SuperJerk
-
Content count
9706 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SuperJerk
-
-
Someone wanna recap? I really don't want to watch the video.
-
You are probably right, but their disdain for the lower class never seems to be limited to the unemployed. Corporations always get a more sympathetic ear from them than the working poor, despite the fact that corporate subsidies and special tax "incentives" are in no way morally righteous than things like food stamps and the earned-income tax credit, no matter what logic you use.
I'm not trying to contradict you at all, just using your comment as an opportunity to grind an axe.
-
The "personal responsibility mantra" of the modern American right has never had an consistency or internal logic, other than as a means to rationalize making the behaviors they condone legal, and the behaviors they do not condone illegal. It is a corrupt, self-serving philosophy that resembles their intellectual forebearers William Buckley and Barry Goldwater in only the most superficial ways.
-
This isn't Watchmen as much as it's how Zack Synder remembers Watchmen, which is similar to how Frank Miller remembers The 300 Spartans. It misses the subtle points and plots of Moore's original and chooses to focus on how awesome he thought superheroes were.In response to this excellent post (the whole post, not just the spot-on conclusion I quoted), I'm going to re-state my opinion...and be less of a douchebag about it this time.
You make some really good points, because this movie is certainly an action movie version of Watchmen, rather than the psychological drama that Moore wrote. I'm left wondering what this movie might have looked like had Martin Scorcese directed it, or the late Stanley Kubrik had made this his next film after "Full Metal Jacket."
I disagree about Akerman's competence, though there were better women to play this part (I'm curious who others would have picked). Jude Law is Veidt would have been a really good choice.
I obviously enjoyed it a lot more than you did, because the things you didn't like--mostly valid criticisms--didn't bother me as much as they bothered you.
I think 3 or 3.5 out of 5 is a more realistic score for this movie. It was on par with earlier comic adaptations like Tim Burton's "Batman," but not quite the spot-on representation of the spirit and themes as "The Dark Knight." I don't dislike Burton's "Batman," but obviously "Dark Knight" was better. I don't dislike Watchmen, but it could have been better for many of the reasons you mention.
-
Sometimes I am redundant and repeat myself.
-
I frankly don't understand his point of view. His argument is self-contradictory.
I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn. I suggested the bright line prohibiting the deliberate creation of human embryos solely for the instrumental purpose of research -- a clear violation of the categorical imperative not to make a human life (even if only a potential human life) a means rather than an end.If there's some logical, middle-ground nuance he explained there, I missed it. It really sounds like he is trying to have it both ways.
-
-
"Nevermind."
-
I just saw this. I liked it. Coupla questions for you guys who read the comic.What the hell is the squid ending? At what point in the movie does it deviate from the book? Just out of curiosity.
Instead of pinning the destruction of New York and other cities on Dr. Manhattan, Veidt genetically engineers a big squid-like creature using the DNA of a telepathic human and teleports it to New York, creating the impression the Big Apple was the victim of an alien attack, thus giving the governments of the world a bigger threat to band together against, instead of fighting each other.
Also, in the book instead of trying to stop Jon from killing Rorsarch then lecturing Veidt on his immorality, Nite Owl just goes to another room of the compound and fucks Silk Spectre while Jon blows up Rorsarch and then Veidt and Jon have their conversation, Jon finds Dan and Laurie asleep after they had sex, then leaves Earth.
In context of the book, it actually makes more sense than it sounds.
-
The Daily Show and Countdown are both tolerated by their moneyed interests because they make money.Czech's having a Howard Zinn moment.
-
Does Jim Cramer on The Daily Show count as "coverage"?Because to my mind Stewart asked tougher questions and posed a more serious stance in his discussions with Cramer than I've ever heard on other news networks.
Stewart is taken more seriously by the mainstream press than Olberman, Hannity, and O'Reilly combined.
Okay, that probably proves nothing.
-
Free will as the philosophical freedom to make decisions and not blame your environment for your actions. It has nothing to do with politics at all.Political philospohy, perhaps?
One of the cornerstones of Republican-flavored conservatism is that the people who are on top deserve to be because they made better choices in life.
-
Are the pursuit of material goods and private property what Jefferson was referring to when he said "pursuit of happiness"? Not necessarily. He was paraphrasing John Locke, except Locke said "life, liberty, and property." If pursuing property makes you happy, then fine, but they are not synonyms.
