That and it’s a sequel to a move made in 1988. It was always destined to be a soulless nostalgia cash grab.
Eh, it’s alright for what it is. It’s a sequel that’s mostly enjoyable and entertaining. And feels like classic Burton through and through. Catherine O’Hara and Michael Keaton are also obviously having a lot of fun.
Like everyone else said, doesn’t beat the original, but it was fun for what it was. Certainly kept a lot of the same spirit, which is more than I can say for a lot of these soulless reboot/sequel cash grabs these days
Meh it was enjoyable enough. It’s certainly not overtaking the original as the better, but it was a fine hour and a half our whatever.
I didn’t enjoy it much, but I had a headache at the time, and the three other people with me had a blast, so I think it’s probably not bad.
I was pleasantly surprised. I went and saw it with my mother since the original was one of her favorites to watch with me growing up. She was actually more critical of it than I was, which doesn’t happen very often, but at the same time I think she had higher expectations than I did. (Mine were not very high)
Actually, everything is a remix
lmao, not an english native speaker here. What would be, in english language, the difference between poisonous and venomous? Lifting aside the “pois” and the “ven”.
Poisonous: will make you sick if you eat it. Venomous: will make you sick if it bites or stings you.
Wait. So what if you ate the snake… wouldn’t that mean at that point it could be poisonous? Checkmate.
If you consume venom and don’t have any open sores, you should be fine in most cases.
Poison, however, will probably still kill you if you inject it into your bloodstream. Then again, most things will kill you if you inject it into your bloodstream.
Poison is in the fangs not the meat
I mean… a fang can be eaten. Dogs eat all sorts of weird stuff.
If you eat a fang and it gouges into your skin and injects venom, did you eat it or did you get bitten?
It’s not the fang that’s poisonous but the glands and those absolutely could be even accidentally eaten. #debunked
So the conclusion is venomous is a subset of poisonous and the movie totally watchable.
Yes.
🤯
Fair enough lol
Venom is transported through the fangs just so a bunch of children don’t go eating a bunch of venom glands…
Yes, venom is poisonous. It is a subset of poisons that are injected via bites or stings.
Not native English speaking neither but afaik:
poisonous: you die if you eat it
Venomous: you die if it bites you
- If it bites you and you die: it’s venomous
- If you bite it and you die: it’s poisonous
Bears are venomous and lava is poisonous. Got it
If we follow this logic, bears are both poisonous and venomous.
I don’t speak Spanish, but just looking at the alternative options Google Translate provides when you only input a single word, it’s possible that “tóxico” might be a clearer translation of “poisonous”.
Tóxico is more or less analogous to toxic in English, it sounds normal to use with something like a chemical but weird with an animal
Poisons are ingested where as venoms are injected.
If you bite (or drink, etc.) it it’s poison. If it bites (or stings, etc.) you it’s venom.
Hace un par de días teníamos esta misma discusión aquí, básicamente «poison» es si lo tocas y mueres. «Venom» es si te muerde y mueres. En español es más simple con veneno jaja
Español cuenta también con “Ponzoñoso” (Poisonous ) para poder diferenciar. Pero en si, sólo son sinónimos y se utilizan igual.
Lo mismo me pasó hace unos años. En tumblr había un post donde mencionaban las diferencias entre un “raven” y un “crow”, pero ambos sabemos que la traducción directa de ambas palabras es “cuervo”
Crow sería corneja, propiamente dicho… but everyone knows that ravens are just a big species of crow.
Y que tal de un jackdaw?
Raven — Cuervo
Crow — Corneja
Jackdaw — Grajilla
Portuguese has no different word for them as well. Both raven and crow are translated as “corvo”.
Recalco en que no soy angloparlante porque busqué primero en un diccionario en inglés y aparecen como sinónimos, entonces para sacarme completamente de dudas, pregunto a angloparlantes, pero sigo en la misma situación
I see. @Atherel@lemmy.dbzer0.com, @Melochar@lemmy.world, and @JustAPenguin@lemmy.world Thank you, you all
Keep in mind that poisonous and venomous are only different in a scientific context. In regular conversation people use them to mean the same thing (or at least they use poisonous to mean both-- venomous is less used in casual contexts)
I was told that if something dies from poison and you eat it then it is dangerous. But if something dies from venom and you eat it you will be okay.
Seems like it would depend on the poison.
In Portuguese we have the word “venenoso” for “poisonous” and “peçonhento” for “venomous” (i.e. something with a “peçonha”, any toxin substance produced and injected on another animal). But we often use “peçonhento” e “venenoso” interchangeably (e.g. “cobra venenosa”).
