IND 10
NO 6
Fact: Garrett Hartley has scored the Saints last ten points, going back to the NFC Championship game.
And that's the first half. The Dallas Cowboys' record for fewest points allowed in a Super Bowl (24-3 over Miami, SB VI) remains intact. I'm shocked the Saints managed to get that FG back.
I'll be tuning out The Who now.
Saints stopped on 4th down.
More to the point, why the fuck did they not kick the FG?
Also, you've got Drew Brees - throw the ball on a rollout or something.
Bad, bad call on 4th down.
IND 10
NO 3
There has never been a shutout in SB history, and with the 46 yard field goal this remains true.
IND 10
NO 0
Uh-oh. It's been a while since there was a SB blowout; I hope this isn't the day for another.
IND 3
NO 0
Snickers commercial, kind of funny; Bud Light commercial, kind of fail.
Geaux Saints! Win the Super Beauxl today!!
Spork is the name Spock would have in a really bad spoof of Star Trek, along with Amos P. Jirk and Dr. "Moans" McDoy.
Lucas all the way, judging by their respective physiques.
2
6
4
3
5
1
That is undoubtedly the correct order and not up for debate. I've thought about it extensively.
I'm flipping channels and I happen upon Extra. And a man-on-the-street type of situation comes up when a cute girl with short blonde hair asks in English with some sort of accent I could not place, "When is the best time to have the sex talk?"
That's when I thought, "She's doing some kind of fake accent. Unless that's her real voice." Suddenly, there was a knock on my door - it was Kate Winslet.
One part of this story is a fabrication, but I'll be damned if you all can figure out which. It's all too plausible.
Who are they gonna fight against? Opportunistic despots--ooh!--scary!
Excellent.
If weekend wasn't hyphenated, that picture wouldn't be half as funny.
First of all, that would require impeachment procedings in the Senate - and I am the Senate.
Second of all, this is xhonzi's press conference now, not mine; speaking of which:
xhonzi - vote_for_palpatine, karpovrulesok?1982.blogspot.com - could you describe, in extensive, vivid detail, what a fleshlight is?
Whenever I come across a post that really moves me, like a shot across the bow, I want to pay my proper respects in a more well-attended venue. If the post I enjoyed was in a thread no one will visit, it is as a tree falling soundlessly in the forest with no ears present to record the event.
There's so much wrong with that last sentence that I'm just going to get started. This isn't my thread alone! No, if you want to place your POTD here, you may; this isn't about me and my caprices. But more than anything else, let's keep this about great posts and not descend into off-topic shenanigans for once - that's all I ask.
skyjedi2005 doubles down on today's soulless CGI crapfest! Mr. jedi2005, you have the floor:
Making Menace a good film rather than just a tolerably meh crap film, good luck with that. There is zero chance since it is supposed to be done at the writing stage of the script, and the choice of directors and actors.
Indeed. Lucas was drooling at the possibilities provided by CGI and digital filmmaking that he carelessly glossed over the most fundamental aspects of storytelling, to his detriment. But back to you:
Could the prequels be redone by Better directors, writers and actors, yes. Wood i care to watch them probably not the original prequels would have already ruined the experience for me.
As I've said on other occasions, there is no unringing the bell. I would not possibly be able to block out the 1999-2005 PT when watching a reboot. Oh, but if I could, though! To see a capable filmmaker take on the SW universe...gosh, that hasn't happened in decades now.
Like fans wanting the original trilogy made and rebooted for a modern mindset to make them cooler and hip with the teen crowd like JJ did with Star Trek i would totally boycott any such attempt. I mean they would probably have Shia Lebouf as Han Solo, and either Hayden Christensen or Chris Pine for Luke Skywalker and there would be shaky cam and lens flares and lots of flashy video game graphics. Leia would be played by Keira Knightly, or Natalie Portman, or worse case scenario Megan Fox,lol.
Ha ha ha! Wow, you know, I think Megan Fox smokes myself, but what a mental picture! Megan Fox as Leia?? Stick to the T&A routine, sister! And just think of those other TOOLS playing Luke and Han - jeez! Gag me with a spoon! Anyway, thanks, skyjedi2005!
Any other nominations?
Again, I still haven't thought about it much. But if I did a little searching or mental straining (not gonna happen at this point in the week), I am sure I could think of a few more:
- The guy on Braveheart
- The two guy rapist on Pulp Fiction
- The only gay character on the TV show Lost turned out to be one of the bad guys, and a further kick in the teeth to the gay community is that he is not revealed to be gay until a guest appearance in a flashback after he had already been killed off as a regular.
- And if Rorschach's suspicions are correct (the movie portrayed him in a way obviously meant to confirm those suspicions), then Adrien Veidt/Ozzy Mandias from the Watchmen.
