• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Random Movie Thoughts Thread

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat..
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
27,397
Why are Timon and Pumba even in this Lion King prequel? This is what I call prequelitis.
Because they made a Timon version of Hakuna Matata in the Rhythm of the Pridelands Album that came out after the Lion King Soundtrack was such a hit. The Show Timon and Pumba was also a hit. They also wanted to experiment with breaking the fourth wall and test the waters of meta entertainment and Timon and Pumba are comedic relief characters so....They get their own direct to video movie. Profit.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Because they made a Timon version of Hakuna Matata in the Rhythm of the Pridelands Album that came out after the Lion King Soundtrack was such a hit. The Show Timon and Pumba was also a hit. They also wanted to experiment with breaking the fourth wall and test the waters of meta entertainment and Timon and Pumba are comedic relief characters so....They get their own direct to video movie. Profit.
What's step 2?
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so

I don't know what this is, but I need to see it. In this scene, it's like someone else recognized the best part of Krull!
 

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat..
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
27,397
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.​
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Decent reviews of Mendes' films. I pretty much agree.

Road to Perdition I saw in theaters. I remember it being quite good. Supposedly it has an early appearance of Daniel Craig.

I think 1917 is his best, but the only other films I've seen are American Beauty and the two Bond films. Regarding Skyfall, I particularly like the otherworldly imagery of Shanghai/Macau sequences.
 

The Cat

The Cat in the Tinfoil Hat..
Staff member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
27,397
Yes, this is what I was talking about earlier. Timon and Pumbaa are in this for some reason.
I thought you were talking about the Lion King 1&1/2

I wanted you to be talking about it. Because this is just. So fucking annoying. Why do we have to keep going back and changing cannon instead of listening to what the audience wants???
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I thought you were talking about the Lion King 1&1/2

I wanted you to be talking about it. Because this is just. So fucking annoying. Why do we have to keep going back and changing cannon instead of listening to what the audience wants???
No, this is a new horror from beyond the stars.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Road to Perdition I saw in theaters. I remember it being quite good. Supposedly it has an early appearance of Daniel Craig.

I think 1917 is his best, but the only other films I've seen are American Beauty and the two Bond films. Regarding Skyfall, I particularly like the otherworldly imagery of Shanghai/Macau sequences.
I felt like 1917 was pretty much a gimmick film -- its strongest point was simply how it appears to be one cut. Which isn't to say it's not enjoyable (I saw it in the theater), but there's not too much to it compared to other comparable war films for me. I'd rather watch Saving Private Ryan or something similar. I don't think I've ever rewatched 1917 although I picked up a copy for cheap.

Revolutionary Road is worth a watch, even thought it's rather a dark film with the plotting and themes -- it's got a Supporting Actor nod for Michael Shannon.

I think it's ironic how American Beauty was everyone's darling that year for the Oscars, then everyone seemed to turn against it a few years later and esp after all the scandals surrounding Kevin Spacey who had won Best Actor for the role. My feeling is that the film is good but flawed; I'm not sure why everyone gushed over it, yet I didn't think it needed to be scorned either, and it did resonate with me the first time I saw it. The majority of the performances are genuinely great (and I don't think Annette Benning gets enough love for how she plays a character that seems so self-serious on the surface but feels both hilarious and tragic at once). I'm less interested in Spacey's character arc, aside from the bit at the end where after getting lost in his obsession for feeling alive, he moves past it and is capable of empathy and adulthood rather than self-absorption; if he hadn't made that turn, I probably would never rewatch the film. But I really grasped Ricky a great deal, on a personal level.

Skyfall was great, although again people get all gushy about it and I just think it was a solid and enjoyable film, one of the best Bond's but not like the best film ever made. Spectre was generally a disappointment despite some good elements -- most of that problem being the focus on Blofeld and retconning a lot of Bond films to fall into some kind of large sprawling Spectre plot. Despite the loss of Judi Dench to the franchise, I think Ralph Fiennes really comes into his own here as M -- he seems kind of straightforward at first appearance but takes on more depth and richness as the movies continue.

I am still awaiting the day that Road to Perdition has a 4K conversion (and I hope it is worthy of Conrad Hall's cinematography, which it won for that year). Both Hanks and Craig are cast against type, or at least Craig is cast against what his FUTURE typecast would become; and Hanks' natural warmth is what allows empathy to develop for Michael Sullivan. The emotional arc in the film buttressed by Newman's score is just tremendous, the ending always gets me. It was also Tyler Hoechlin's first real role (when he was a boy), and he's most famous now for playing Superman on "Superman & Lois." The review talks a lot about Paul Newman in his last non-animated film role and it's all true -- I think Newman almost makes it all look so easy one might forget to be impressed.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp

I am with Robbie -- I actually really liked Babylon and plan to rewatch at some point (it's just a very long film).