Just watch the german version, where both translates to “giftig”. Who cares if it needs to bite you or if you need to bite it, if it contains poison/venom just stay away from it.
If you kill a snake and decide to chew on the venom glands, would they be considered poisonous or venomous?
With the sucking venom out of a bite memes they always warned that you needed good mouth health as the venom getting into your blood through a cut or sore would be dangerous, suggesting that venom could be safely ingested
Our digestive system is pretty good at talking apart proteins
It’s also very good at absorbing things directly into our blood streams. I think sucking on venom is a good way to poison yourself.
Except the truth is that no, almost every venom is safe to ingest. Provided you don’t have any cuts in your mouth or throat.
Snakes are not immune to their own venom. They don’t need to be, because their stomach acid can break it down.
As can ours.
We have proteins in our diets that our body could use intact, however our digestion breaks those down and we absorb the amino acids and rebuild the needed proteins.
No protein survives digestion. It’s really quite surprising that some prions do survive and fuck us up
Well. I know that they’re gonna consider you both stupid and dead… but yeah… The corner would have a tough time
There are poisonous snakes, but most are not. They become poisonous through their diet.
Oh yeah? Name three!
Margherita, Sssamssson, Snoot-di-loop
And Bob
Snakes in Australia are probably venomous and poisonous.
I remember hearing on QI about a snake that eats a poisonous frog in order to become poisonous itself. Don’t think it was Australian but who knows.
I saw it last night: it’s the worst wet fart of a movie I’ve seen in a long time
What is missing from the original?
Story cohesion, justifiable plot, relatable characters, believable dialogues, good montage (there are more frame changes than a fast and furious chase sequence) and in general there is nothing that make this one look like a Tim Burton movie.
But hey we now have *checks notes* Monica Bellucci, the worst actress the big screen has ever seen…That sucks. The producers (or directors or someone idfk) have just been charged with making the first screen adaption of one of my favorite ongoing comic series. I’m nervous.
I really hope that you’re not gonna end up disappointed as I was yesterday coming out of the theater: I could’t find one single aspect I enjoyed and still cannot
At least I’ll always have the comics lol.
In a few years you’ll just ask an AI to turn the comics into a film.
Story cohesion
In one or two simlpe sentences, summarize the story of the original Beetlejuice film. In just a few words, what is Beetlejuice about?
But hey we now have checks notes Monica Bellucci, the worst actress the big screen has ever seen…
May I introduce you to Monique Gabrielle?
In one or two simlpe sentences, summarize the story of the original Beetlejuice film.
Ghost couple tries to shoo away the family who bought their house after they died. The thing gets out of hand when they hire Beetlejuice.
Why this question, tho?
The implication is that the original wasn’t cohesive.
I think the real world sections of the original are perfectly cohesive.
I think you got it backwards, I mean the new one doesn’t have cohesion: the parallel stories don’t really match with each other
Trying to put the thought in my head into words…Let’s try this: Beetlejuice has an excuse plot like a lot of video games do. The plot is a framework to attach fun and amusing scenes together. It’s an excuse to go to the ghost DMV and to have the dinner and seance and wedding scenes.
At one point they do have a stated goal of scaring away the Deetzes, but they don’t achieve this goal. They scare off Otho, by making his…suit less trendy? Am I remembering that right? But the Maitlands and Deetzes end up living in harmony, Lydia gets the movie’s victory lap. Beetlejuice is the title character, but he’s really the closest thing the film has to an antagonist.
Really, the characters and plot don’t matter as much as the series of fun and interesting scenes. That’s why I enjoyed the movie; it’s built more like a haunted house than a feature film. It’s a series of loosely related vignettes. And if those are fun, then mission achieved.
Did you see Borderlands, Killer’s Game, or any of the Rebel Moon variations?
Nope, as I generally want to be entertained when I spend money and time for a movie.
I’d lie if I said I expected this to be as good as the first one, but boy was that an understatement…
As a non native English speaker, where does toxic fit into the poisonous/venevenomous question?
Typically used to describe chemicals, or your ex girlfriend
Do you know his ex too?
/c/SuicideByWords ?
The lemmy equivalent seems to be !selfburns@lemmy.zip
If “poisonous” are parallelograms and “venomous” are trapezoids, “toxic” would be quadrilaterals in general. (Can’t use square/rectangle analogy, because squares are a type of rectangle, and venom/poison is not a type of poison/venom.)
Aside from that, there aren’t too many rules on “toxic”.
