u/FitEmergency8807

Honestly, this is starting to get pretty annoying. Every time a new set photo of the lads gets released, the comments are immediately flooded with “Oh my God, that’s not my Paul!” or “Lennon wasn’t that tall!” and people picking apart every little physical detail. 😂

I think some people are forgetting that it’s only a movie. The actors aren’t supposed to be exact clones or look like they’ve been digitally transported out of 1964. They’re some of the best young actors working today, and their job is to intepret the Beatles, not perfectly replicate every single physical characteristic.

Would it be cool if they looked as close to the real Beatles as possible? Of course. But personally, that’s way down my list of priorities. Give me good acting, believable chemistry between the four, a strong story, and performances that actually capture their personalities. That’s what’s going to make these films work. And the fact that all four actors have apparently put serious time into learning their instruments tells me they’re actually committed to getting into these roles properly. I’d much rather have four genuinely great actors who understand the characters than four guys who look 99% like the Beatles but give mediocre performances.

And as for people complaining that they look too old in the set photos… guys, relax . We already know de-aging and other visual effects are going to be part of the process. You’re looking at behind-the-scenes photos of actors on a film set, not the finished movie.

What are some great genres that have spawned some absolutely shit subgenres? For me, it has to be post-grunge.

Grunge is one of my favourite genres, and some of my favourite bands ever came out of that scene like Nirvana, Mudhoney, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Screaming Trees, Pearl Jam, etc. What I love about those bands is that, despite all being lumped under the grunge label, they actually had very distinct sounds and personalities. There was a rawness and authenticity to the music that made it feel like more than just a genre or aesthetic.

Then you get post-grunge, which to me feels like a bastardised, watered-down version of everything that made grunge great. It took the basic formula distorted guitars, angst, quiet-loud dynamics and raspy vocals and made it much more polished, radio-friendly and commercially accessible. And don’t even get me started on all the lead singers doing those exaggerated Eddie Vedder impressions lol.

Bands like Puddle of Mudd, 3 Doors Down and Creed are obviously hugely successful, but personally I can’t stand them. To me, post-grunge often feels like grunge stripped of its personality and turned into generic early 2000s rock designed for mainstream radio.

Obviously there are exceptions, but as a whole, post-grunge is probably one of my least favourite offshoots of a genre I otherwise absolutely love.

A lot of people split Pac into pre-Death Row and Death Row Pac, and I get why. Pre-Death Row Pac was much more conscious and socially focused. 2Pacalypse Now, Strictly 4 My N.I.G.G.A.Z. and Me Against the World had plenty of gangsta themes, but there was a lot of Black empowerment, racism, poverty, police brutality and introspection.

Death Row Pac leaned much harder into gangsta rap and the more celebratory/flashy side of his image, especially on All Eyez on Me. But I think Makaveli was almost like a return to his conscious roots with songs like “Blasphemy,” “White Man’z World” and “Hold Ya Head.”

I like every version of Pac, but if I had to choose, I’d probably take pre-Death Row Pac. He just felt more raw, vulnerable and socially conscious to me. Death Row Pac had insane charisma and energy though, and obviously made some classics.

I see a lot of people call Ryan Gosling overrated and say he can’t really act, or that he basically plays the same character in every movie and relies on the same facial expressions. I honestly disagree. I really like him as an actor, and I think a huge part of his appeal is just how much charisma he naturally has on screen. He doesn’t always have to do a ton or completely transform himself to make a character interesting, sometimes his presence alone is enough to carry a scene.

He also reminds me a lot of those classic Hollywood stars from back in the day, where being a great movie star wasn’t necessarily about disappearing into every role, but about having that undeniable screen presence and personality that makes you want to watch them. Gosling has that quality imo. Whether he’s playing someone quiet and emotionally withdrawn in Drive, a more vulnerable character in Blue Valentine, a goofy comedy role in The Nice Guys, or something completely different like Ken in Barbie, he brings something that makes the performance memorable.

I wouldn’t say he’s one of the greatest actors of his generation or anything, but I think he’s a genuinely great actor and an even better movie star. Even when he’s playing characters that are somewhat similar, I rarely find him boring to watch. There’s just something about his screen presence that works for me.

Why are British actors so good at playing American characters, especially Black American characters? I’ll be watching a movie or TV show and sometimes won’t even realise the actor is British until afterwards, then I’m genuinely caught off guard by how accurate their accent was.

It also makes me wonder why British actors seem to get so many American roles. Is it because their acting schools and training are better, or is there just a particularly strong culture of acting and theatre over there? Obviously there are loads of talented actors in the US, but I’ve always found it interesting how often British actors can completely disappear into American roles, accents and all.

I’m a huge hip-hop head, specifically when it comes to the ’90s, and I love gangsta rap from that era. I own a ton of gangsta rap records and genuinely love that shit. But one thing I’ve never understood is why Tupac gets singled out so much with the “fake gangster” or “fake thug” criticism.

If we’re being real, a lot of the gangsta rappers who emerged in the ’80s and ’90s weren’t actually gangsters living the life they rapped about either lol. Ice Cube was a straight-A student, studied architecture in college, had good parents, and wasn’t out here living some hardcore street life. Dr. Dre wasn’t a gangster either. Jadakiss went to private school and grew up in a two-parent household. Nas named himself after Escobar, but he wasn’t some major drug dealer and was a relatively good kid growing up. Even groups like Mobb Deep weren’t literally living every single thing they portrayed in their music.