I hated the last ten minutes, so it was like being blown away by a gymnastics routine only to watch the athlete face plant on the sticking move... but other than that? :D

....Maybe people were just offended by the elephant.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I felt like 1917 was pretty much a gimmick film -- its strongest point was simply how it appears to be one cut. Which isn't to say it's not enjoyable (I saw it in the theater), but there's not too much to it compared to other comparable war films for me. I'd rather watch Saving Private Ryan or something similar. I don't think I've ever rewatched 1917 although I picked up a copy for cheap.
Hmm, I didn't focus on the "single shot" at all, and that wasn't what was in my mind. I saw it in the theater as well. To me it was a tense, gripping story that grabbed me from start to finish. It reminded me of Dunkirk in many respects (but with a different war, of course), so if you didn't think highly of that, I can imagine why you might find this overrated. The characters could have probably been better defined, as I suspect they were in Road to Perdition, but that was so long ago.
Revolutionary Road is worth a watch, even thought it's rather a dark film with the plotting and themes -- it's got a Supporting Actor nod for Michael Shannon.

I think it's ironic how American Beauty was everyone's darling that year for the Oscars, then everyone seemed to turn against it a few years later and esp after all the scandals surrounding Kevin Spacey who had won Best Actor for the role. My feeling is that the film is good but flawed; I'm not sure why everyone gushed over it, yet I didn't think it needed to be scorned either, and it did resonate with me the first time I saw it. The majority of the performances are genuinely great (and I don't think Annette Benning gets enough love for how she plays a character that seems so self-serious on the surface but feels both hilarious and tragic at once). I'm less interested in Spacey's character arc, aside from the bit at the end where after getting lost in his obsession for feeling alive, he moves past it and is capable of empathy and adulthood rather than self-absorption; if he hadn't made that turn, I probably would never rewatch the film. But I really grasped Ricky a great deal, on a personal level.
I remember watching it and not quite understanding what all the fuss was about, but I chalked that up as being too young to get it.

Skyfall was great, although again people get all gushy about it and I just think it was a solid and enjoyable film, one of the best Bond's but not like the best film ever made. Spectre was generally a disappointment despite some good elements -- most of that problem being the focus on Blofeld and retconning a lot of Bond films to fall into some kind of large sprawling Spectre plot. Despite the loss of Judi Dench to the franchise, I think Ralph Fiennes really comes into his own here as M -- he seems kind of straightforward at first appearance but takes on more depth and richness as the movies continue.
Right, and the overarching Spectre plan that was meant to be some shocking reveal doesn't make any sense and was never really explained beyond that.
I am still awaiting the day that Road to Perdition has a 4K conversion (and I hope it is worthy of Conrad Hall's cinematography, which it won for that year). Both Hanks and Craig are cast against type, or at least Craig is cast against what his FUTURE typecast would become; and Hanks' natural warmth is what allows empathy to develop for Michael Sullivan. The emotional arc in the film buttressed by Newman's score is just tremendous, the ending always gets me. It was also Tyler Hoechlin's first real role (when he was a boy), and he's most famous now for playing Superman on "Superman & Lois." The review talks a lot about Paul Newman in his last non-animated film role and it's all true -- I think Newman almost makes it all look so easy one might forget to be impressed.
I'm thinking I should revisit that just because it's been so long. I could do it for Ernest Scared Stupid.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Hmm, I didn't focus on the "single shot" at all, and that wasn't what was in my mind. I saw it in the theater as well. To me it was a tense, gripping story that grabbed me from start to finish. It reminded me of Dunkirk in many respects (but with a different war, of course), so if you didn't think highly of that, I can imagine why you might find this overrated. The characters could have probably been better defined, as I suspect they were in Road to Perdition, but that was so long ago.
Ahhh.... yeah. Dunkirk is a movie I've never cared to rewatch, although I remember being emotionally invested in the arc involving the civilian's personal boat and what happens with the two boys/young men who went out with him...
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I rewatched Chris Nolan's Tenet for a third time (after not seeing it for a few years) and this time I really liked it.
I also ran it with English subtitles since the sound mix at times makes it difficult to follow.

I know I had stated it wasn't really that emotionally accessible for me the first two times, but this time I could actually feel the film. It's all under the surface, but there are deep reservoirs of emotion there mainly through situational context and I enjoyed it this time. It's better than I originally gave it credit for.

