to the bishop. If everyone waits until the local temple is open again then there will be a backlog once it’s open. And again in 2 years. And if it doesn’t open until December you might have to wait for him to finish with tithing settlement and priesthood advancements.

All well and good @pam, but gramps reminds us

We’re heading up to Palmyra to not watch the Hill Cumorah Pageant. It’s my mom’s first time up here so we’ll hit the Smith houses and Sacred Grove, Palmyra Temple, Hill Cumorah, Alvin’s grave, and the Grandin Print Shop. And the Whitmer Farm and the Aaronic Priesthood Restoration site. Later in the summer I’m headed to Arizona to visit with my brother’s family.

Allow me to be clearer. I was referring specifically to your racist neighbor that you expressed concern about. it seems there’s a strong faction here that believe you have nothing to worry about! By all means let him watch your kids for several hours a day. You should know you have nothing to be concerned about if your ideas and culture are truly better than his. Maybe later I’ll check to confirm, but I believe some of the “no sheltering” proponents here were among those offering condolences for your association with an open racist.

How far are we prepared to take the “no sheltering” idea? Would it be best if we encouraged @Backroads’ neighbor to become a teacher?

It's so hard to hit some of those notes.

I have to thank Justice Scalia for explaining why this particular structure ensures the freedoms promised in the Bill of Rights.

It's because Canada has better policies with regard to climate change.

Isaiah's own son is the immediate fulfilment of this prophecy. I'll post arguments for it later tonight, but you can look at the parallels in chapters 7-9.