And that’s the point, rap has always involved personas, exaggeration, storytelling and entertainment. You don’t necessarily have to literally live every bar you spit for the music to be authentic or impactful.

So I’ve never really understood why Tupac gets so much more scrutiny for this than other rappers from the same era. If we’re going to apply the “fake gangster” standard to Pac, you’d have to apply it to a huge portion of ’90s gangsta rap. I just don’t understand why he seems to get singled out for something that was extremely common in hip-hop at the time

I can’t be the only one who can’t stand the “I love Pac, but…” comments lol. Seen a comment on Twitter about Pac and it started out as I love Pac and then proceeded to talk crap about pac 😂, Every time Tupac gets brought up, there’s always someone rushing to explain how much they supposedly love him before immediately listing everything they dislike about him. “I love Pac, but he was too emotional,” “I love Pac, but he wasn’t that great of a lyricist,” “I love Pac, but…” Like bro, we get it 😂

I was way too young when GTA IV came out, so I never got to experience the hype around it when it was released. I only played it for the first time recently and honestly, I loved the story. Niko’s story, the darker tone, Liberty City and the atmosphere all really worked for me.
But for those of you who played it back in 2008, what was the reaction like at the time?

I’ve heard a lot of fans felt GTA IV was a downgrade from San Andreas in certain ways. San Andreas had so much freedom and random shit to do, gyms, tattoos, hairstyles, character stats, multiple cities, planes, jetpacks, etc. Then IV came out and removed a lot of those features while going for a much smaller, more realistic world.

I’ve heard some people were expecting Rockstar to take everything San Andreas had and build on it, so IV feeling more limited was a bit of a shock. At the same time, the graphics, physics, atmosphere and storytelling were massive improvements.

For those who were there, did GTA IV live up to your expectations after San Andreas, or did it initially feel like a step backwards? And has your opinion of the game changed over the years? Where does it rank among the GTA games for you?

A music take I genuinely don’t understand is when people compare Chris Brown to Michael Jackson. I’ve even seen people say Chris Brown surpassed Michael Jackson, and honestly, that baffles me.
Chris Brown is a talented performer and a good dancer, but I don’t think he comes close to Michael Jackson’s overall impact, artistry, or catalogue.

Chris doesn’t even have one album that I’d consider a genuine classic, whereas Michael has at least three undisputed classics. And while Chris is an impressive dancer, I don’t think he’s a better dancer than Michael either. Doing backflips doesn’t automatically make someone the better dancer.

Michael Jackson was an incredible vocalist, performer, songwriter, dancer, and entertainer who completely changed the standard for what a pop star could be. Chris Brown is talented in his own right, but when I hear people seriously argue that he’s better than Michael Jackson, I honestly can’t help but laugh.

What are some albums that you feel are pretentious or “insist upon themselves”? I’m talking about albums that try so hard to be deep, artistic, intellectual, or experimental that they end up feeling self-indulgent. Not necessarily bad albums, just ones that take themselves way too seriously. What are your picks?

I find it annoying how, when people think of Tupac, the first thing that comes to mind is “Hit ’Em Up” Pac or Death Row Pac. Like, I get it, I love All Eyez on Me too, but it feels like that’s the image a lot of people have of Pac, as if his entire career was just gangsta rap, beef and Death Row.

If you actually dive into his catalogue, there’s so much more depth to his music. He had a ton of conscious, introspective and socially aware songs that dealt with poverty, racism, family, relationships, mental health, death and the struggles he went through. Songs like “Keep Ya Head Up,” “Brenda’s Got a Baby,” “Changes,” “So Many Tears” and “Dear Mama” show a completely different side of him.
Even All Eyez on Me, as much as I love it, was only one phase of his career. A lot of that album was about celebration, excess, partying and living that lavish lifestyle, but that wasn’t the entirety of who Pac was as an artist. And when you listen to the Makaveli material, you can hear him moving back toward that darker, more introspective and politically conscious side again.

That’s why I hate when Tupac gets reduced to “Hit ’Em Up” or the Death Row era. Those songs are iconic, but Pac was a much more complex artist than that.

This gotta be one of the most talked-about feuds in ’90s hip-hop, but I’ve always wondered what actually started the whole East vs. West shit.

Most people point to the 1995 Source Awards and the Pac vs. Biggie beef, but the tension was already brewing way before that. Tim Dog dropped “Fuck Compton” in 1991 and basically went straight at the whole West Coast scene. At the same time, you had West Coast artists feeling like East Coast radio stations and media were lowkey disrespecting them, refusing to play their records and acting like New York was still the only place that mattered in hip-hop.

By the time Death Row and Bad Boy were going head-to-head, the regional tension was already there. Pac and Biggie just took that shit to another level.

So who really started it? Was it the East Coast throwing the first shots, the West feeling like they had something to prove, or was the media gassing the whole thing up and turning it into something way bigger than it needed to be?

For me, it’s easily Joey Bada$$. I honestly think he should be way bigger than he is. He’s a talented lyricist, but he’s also someone who understands how to actually craft a song, which I think gets overlooked. He can make a strong hook, ride a beat, tell a story, and switch up his style depending on what the track needs.

His whole aesthetic and approach to hip-hop also feel heavily influenced by the 90s, so I genuinely think he would’ve fit right into that era. If he had been born earlier and debuted in the early or mid-90s, I could easily see him holding his own alongside a lot of the greats from that generation. He has that combination of lyricism, charisma, and classic boom bap sound that probably would’ve translated really well back then.