Well, that's why I asked for the top of the head list. After all, this is friendly debate, not Daniel Webster thundering away at Henry Clay over the fate of the Pawnee Relocation Act of 1819.* I certainly wouldn't ask you to go to any trouble over this if you were not so inclined in the first place. It's besides my point anyway.
But no one is only gay. Gay people can be men, or they can be women. They can be young or old. They can be Asian, Jewish, Hispanic, Northern European, Pacific Islander, or of African decent. Or 1000 other ethnicities.
Gay people can be wealthy and live in a palace, or destitute and live beneath an overpass. The point is, people are like diamonds - and their sexual preference is but one of their hundreds of facets.
If a concerted effort is made to depict gays in a more balanced light and more frequently, are we then going to turn our social consciousness upon the very real fact that there are very few heroes/romantic leads who are Asian? Elderly? Impoverished? Libertarians? Inordinately tall? After all, excluding these people is naked discrimination. For shame!
Victim, victim, victim. I guess we have to look for them somewhere. Are gays being targeted by assholes? Yes. Is it because Alan Rickman and his gay lover committed murder in Dark Harbor? Not in a zillion years.
Until very recently, my ethnic group (Hispanics) were underrepresented in entertainment. I only know this because I was told - I hadn't noticed and it didn't bother me, nor was I excited when I saw the Eva Longorias, the Ricky Martins, the Christina Aguileras of the world achieve fame. Big fucking deal.
*-19th century political reference was entirely made up. I hope it sounded good.
C3PX, could you cite your off the top of your head list, please?
That's true Warbler, but the typical Hollywood way of framing a historical event is to slant the narrative to to an extreme degree. The good guys were really, really good, the bad guys were really, really bad. That kind of storytelling, in a historical film, just doesn't work for me. Now in a movie like Star Wars, it's perfect. Awesome.
I'm glad the Scots fought the British, as I'm sure the British government and military of the period was indeed oppressive and brutal. But had we been around to see it, I'm sure we'd see some horrific atrocities committed by the Scottish freedom fighters too. War is a nasty business, and the "good" side doesn't always act like it. I'm not anti-war, but that's just how it is.
It's the same malarkey from the atavists who crawl around in the dregs of the fourth estate. I will respond to no more of their appalling drivel.
However, this being the Press Conference Thread, you may now direct your questions to...xhonzi.
Sir, you have the podium.
You should feel honored, DS. The same thing happened to my "Women Who Don't Do It For You" thread. It's not a proper OT thread if the regulars don't come in and derail it all to hell. When that happened, I cried a little, knowing I was finally accepted.
And I've already expressed my view that satire is often cover for bigotry. It's not just my view alone.
This reminds me of the marriage counselor in Forget Paris who believed marriage was institutionalized rape.
That's twisting the situation. I'm hardly saying gays should only be portrayed in a positive light. In this situation their gayness was a subject of mockery and it was clearly portrayed as being a negative trait.
"That's twisting the situation" implies some sort of intent to perform a takedown on you, and that's not what I was trying to do. I simply thought your first statement seemed extreme, but then you clarified it with the above statement, which was 100% reasonable.
But then you said this:
But his being portrayed as an eejit is part of the anti-gay thing.
This reads as though you mean to say that it is an anti-gay thing to portray gays as idiots. This is not necessarily true. A great number of eejits happen to be gay. I hate to say that and risk being labled as some sort of bigot, but idiocy runs rampant throughout humanity, regardless of gender, race, socio-economic status - or sexual preference.
Maybe it was irrelevant to the larger point of the movie, but I think it goes to show what a despotic bully Longshanks was.
I did agree that the movie was stacked against the British, as though the Scots were pure as the driven snow and the EEEEEEEVILLL British existed only to commit atrocities. History is rarely so one-sided.
The film gave a very negative portrayal of gays and used a character being gay as a way of showing him as contemptible.
Is it your opinion that gays should only be portrayed in a positive light? That gays should not ever be shown as evil, lazy, weird, or stupid? Because that's just not reality. Gays are like the rest are world - some are great people, some are terrible, and some just go along unnoticed. Positive stereotypes are no better than the negative ones.
Casablanca is rated.
I have begun the process of selling a ton of most of my wordlies. Among those I will be parting with is the bulk of my Woody Allen DVDs. Here is my list:
Definitely Keeping, Might Keep
So, which should I keep? Which should I dump?
The VOUT is a special feature of the OVPT:SE, so I'm afraid not. However, these are available individually - imagine! You could have my Original Vision as a set AND as separate pieces! Think of how impressive your collection would look: you'd have the 1985 set, the 1988 set, the 1993 Laserdisc set, the 1995 "Faces of VFP" set, both 1996 sets, the half-finished 1997 SE set, the 2001 "McCallum's Picks" set, the 2004 OVPT:SE, the 2009 Deluxe Reissue set, and now the VOUT! You'll be the envy of the entire neighborhood!