There's also nice little details to pick up on aside from the obvious ones. For example, when Neil and P start driving the car during the chase sequence in the film's middle, there's only a brief flash out the passenger window but you can clearly see that the side view mirror is shattered. On first view, that's the kind of detail that seems unimportant and quickly forgotten... but when their car is struck by another car a few minutes later, if you are paying attention, you see the sideview immediately become whole - signaling the car that struck them was a reverse-entropy vehicle.

Also, this time I recognized Jefferson Hall as the man that P tries to smuggle out of the opera hall in the beginning of the film. (Obviously now he's more well known after playing the Lannister ancestors in House of the Dragon.)
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I rewatched Chris Nolan's Tenet for a third time (after not seeing it for a few years) and this time I really liked it.
I also ran it with English subtitles since the sound mix at times makes it difficult to follow.

I know I had stated it wasn't really that emotionally accessible for me the first two times, but this time I could actually feel the film. It's all under the surface, but there are deep reservoirs of emotion there mainly through situational context and I enjoyed it this time. It's better than I originally gave it credit for.

There's also nice little details to pick up on aside from the obvious ones. For example, when Neil and P start driving the car during the chase sequence in the film's middle, there's only a brief flash out the passenger window but you can clearly see that the side view mirror is shattered. On first view, that's the kind of detail that seems unimportant and quickly forgotten... but when their car is struck by another car a few minutes later, if you are paying attention, you see the sideview immediately become whole - signaling the car that struck them was a reverse-entropy vehicle.

Also, this time I recognized Jefferson Hall as the man that P tries to smuggle out of the opera hall in the beginning of the film. (Obviously now he's more well known after playing the Lannister ancestors in House of the Dragon.)

I haven't seen this film. It's the only one of his post-Batman Begins that I haven't seen. I suspect the pandemic scared me away. It's good to know it's worthwhile.

Today I watched The Godfather. It's such a masterful film. Everything leads up and builds to the moment where Michael becomes godfather. That baptism sequence is masterful; it gave me chills, just as the final scene did, This isn't a hero's journey, but a villain's journey. I unfortunately missed the beginning but Michael's journey from being a respectable war hero to the head of a Mafia crime family is great stuff. This time I caught something I missed, which is that when Michael is hiding out in Sicily after finally joining the family business and marries one of the locals, he's still engaged to Kay Adams. Then he gets back, and (after ignoring Kay's attempts to get in touch) does not immediately get in touch with her for quite some times, but asks to marry her.

I tend to view this Mafia films and series as subversive and critical of masculine social norms (among other things), and I think that that applies to this one. There's another bit when Michael is in Sicily, visiting his ancestral village, and Michael asks "Where are all the men?" The bodyguard replies that they have all been killed in vendettas and blood feuds. We see the bloody escalation of the vendetta later in the film, but the vendetta is traced to something that occurs very early on. It's brilliant the way the movie show how things spiral out of control in this way; which wasn't really apparent on my first viewing. The sequel shows us that Michael does not win here, because there is devastating fallout from his decision.

Also, this must be a Mandela effect thing, but when Vito puts the piece of the orange in his mouth while playing with his grandson, I could have sworn the orange-colored rind was clearly visible, like a mouth guard. Perhaps this is because I remember trailers for a movie called Jane Austen's Mafia that was parodying gangster movies and included a parody of that scene with the orange rind showing up exactly like that. I confess in the actual film, it's difficult to discern clearly on a television screen, but it clearly startles the boy.

 
Last edited:

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I rewatched Everything, Everywhere All at Once again tonight as well. I just love this film and feel like it's a case of "Charlie Kaufman walked so that EEAaO could run." It manages to be pretty crazy in some respects and off-kilter, yet still emotionally accessible in a mainstream way that some of Kaufman's films are not.

I love how it's a film masquerading as a martial arts / sci-fi epic that is really a film about dysfunctional family dynamics, life disappointment, mother-daughter conflicts, nihilism/existentialism, and humanism using the first categories as vehicles by which to introduce the latter.

I love that it's a multiverse film that actually encapsulates the strengths and flaws of the multiverse (symbolized by the Everything Bagel that makes everything seem pointless) -- unlike the MCU's muddled mess of movies that completely missed the mark.

Evelyn's arc


By the end of the film, Evelyn's life situation -- all the things plaguing her -- have not changed at all, but Evelyn herself has completely changed, and this change totally changes how she perceives the universe and makes her life completely different.

