Madmartigan21

Yeah, I do. She's not interesting at all and honestly gets way too much time devoted to her by the show. Yessum, she's becoming Heroes Lana Lang. She's insanely hot, but I don't care at all what happens to her character. Every time she TAKES A STAND I just cringe, she's just annoying Heh, I guess I'm in the extreme minority that finds her just about the only interesting thing on the show. Anyway, how did that video that got released at the end of the episode do ANYTHING to hurt what Nathan is doing? Those "American" citizens all had their faces covered. They were filmed in an undisclosed hangar that could have been anywhere in the world. Hell, that could have been a staged video. Why would the media just take it and run with it, even as irresponsible as they are? Is there any way the the reveal of the identity of "Rebel" will be anything but disappointing?

Loeb will never be the worst writer in comics as long as Bruce Jones is around. That guy managed to kill Checkmate in one issue. And I'm shocked we haven't mentioned that Loeb was a writer during S2 of Lost. No love for The Long Halloween and Hush? Or Bruce Jones run on the Hulk? People have short memories.

Goliath

That's what I said, but he assured me it wasn't a remake.

I want my $100.

My father INSISTS that two versions of this movie were made in 1947. The other one has a different lead actor (I assume he was talking about the Edmund Gwen role, he didn't specify). He says that in the other version all of the scenes are the same footage except the ones with the "other lead actor". Those scenes with the other lead actor are identical with the exception of the other actor of course. I can't find any evidence of this anywhere. Does anybody have any idea if there is any grain of truth to this? And if so where I could find evidence other than someone's memory of it. IMDB has no mention of this, nor does Wikipedia, Allmovie.com or TCM.com I've made a bet with my father that he's wrong and just remembering things incorrectly. I offered the above mentioned web sites as proof. He believes the sites are all wrong. He wants to know how he can proove it if "my all-knowing web site (IMDB)" missed it or got it wrong. Any advice on how I can proceed would be greatly appreciated.

You're the second person to say that. To which I say, WHAT implication are you talking about? Tina asks him in the ambulance before he dies who did it to him. He says a name that I can't make out. Tina asks him why. He says he organized a picket line around his "rock house" (I believe that's what he says). The crack-heads were afraid to cross the picket line. THAT is why he was shot. It was by drug dealers. It had nothing to do with Aceveda. Why the hell would Aceveda care about him? He wasn't getting any serious news coverage. Aceveda pretty much already has the election locked up. It wasn't implied nor would Aceveda have a good reason to be involved in his death. Aceveda's discussion with Claudette makes it very clear that he is not sad at all about Andre's death (after Andre embarrassed him earlier). He may have not had anything to do with there was satisfaction in his voice. Watch the scene again, you're totally wrong. He's upset cause their are rumors floating around that he had do with the "crackpot's" death. Claudette goes to tell him she has to take any bomb threat against his campaign seriously. Aceveda doesn't even mention him again in the scene. He starts talking about Claudette is doing and how they spent so much time trying to get Vic. How he feels emotionally about Andre's death is neither implied nor stated.

Anybody else ever wonder why that happens on sitcoms sometimes. Examples: Kelly Bundy the first couple of seasons was actually portrayed as being reasonably intelligent. She may not have been an A student, but she certainly wasn't the space cadet that she is mostly remembered as. Similarly, Joey from Friends and Homer Simpson underwent inexplicable changes to the point that the things that would come out of their mouths were like retards or head-injury victims. Mark from Roseanne is another example. I'm sure others can come up with many more. I just never understood why some dummies become not much more than water heads. Anybody have any ideas?

Gemma from Sons of Anarchy I attribute her horribleness to the character being miscast. Peggy Bundy is such an over-actor. Her sinisterness and smugness make her seem more like a caricature than a character. Also, I fail to understand WHY the club running guns and all their illegal earnings are so important to her. Why would it be so horrible if Jacks were to change the focus of the club and lead them on the straight and narrow? Her motivation is completely lacking in explanation.

You're the second person to say that. To which I say, WHAT implication are you talking about? Tina asks him in the ambulance before he dies who did it to him. He says a name that I can't make out. Tina asks him why. He says he organized a picket line around his "rock house" (I believe that's what he says). The crack-heads were afraid to cross the picket line. THAT is why he was shot. It was by drug dealers. It had nothing to do with Aceveda. Why the hell would Aceveda care about him? He wasn't getting any serious news coverage. Aceveda pretty much already has the election locked up. It wasn't implied nor would Aceveda have a good reason to be involved in his death.

It seems you're right.

Any doubters with regards to Edward Norton's involvement in this movie or in the movie in general should see this: There are three parts after that one. Apparently Norton is a life long fan of the Incredible Hulk, both the comics and the TV show. He even references the stuff Bruce Jones did a few years ago. He wanted very much to be a part of this movie. That's why he was involved in reworking the screenplay. After watching what he and the director had to say, I'm very encouraged. This is not a sequel. It's a relaunch of the franchise. However, from what Norton says, it's not going to be an origin movie. He explains why in the clips. I'm greatly looking forward to this movie. Then again, I was hyped for the last one that disappointed the hell out of me. I, like Edward Norton, am a life long fan of the comics and show. Disappoint me once, shame on you. Disappoint me twice, put a bullet in your head.

Umm.. wasn't that the show since the beginning? I've never understood why people find it funny. It has always been pure shit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200710...americanculture I don't see it listed on moviefone.com as being in theaters at all. http://movies.yahoo.com says it's not playing in my area (I live in NJ 15 minutes from NYC). Anybody know anything about this rerelease?

A few years ago I watched these two films for the first time since I was a kid and realized all the adult humor that shot over my head back in the day. Dana Barrett: That's the bedroom, but nothing ever happened in there. Dr. Peter Venkman: What a crime Dana Barrett: [possessed by Zuul] Do you want this body? Dr. Peter Venkman: Is this a trick question?