• BroBot9000@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    That and it’s a sequel to a move made in 1988. It was always destined to be a soulless nostalgia cash grab.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Thatuserguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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)

  • oni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 months ago

    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”.

    • Melochar @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      71
      ·
      3 months ago

      Poisonous: will make you sick if you eat it. Venomous: will make you sick if it bites or stings you.

    • Atherel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Not native English speaking neither but afaik:

      poisonous: you die if you eat it

      Venomous: you die if it bites you

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      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”.

      • Canadian_Cabinet @lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        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

    • ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Canadian_Cabinet @lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      • captain_oni@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Español cuenta también con “Ponzoñoso” (Poisonous ) para poder diferenciar. Pero en si, sólo son sinónimos y se utilizan igual.

        • oni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          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”

      • oni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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

      • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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)

    • workerONE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Daemon Silverstein@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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”).

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you kill a snake and decide to chew on the venom glands, would they be considered poisonous or venomous?

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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

      • Godnroc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • chaogomu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

    • xenoclast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Well. I know that they’re gonna consider you both stupid and dead… but yeah… The corner would have a tough time

  • Ravi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Heavybell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I saw it last night: it’s the worst wet fart of a movie I’ve seen in a long time

      • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        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…

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          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?

          • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            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?

              • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                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

            • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

      • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        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…

  • norimee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    As a non native English speaker, where does toxic fit into the poisonous/venevenomous question?

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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”.)

      • norimee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          There is a lot of pedantry in English despite there being no central governing body over the language like French has.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

    • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

  • dev_null@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    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?

    • BigBananaDealer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      • dev_null@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        May point is that it might be a mistake of the character, intended by the writers, not a mistake by the writers.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes and no. Soulless cash grabs are unwatchable. But things like The Fly, dawn of the dead, the mummy, Scarface…10/10

    • Bruhh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • nek0d3r@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    I literally thought the correction in my head while in the theater. It took some restraint to not mention anything to my partner lol

  • kubica@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Maybe you need to dub it from english to english and take the chance to fix it.

  • Jake Farm@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Well Astrid does kill her self with said snakes so I feel like it evens itself out.

  • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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?

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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

    • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • Default_Defect@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.