Yes, maybe this is part of even something I've experienced -- wishing for reconciliation with abrasive parents, what a fantasy that is -- so it strikes a chord within me and I grasp both Evelyn and Joy. I think the lesson I took away was really about the husband, how his kindness was not weak naivety but a strategic decision to enable him to face the world, and that he is not inherently weak for practicing it.

I love it when it spins nihilism on its head as mother and daughter reconcile and Evelyn tells Joy, "We can do anything we want. Nothing matters."

I am pleased and surprised it did so well in the Academy Awards race (although looking at the state of the world and US now, I wonder whether people took any lessons to heart. So many people seemed to appreciate this film, yet how many of them actually apply it to their own lives? Or learn that it's okay if nothing matters, because we are free to then build something good together? Etc).

I think my biggest disappointment with it was, despite how much I love Jamie Lee, I really think Stephanie Hsu should have gotten Best Supporting Actress (if someone from this film had to win).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Wicked (part 1) was pretty great. I've seen the show twice, and I think they managed to capture the core emotions pretty well and even take advantage of the film medium in some respects (because you can do face close-ups and linger on certain moments what you can't really do in live theater). Pretty uniformly the critic and audience reviews were high, and the few critic complaints I heard seemed to be more about the critic's preference than something actually longer. I wonder if some ever saw the show or were just really familiar with the soundtrack, as there are bits woven in during the actual performance that will briefly pause a song. I also did not feel like there was padding in the film, like maybe about 3 minutes of content that felt it could just be cut, but it seemed to breathe pretty well and gave additional time to emotionally fill out a scene.

Not just adaptations but actual shows will just have some variance in them based on what the actors themselves want to do, how they read their lines, how the singers approach their songs, and what the director wants to accentuate.

My actual criticisms?
1. Oz actually looked kind of bleached/faded in color much more than I expected; I really expected a lot more saturation, and I think maybe the film would have benefited from that. In general, actually, the film didn't quite "pop" as much across the board as I expected.
2. As is typical for theater-to-film adaptations, some of the cast was adequate without being stellar in their vocal work. The most notable was Michelle Yeoh, who more spoke than sang her lines (Madame Morrible has a stanza in Making Good / The Wizard and I) -- but it's freaking Michelle Yeoh and she has presence in her role otherwise, so .... I also do not consider her as big a secondary character like Fiyero, and he was great.

So basically not much complaint.

The film captures the core emotional energy/synergy among the cast and the characters. It frames the main plotlines adequately and highlights why Elphaba is concerned about the animals and then why she rebels against the wizard. This version made Fiyero actually INTERESTING as a person and I actually felt I understand his choices much better than watching the shows or listening to the music. Just like the theater version, it captures the nuanced dynamic between Elphaba and Galinda -- how they start as natural annoyances and even foes to each other, but there's a tipping point and their feelings change. Yet even then, they still have separate goals and capabilities, resulting in them each going their own separate ways (without rancor) at the end of this portion; they are such good friends or at least trust each other's intentions (even when they screw up) that they know they have each other's backs, even when that varies a bit.

The film gets right the two most important turning points of this chapter, and maybe a third as well.
1. The ballroom scene where Galinda sets Elphaba up to be made fun of, then has a change of heart as Elphaba rises to the taunt.
2. The Defying Gravity sequence that ends Part 1.
3. The seeds of Elphaba and Fiyero's relationship -- Erivo and Bailey really draw out the connection here, in their scenes alone.

Erivo of course nails just about everything and makes it her own and you can see definite parallels between her life journey and Elphaba's.
Grande is much better than people expected from her, and honestly this might be her acting career peak ever (she's decent), so I hope people stop bashing her.

There was also kind of a bit of celebrity casting here for a minute or two that I wasn't aware of, but people will probably recognize:
I watched this today. I would say it's pretty good. The beginning and the ending have a lot of feels; I felt that the middle of the movie was too long and perhaps could have been shortened. I actually think Oz looked great except for some parts where I think it was intended to look more bleak. I appreciated the way the made the Wizard associated with these clockwork steampunk contraptions, but of course, that's nothing compared to real magic. It was one of a number of things that fleshed out the story in an interesting way.

I would say this movie is better than most prequels; there isn't any stupid extraneous stuff thrown in just because it's what filmmakers think people want to say. While it does seem to be doing things to set up the original film, it serves the story this one is telling, as well.



This one doesn't explain why water is dangerous to Elphaba.

I disagree with these takes where people are asserting that it follows the book, rather than the 1939 MGM film. I've read the book (it's an extremely easy read) and:



Oh, I thought the funniest part was that scene where Galinda changes her name to Glinda in reference to her teacher's unfortunate fame, and acts like it's this amazing great thing she does.