Also, as we've debated, no part of the Obama agenda is actually socialism: government ownership of industry. No one is talking about abolishing private property.
So, yeah, Beck's a retard.
-
I think everyone gets something different out of the book, or at least like it for different reasons. My high opinion of the movie is probably because it stayed faithful to the things I liked best about the book. Other people who had other themes resonate with them that weren't handled as well by the movie probably didn't like it as much.
-
You can cherry-pick the Bible to support almost anything.
-
Not from a reliable source, but apparently that shotgun wedding isn't going to happen after all.
http://www.starmagazine.com/news/15341?cid=RSS
-
Being rich and powerful isn't what makes Rush an elitist.
Considering yourself God's gift to AM radio and attributing others' differences of opinion to jealousy over your fame...THAT makes you an elitist.
-
I'm horrible in the Watchmen thread?
Motherfucker, I'm horrible in EVERY thread.
-
And would anyone else agree that preserving the ending with the journal was completely pointless since no one outside of a comic reader would recognize the New Frontiersman staffer in the smiley shirt?I agree.
I cringed during that part, especially the way the lines were delivered in a cutesy "wink at the audience" sitcom kind of way. I could totally buy the ending except for Dan lecturing Adrian and that part.
-
SJ, everyone in this thread was having a perfectly fine time agreeing and disagreeing on the merits of this film. You know, having a conversation on a topic. Something you apparently can't do without making broad generalizations and blanket statements and failing to back them up. The only thing people can agree on is that you have shit for brains. Is everyone else in the thread wrong or just you?You don't know what irony is. You seem to think that ironic means 'apt' or 'fitting'. It kind of means the exact opposite. Do you misuse the word 'literally' a lot too? You further compound this by seeming to think sharing that you think something is kind of apt or fitting (or in your world 'ironic') is making a joke. It is not. You cannot present a cogent argument. Everything you say is a non sequiter.
State specifically what you did or did not like, or share an observation. Do not start screaming about how everyone takes the movie way to seriously. We don't. We just think you are incredibly fucking stupid. Stop derailing the thread. Stop making terrible non-jokes. You are awful.
Excuse me while I shed a tear.
Probably about half the people on this thread are just making lists of percieved differences between the book and the movie. There's no denying this. My opinion was that the quality of the movie and its faithfullness to the book are two separate issues that people are confusing. A movie doesn't need to be 100% to a book in order to be good. If this thread got sidetracked at all, it was by people who couldn't shut up about the book. Get off the "I hate SuperJerk" bandwagon for a minute and you'll realize I've got a point.
Also, for all of you who said I didn't use irony correctly in my joke, fuck off. I was right. An actor playing Nixon wearing too much make-up is ironic because it goes against the expectation people have (at least educated people who actually know something about history) about Nixon. What really happened was NOBODY GOT THE REFERENCE until I explained it, but nobody wanted to look dumb so I got incorrectly attacked by 4 different people (and you think I'm obsessed?) for a mistake I made that wasn't really a mistake. I'm sure if four people in a row told you that grass was purple, you'd be a little annoyed too.
-
I see what you are saying now.
I'll need to consider the benefit of lower home prices versus the problems this will cause for the parts of the economy that rely on new home construction and purchases to drive them.
Can you explain further what you think the beneficial effects of housing deflation will be? I want to consider all sides of this.
-
How will Rush Limbaugh allow the GOP to handle Nancy Reagan's statement on the stem cell reversal?I suspect the same way he rationalizes Ronald Reagan's support for tax increases, gun control, and nuclear arms reduction.
-
Nowhere in there did you even imply that you were referring to Real Life Nixon and not Watchmen Nixon, nor does his sweaty shift-eyed performance in the '60 debate immediately spring to mind for all these folks here who were born long decades after that happened. Someone would have to meet you more than halfway to even realize what you were talking about there without further explanation.Some people REALLY don't like it when jokes go over their heads.
-
*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.
Exhibit A:
EDIT: hey, 3-man chain responding to that comment.Exhibit B:
Jerk, stop pouting because people asked you to explain your opinions and you don't know what irony is.Exhibit C:
Shut the fuck up.I rest my case.
Covering Coverage
in Current Events
Posted · Report reply
Fox News hit an all time low by editing this old clip:
and putting it in this new story:
When you take a 6-month old clip, edit it so it looks like the person is saying the exact opposite of what he really was, and then claim someone just said it this weekend, you are not a news network.