Messages

"Cause he's insane..."

If you write it, he will come...

Need a hand?

I mean no one complained about Nicole Bradford's 2 dads and that was 8 years ago!

This made me laugh more than anything in the last month. ROFFLE  ROFFLE!!

It's amazing how anybody that tries to keep a balanced opinion and see both sides gets bitch-slapped by both extremes.  I wasn't making a comparison at all.  To be more specific; having raised 4 girls for 7 years, I met quite a lot of parents and their children.  Of those sets of parents, I never met a gay couple.  I did, however, meet many bi-racial couples, drug-dealing couples, abusive parents, Wiccan parents, ultra-conservative uber-Christian parents, strict parents and the 'cool' parents who'll let their kids experiment with everything regardless of age or maturity level.

I just assumed since you mentioned both in sentences that run one after the other and linking them with the phrase "It would be far more realistic if" that you were making a comparison between the realism of gay couples and alcoholics on television. And I just followed that on with a comment that comparing gay couples with alcoholics isn't really much of a comparison anyway, and that you might as well just forego all "issues" on TV (such as gays, alcoholics, race, religion) and have shows where six zany-but-normal white people hang out at a zany-but-normal coffee shop every day and do zany-but-normal white people things like dance around zany-but-normal fountains.

But I was wrong to assume that comparison in the first place, wasn't I? 

Comparing Uwe Boll to David Mamet is like comparing a rusty, dented Volkswagon to a SAAB convertible.

Watch Glengarry Glen Ross or Wag the Dog and then eat my balls.

Also, I heard Uwe Boll wants to direct as his next videogame-to-movie project the Hitman movie. I read he wants to cast Bruce Willis as Agent 47.

I've yet to see a set of lesbian parents raising children and I've met a lot of parents (in the San Francisco area no less).  It would be far more realistic if our favorite little bunny met his friends parents and the dad turned out to be a physically abusive alcoholic (now that's good children's TV!).

I should actually mention (according the news reports I've read) the daughter and the lesbian parents are voiced by real people. These are not fake lesbians. They're a real couple with a sugar farm who are guest-voicing for an episode.

Also, I think comparing lesbians to abusive alcoholics is a bit of an apples-oranges comparison. But if you want to have realism, just put in the same old whitebread vanilla folk you see on nearly every show.

And if that's the case, you might as well just watch Arthur instead of Buster. Nobody is more whitebread than Arthur.



Look at him!

P.S. My favourite episode of Arthur is the one that guest stars the Backstreet Boys. THEY'RE SO DREAMY!!

Cause he's a forum Nazi!

ZIG HALE ERIC!

Occasionally people can be serious and humorous.  It happens when you don't take everything so damn seriously, because you know no matter what we all die the same.  Sorta nihlistic, but it makes you appreciate the moment.

Claiming to be serious and humorous at the same time is a way of believing that the self does not exist and exploring rational thought while supporting political destruction?? Whoa, that nihilism stuff is pretty awesome!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/alone_in_the_dark/

You've all missed the point, dammit! The point is...



Buster has met some lesbians!

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5C%5CCulture%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200501%5C%5CCUL20050127b.html

However, this place's beliefs interest me as this is one of the more thoughtful groups I've come across (with an exception for DG of course). 

Yah, and you're the pinnacle of thought. Just take a look at my sig! 

I thought it was subtle. Sure, it may seem like a blatant metaphor but it's more subtle then going, "Hello Virginia Madsen. I am like Pinot Noir because I'm very thin-skinned and bitter."

"Oh, but Pinot Noir makes good wine, just like you're a good person, Paul Giamatti!"

"Okay then let's sex!"

I am now immortal.

"You have the manners of a goat. And you smell like a dung-heap! And you have no knowledge whatsoever of your potential!"

Timmy, I thought the ending was subtle enough when compared to Finding Neverland where they basically blurt out the subtext of the entire film at the very end. I thought Sideways had such subtle moments throughout the whole film. For example, the discussion between Giamatti and Virginia Madsen about pinot noir was beautiful.

But I just like endings that end early. If the film had continued past the end, it would have been really hokey, and that's how I felt about Finding Neverland.

I thought Depp was great in Neverland. He carried the film, worked well with Winslet, and matched-up against seasoned actors like Dustin Hoffman and Julie Christie. But, I prefer Giamatti's performance in Sideways. Sadly, he wasn't nominated. Though, he might have a chance next year in The Cinderella Man with Russell Crowe.

As for Neverland itself, I thought it was a good film, but a little too calculated and predictable. The performances and production values were great, but it just seem like every scene was written in a way audiences expect them to be written. Like (SPOILERS):

Spoiler

Everyone loves his play about Neverland in the end. Winslet's character, who was sick through the whole film, dies at the end. Peter hurts his arm, and Winslett's mother blames Depp for it. All was a little too predictable.

[close]

I like films with scripts that take you to places where you're not sure they're going to take you. That's how I felt with Sideways. And Sideways ended perfectly, whereas Neverland ended with a not so-subtle conclusion.

Then again, I like endings with a little ambiguity.

EDIT: To answer your question a little better, though, I think Depp will lose to Jamie Foxx. I haven't seen Ray, but am hanging out to. From what I've heard, he nails the performance with a large mallet. Plus, he's scoped up a majority of the critics awards. And he plays a real-life character who is a one of music's greatest (and most charming) innovators. That's why I think he'll win.

EDIT 2: On the subject of movie-related news, read this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1289506.htm

About fucking time!

I've only seen two: Sideways and Finding Neverland. If the Oscars were based on what I've seen so far, Sideways would win it.

Try fucking a cactus. Not only will you be a deviant, but people will look at you with a new respect.

If a movie is good, I'll watch it.

But how do you know a movie is good before you watch it?

UH OH! PARADOX!

HA HA FOOLED YOU IT'S ONLY THE OSCAR NOMINATIONS...

http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2005/oscars

So, what did you think of them? For me, I did an early Best Picture predix in December on another forum. I guessed:

The Aviator
Finding Neverland
Kinsey
Million Dollar Baby
Sideways

I got Kinsey wrong. It ended up being Ray. 4/5 isn't too bad!

As for the winners, I'll guess the following:

Best Pic: The Aviator

Best Director: Scorsese for The Aviator

Actor: Jamie Foxx

Actress: Hillary Swank

Supporting Actor: Thomas Haden Church

Supporting Actress: Virginia Madsen

Original Script: Eternal Sunshine

Adapted Script: Sideways

Lot of good surprises, like the nominations for Hotel Rwanda. A few disappointments, like Paul Giamatti missing out for Sideways.

I think I watched only one episode of Naruto, switched it off, then set the remaining episodes on fire.