Watching it I definitely got why this musical was so popular. There's just a lot of things that are relevant to what people experience.
 
Last edited:

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
52,149
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I watched this today. I would say it's pretty good. The beginning and the ending have a lot of feels; I felt that the middle of the movie was too long and perhaps could have been shortened. I actually think Oz looked great except for some parts where I think it was intended to look more bleak. I appreciated the way the made the Wizard associated with these clockwork steampunk contraptions, but of course, that's nothing compared to real magic. It was one of a number of things that fleshed out the story in an interesting way.

I would say this movie is better than most prequels; there isn't any stupid extraneous stuff thrown in just because it's what filmmakers think people want to say. While it does seem to be doing things to set up the original film, it serves the story this one is telling, as well.



This one doesn't explain why water is dangerous to Elphaba.

I disagree with these takes where people are asserting that it follows the book, rather than the 1939 MGM film. I've read the book (it's an extremely easy read) and:



Oh, I thought the funniest part was that scene where Galinda changes her name to Glinda in reference to her teacher's unfortunate fame, and acts like it's this amazing great thing she does.

Watching it I definitely got why this musical was so popular. There's just a lot of things that are relevant to what people experience.
Well, it's pretty close to the musical honestly, except they can do some even cooler stuff (like the rotating library sequence) that is too risky to do live every night. Apparently the insurers weren't thrilled by it, but the dancers and lead (Bailey) made it look effortless.

Yeah, I think the gist of the book and the show are the same, but the book would have a lot more detail plus it has a lot of darker elements to it, from what I've heard. Probably R rated book, G rated show. To me, the musical was just a different spin on the same concept using the book as its general source but making it easily accessible to even younger audience members.

Is water actually dangerous to Elphaba in the Wicked novel?

I don't like to give spoilers, but what I'll say right now is that the next film will open with a song called "Thank Goodness" and in the middle of it the munchkins are working each other into a lather over rumors about the "Witch" and one blurts out that "I hear her soul is so unclean that pure water will melt her!!!" and all the munchkins are suggesting someone should go melt her, which is so preposterous that Fiyero calls them empty-headed. So you'll have to wait and see how this rumor plays out, lol....

Yeah, there are subplots that will parallel the main players from the 1939 film -- so they end up being important to explain where the characters came from. The lion cub is one of those.

It's a good laugh when Galinda changes her name as a huge display of how much she cares about the plight of the talking animals, just because Dillamond had trouble pronouncing it. i think the really funny part is that it's not necessarily a cynical political move -- Galinda actually believes it to be a gracious act on her part and politically powerful.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
22,429
MBTI Type
EVIL
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Well, it's pretty close to the musical honestly, except they can do some even cooler stuff (like the rotating library sequence) that is too risky to do live every night. Apparently the insurers weren't thrilled by it, but the dancers and lead (Bailey) made it look effortless.
That was cool. So this was this big elaborate thing in the musical, like the chandelier in Phantom of the Opera? And apparently they didn't always do it?
Yeah, I think the gist of the book and the show are the same, but the book would have a lot more detail plus it has a lot of darker elements to it, from what I've heard. Probably R rated book, G rated show. To me, the musical was just a different spin on the same concept using the book as its general source but making it easily accessible to even younger audience members.

Is water actually dangerous to Elphaba in the Wicked novel?
Oh, I should clarify. I've read the original Wizard of Oz, by Frank L. Baum, not the novel Wicked, by Gregory Maguire . There are so many different versions of the story in play here. I don't know about water in the Wicked novel, but at the beginning of the film, we see a puddle of her water with Elphaba's hat on top. I'm assuming she becomes vulnerable to water at some particular point.
I don't like to give spoilers, but what I'll say right now is that the next film will open with a song called "Thank Goodness" and in the middle of it the munchkins are working each other into a lather over rumors about the "Witch" and one blurts out that "I hear her soul is so unclean that pure water will melt her!!!" and all the munchkins are suggesting someone should go melt her, which is so preposterous that Fiyero calls them empty-headed. So you'll have to wait and see how this rumor plays out, lol....


Yeah, there are subplots that will parallel the main players from the 1939 film -- so they end up being important to explain where the characters came from. The lion cub is one of those.
I think I figured out a few of those...
It's a good laugh when Galinda changes her name as a huge display of how much she cares about the plight of the talking animals, just because Dillamond had trouble pronouncing it. i think the really funny part is that it's not necessarily a cynical political move -- Galinda actually believes it to be a gracious act on her part and politically powerful.
She's very proud of it.

Thoughts about the wizard:
 
Top