But could BOTH work in the same batch? I alternate between the two but I am curious what would happen if I combined them. It doesn’t seem like it would work because, naturally, the idea of beer and coffee mixed sounds awful. But maybe it would be the best chili ever?
Thoughts?
btw, I’m talking about a classic Texas style beef chili.
I don’t know of I’m gonna have to duck virtual tomatoes here, but I have always thought this could been a much better song if John had finished it instead of mashing it up with the chorus that Paul had. (If you don’t know: John did the verses to an unfinished song and they completed it by adding a random chorus that Paul had lying around).
I love both of them equally so this isn’t a John > Paul sentiment. And I love the examples of them working together in the later era when they were starting to drift. However, I do honestly find the verses to be excellent but the chorus is just kind of goofy and not in the usual endearing way of “Hello, Goodbye” or “Ob la Di…”. Because of that I rarely listen to it.
I dunno. Just wondering if my fellow fans agree or not.
I’ll post mine below…
Are there any monsters from gothic literature or any other sources who might have reached the iconic status of Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, Invisible Man, ect, if they had been adapted by Universal for a 1930s classic?
The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is The Headless Horseman.
They described the (male) Monster as an “incel” without “rizz” who “simped” for the Bride after she “lowkey aura farmed” before he destroyed everyone like a “pathetic chud”.
I suppose this is technically accurate. But I still asked them to leave.
Edit: The Bride being short for The Bride of Frankenstein, not the crappy 2026 film.
I’ve got the Universal Monsters in 4k, and they’re spectacular! But I can’t find much else from the era.
It would be totally rad to see King Kong in 4k, or some of the Cecil B DeMille classics like Cleopatra or Sign of the Cross.
Why so few from that decade? Are they harder to remaster or do companies just think they’d have appeal?
The reason why is that he largely plays the role of straight man, which just suits the show so much better than the other supporting characters. He rarely oversells a line and even when he’s given a joke he plays it very naturally (with the occasional exception, such as: “like a WOMANNNNN!)
Contrast this with Holly and Pruzan who can be funny too but always oversell their dialogue in a blatantly sitcom-ish fashion. Kevin, Leah and Jerry are very organically funny and Kevin especially knows how to sell a line. So these performances can seem especially awkward by contrast. Deacon, however, just fits into every scene so well and his good lines always get bigger laughs from me because of it.
Spence is a good exception to this though. He isn’t a straight man but fits in quite well and is usually very organically funny. Generally speaking though, I think Deacon is the perfect fit for most scenes that need an extra actor.