SuperJerk

Some people REALLY don't like it when jokes go over their heads.

Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: I rest my case.

*sigh* Shit fucking Christ, guys, it is just a movie. There's no law that says I have to agree with your opinions. You guys are taking this thing WAY too seriously.

I'm noticing a clear pattern: Stage 1: Rush says something controversial. Stage 2: Famous politician says something critical of controversial statement made by Limbaugh or of Limbaugh (though not by name) for saying it. Stage 3: Limbaugh lashes directly out at the person by name for saying it, and criticizes the person for not being as great as he is. Stage 4: Person apologizes to Rush for the misunderstanding.

Seconded.

Not only did you idiots over-analyze the movie, but now you're over-analyzing jokes about the movie. Keep up the good work, guys. By the way, one thing that really bugged me about this movie? There were no word balloons over people's heads. That was in, like, almost every panel of the comic, but Snyder didn't do it at all! Completely ruined the spirit of the book. I also didn't like how the characters weren't all outlined in black ink.

By the way, when I said "Jesus Christ" in my earlier post, I wasn't literally talking to Jesus Christ, but using a common figure of speech. Even though none of you were alive when Jesus was, I expected people to get what I meant. But since no one knows me personally, I guess I shouldn't take that for granted.

Oh, Jesus Christ. See, there's these things today called "jokes." Maybe you've heard of them? They're not always literally true, but there's enough truth in them that someone could find them humorous. By this standard, even though it literally wasn't Richard Nixon wearing too much make-up (because he died 15 years ago), it is funny to hear people SAY Nixon was wearing too much make-up because of the role not wearing make-up on one occasion supposedly had on his political career. Like for example, if I said "your mother is so old she farts dust", your mother probably doesn't literally fart dust, but because you're mother might be percieved as old, and dust is usually associated with things that are old have been sitting around for along time. You could argue that it literally wasn't true, but that isn't necessary for the joke to work.

I'm still seeing a lot of "this was bad because it wasn't exactly like the book" logic, which I frankly don't agree with. This is the most faithful reproduction of a comic book story (yes, I'm calling it that because it was originally published as a 12-issue series) ever made. Film has different strengths and weaknesses than comics do, so a 100% faithful translation is impossible. Many people are being hypercritical because every single thing wasn't exactly like it was in the book, instead of judging it on its own merits. You're gonna have to explain what's ironic about it. The old-age makeup was pretty bad. I wanted to reach out and remove globs of it from Gugino and the actors playing Nixon and Kissinger. With Gugino, I think the look they were going for wasn't that she was a 60-year-old woman, but she was a 60 year-old woman who wears too much make-up and tries to look younger than she is (the clothes she wore in the 1985 scenes clearly reflect this). The percieved irony of everyone saying Nixon was wearing too much make-up is a reference to his 1960 presidential debate with John F. Kennedy.

First of all, unless you're single-handedly financing the mortgage bail-out, you really don't have room to say "I don't think that I should be forced to pay". The American people are collectively paying for this, and even that's arguable since its going to be financed with debt. No one is going to send you a bill in the mail for this thing. Second, you still don't seem to get how keeping more foreclosures from happening in the future helps the country overall economically. Whether the benefit outweighs the cost is a debate that needs to occur, but we're not doing this to insure "their financial success," we are doing this to keep the crisis from getting worse. We have a real problem is this country of people not recognizing how the effects of economic and social problems tend to hurt not just the people originally affected, but often spread to the rest of society.

This is probably the smartest thing I've read all day.

I bet Rorschach's mask will be explained in the director's cut. I got the feeling there was probably many people in the audience wondering "why does this guy's mask have ink that moves?", and some people were probably puzzled by Bubastis in the film as well. Since they never explained Veidt's genetics technology in the movie, I bet some people were thinking "there's a blue tiger with horns for no reason." I did that with the tiger. I had no idea why the tiger was there and figured that maybe it had something to do with the temple. It was very random for me. In the book, Viedt was really into genetic engineering.

Be specific. What is it you think was missing?

You cannot hold Santelli responsible for everything that goes on on the network he happens to work for. He doesn't run the thing and can't tell people like Jim Cramer to stuff it unless he's given a chance to respond to Jim's comments. This is asinine. No, he isn't to blame for all of the bad information out on his network, and that wasn't the point. The point was given how much bad information was out there, is he really justified to call people who got caught in this mess "losers"? Santelli is basically saying we shouldn't be concerned with people about to be foreclosed on, and completely ignores the negative effects all of these additional foreclosures will have on lending institutions and everyone else's home values. Santelli is saying, "I wasn't immediately affected, so I don't care." Is he too dumb to see the effect this problem will have on everyone else in the long run? (Given the history this country has of not recognizing how the effects of economic and social problems tend to spread to the rest of society...not is he probably really that dumb, but he has a lot of company.) In the medical industry, they call that "malpractice". Lawyers call it "fraud". For some reason its illegal when THEY do it, but not when bankers and stock brokers do it.

Come on, really....half of you are complaining it was too long, and the other half are complaining about too much being left out. Huh? Yes, it wasn't as good as the book...because you can go into a lot more depth in 300 pages than you can in 3 hours. Having said that, even a watered-down Watchmen movie was better than 90% of the super-hero movies out there. You had all the important elements there...and I agree with the choice to not include the . Besides the ending, the changes were superficial. My only complaint was it seemed like they were trying to make the epilogue funny instead of ironic, then it cut to a song that I didn't feel was the right choice for what should have been a sobering moment.

I'm finding the irony of people bitching about Nixon's make-up especially amusing.

David Frum wrote an interesting piece on hy Limbaugh is bad for the Republican Party. http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279/page/1

A guess the American equivalent would be called "white trash."

I believe it was mentioned ironically. I know Czech thinks Stewart panders to populism himself, but going for a cheap laugh and calling victims of a nationwide mortgage scam "losers" aren't equal in my book. Jon Stewart shouldn't have to be the one to point out the hypocrisy of condemning others for not seeing things you didn't see yourself, but unfortunately cable news isn't very good at policing itself.

The point Stewart made was that Santelli was saying the home buyers (i.e. "losers") should have known better, when the public was being bombarded with bad information by the network he works for. He was right, too. I have a big fucking problem with putting all the blame on individuals following the advice of experts and getting screwed, while the so-called professionals who traded the bad debt around the financial industry and told us all that everything was going to be fine are treated like innocent victims. And there was nothing populist about being an ignorant Social Darwinist loudmouth.

My new mission in life is to figure out exactly what this means.

You guys are lowering my expectations enough that I probably will like it because I won't be as disappointed.

Fun with Polls: I guess 13% were all like "WTF is an economy?" And 33% doesn't know. ZOMG SOCIALISM~!!!!! And 9% just shrugged their shoulders and went back to playing Halo. The other 42% just started saying "Ronald Reagan" over and over. > the financial well-being of 300 million Americans.

Well, I'm glad THIS is finally settled... http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...94mlewD96O5TV03

I'd love to see this kid and the 13-year-old from the CPAC conference locked in a room together for an hour.