Poison and venom will both cause serious acute injury with the possibility of immediate death. Both can be considered “toxic”.
Just to be confusing, “poison” and “poisoning” can have substantially different connotations. For example, the heavy metal “lead” would not normally* be considered a “poison”. Lead would generally be considered “toxic”.
But, repeated exposure to lead to the point that it causes physical symptoms is referred to as “lead poisoning”.
Same thing with mercury: it would be considered “toxic”; it wouldn’t normally* be considered a poison. But repeated exposure to mercury would be considered “mercury poisoning”.
(* If a third party were to deliberately introduce lead or mercury into the body of an individual, the substance would then be considered a “poison”.)
Thank you for your thorough explanation.
It’s always a bit confusing when your language has one word for something another language makes distinctions within.
Bro, look at "かける (kakeru)” in Japanese. It’s a verb with a bajillion different meanings depending on context. Kill me.
I thought it couldn’t be that bad but as I was scrolling it just keeps going
There is a lot of pedantry in English despite there being no central governing body over the language like French has.
Yep!
Personally, I’m deprecating “its”.
The “its/it’s” distinction requires violation of the apostrophe-s rule for possessive forms. This exception to that rule is entirely arbitrary. The meaning is never ambiguous in context; the distinction exists solely to enable pedantry and confuse spell checkers.
So, English will be better off by retiring “its”, relegating it to the trash heap along with “chuse”.
“It’s” is now a homonym. Both the contraction rules and the possessive rules for apostrophe-s construction are maintained, and the only people who will cry about it are English teachers and other worthless pedants.
I have spoken.
On the contrary, what if we bring back 'tis?
'Tis good!
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/364-poisons-and-toxins
Sounds like poisons are injested, and toxins are poisons that are produced within the body through reactions. And venom is just poison that’s only harmful in the bloodstream.
Toxic can be used to refer to something that will slowly damage the body in some way.
e.g. tobacco smoke, which doesn’t kill you right away, but slowly turns you into a zombie, by destroying your mental ability and cause faster ageing.
Another, is Lead (Pb), which lead to the destruction of the Roman empire.As a native English speaker, uuuuhhhhhhh
deleted by creator
It’s a common mistake, so isn’t a character in a movie making it realistic? Wouldn’t it be out of character for many characters to have perfect English?
it only takes 1 flaw to turn a movie from a 10/10 to a 0/10. this is one such example
sigh guess us real kinophiles must fend for ourselves
May point is that it might be a mistake of the character, intended by the writers, not a mistake by the writers.
Maybe she was eating poisonous snakes off camera. You don’t know.
Remakes are unwatchable
It’s not a remake. It’s a sequel with the same director and writing team as the first one.
It also has a few truly disturbing scenes.
Yes and no. Soulless cash grabs are unwatchable. But things like The Fly, dawn of the dead, the mummy, Scarface…10/10
Scar face has a remake?
Scarface with Al pachinco is a remake
The first one isn’t exactly watchable either. Beetlejuice is in it for 20 min of the whole movie? He’s not the main character, sure but you’d think the titular character would have more screen time.
I literally thought the correction in my head while in the theater. It took some restraint to not mention anything to my partner lol
Maybe you need to dub it from english to english and take the chance to fix it.
Well Astrid does kill her self with said snakes so I feel like it evens itself out.
Aside of the obvious meme joke. Well, language eveolves, maybe the distinction isn’t that important any more. Other languages don’t have it and usually you add more context to something. Also when was the last time you tried to eat an unknown animal? Or where in a situation, where you had to decide if the dangerous looking animal is only supposed to be uneatable instead of venomous?
as much as i believe languages are living tools, cannot be constrained by rules, and will evolve no matter how much old timers complain
if you tell me about a “venomous mushroom” I’ll freak out at the possibility of such a being existing faster than you can explain how you don’t really see a reason for the distinction between venomous and poisonous and that other languages don’t even have it
To be fair, knowing how weird fungi can be, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised.
Predatory fungi are, somewhat unsurprisingly, a thing, after all, though they don’t seem to use poison…
In German venomous and poisonous is the same word. It absolutely does work.
Tbh I feel like it’s a very important distinction . There are poisonous things that aren’t harmful unless ingested. However something that is venomous is probably ready to attack if approached
It’s kind of funny, because in other languages it doesn’t use this distinction and people don’t eat poisonous mushrooms because someone called them venomous by accident, or the other way around with a venomous animal.
I’m fine with language naturally changing over time as it does, but I’m not a big fan of people gleefully cheering on as words lose meaning because people can’t handle being corrected about the current meaning/intent of words.
