SuperJerk

Soundgarden was making great music around the same time Nirvana hit it big, but never had anywhere near Nirvana's popularity or exposure. The lyrics and sound of the early 90s grunge bands was a totally reversal of what had been popular before that point. Nirvana wasn't just some hard rock act that got popular because the lead singer killed himself. They were part of something bigger...a change in the music industry away from Michael Jackson and ballad-centric "hair metal" of the late 80s. You kids who didn't start paying attention to music until Limp Bizkit, Britney Spears, and Eminem made it big are simply too young to know what you're talking about. If, in the year 1992, you were listening to "Barney and Friends" instead of MTV (yes, they played music once), you are horribly unqualified to have an opinion on Nirvana.

You really had us convinced you were serious for a couple of pages, there.

I think the problem with CGI is that they try to add too much detail and it ends up looking more detailed than the other stuff in the frame, and sticks out like a sore thumb. Jurassic Park was on TV today, and the animators knew when to stop adding microscopic detail to every inch of skin (plus their were more limitations in picture resolution back then).

Please have your eyes examined.

That was due to me being tired and having just seen a marriage commercial. I was out of it last night. Been there.

The fact that they discussed both Astonishing X-Men and X-23 titles in this panel is representative of how hit or miss Marvel can be.

Point of the movie = Jersey Girl was a tremendous bomb and Smith needed to make a movie someone might actually want to see. Let's not kid ourselves here.

Because they actually managed to make them look younger...? Becuase it looked like CGI? Some of us aren't computer animation experts that can instantly examine every nuance of an image that's only on screen for a few seconds at a time. In other words, it looked real to me, and I have absolutely no idea why you're complaining.

Bob seems like the kind of guy who, if he was a small town news reporter, would run a headline saying "Murder Rate up 50%" if 3 guys got killed in a year instead of 2.

2) Thank goodness. 3) The local affiliates have to approve DirecTV giving the NY affiliates. I was declined.

Edited for accuracy.

Well, at least one person bothered to do some research.

A marriage ceremony isn't an overly sexual act, though. To be fair...Here are Bush's comments, in context: Even in context, the hypocrisy of Bush saying this should be left up to the people, even though by making it a part of the Constitution it is taking it out of the hands of the actual people, is staggering. In no way has a case that same-sex marriage weakens society. Bush is illogically relying entirely on ad populum arguments to make his case, instead of giving a real reason why same-sex marriage hurts society.

Yeah, she's a real monster.

I honestly don't see the harm that could have on a child.

I'm guessing that was actually done at the municipal level with the support of the majority of the city's population.

Nice to see that actual long term research, in which the welfare of children raised by hetero sexual couples was compared to the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples, was done. I'm also glad we have a President who can back up his arguments with facts instead of vaguely worded and unprovable generalizations. Can someone please offer evidence that allowing two men or two women to marry affects anyone besides the two men or two women who actually get married? Did someone forget to inform me that the Constitutional amendment process now includes national referendum? Because it seems to me that, if this amendment passes, communities that DO want to enact gay marriage through the democratic process will not be allowed to. He is attempting to expand the role of the federal government to include regulating marriage law, which has always been a matter left to the states and local communities. Is there some epidemic of federal courts ruling that gay marriages MUST be recognized that I'm unaware of?

King Kong 6/10

If by crap you mean that there arent enough channels, all I can say is there are only like 3 or 4 other national HD channels right now that Directv doesn't have, and they dont really have the bandwith to carry them now but given some time they'll have tons of HD Channels. (1) The programming on the networks I do get (with the exception of the 3 channels that are just HD versions of regular cable channels) generally consists of old cancelled TV shows and movies that look like 480p DVDs. (2) They've been promising me more channels for almost a year now. They need to get their asses moving on that. (3) You need an antenna to get local channels, and the only way to watch major network programming is through local affiliates. Thus, what the hell do I even need DirecTV HD for it all I needed was an antenna? This is especially frustrating because the only networks that have affiliates with signals strong enough to reach my house are CBS, UPN, and FOX.

I'm calling bullshit. Being able to spell requires little actual intelligence, if any at all. Its a memory test, nothing more. Arrange the 26 symbols in the same way they were first presented to you. No reasoning, deduction, or strategy is involved. Most of high school requires little actual intelligence, if any at all. (Two can play this game.) In my experience, teachers who knocked the spelling bee were the ones who themselves couldn't spell very well, and got testy when their students called them on it, rather than appreciating the fact that at least one of the brats is awake and cares enough about the subject matter to catch the glaring error on the chalkboard. (It wasn't even me that always did the calling out.) Again, drawing on my experience, I don't think kids just sit down, crack open the ol' OED, and start memorizing. Generally, these competitions comprise children who started reading much earlier than the majority of their peers, and hence, have been reading above their level for several years, and are simply exposed to more vocabulary. If 5th graders can spell "aerodynamic," it's not because it was beaten into their brains, it's because they've encountered it and may even use it. It's hardly bullshit, though. This post is merely you taking my argument and repeating it, except changing the subject. Nothing you are saying has any basis in either fact or reality. And I don't find you attempts to discredit my argument by attacking me personally to be either convincing or intellectually honest. I've never seen a spelling bee where a child was asked to give the language history of a word. And do these kids regularly use these words they learn to spell? Of course not. Quit being ridicules. For those of you needing further proof, here's a copy of Bloom's Taxonomy. It was developed by Benjamin Bloom in the 1950s, and has been pretty much universally accepted ever since as a way of determining the different levels of learning. The chart goes in order from easiest to hardest. Nothing about a spelling bee goes beyond the first (lowest) area, remembering.

They're even better raw.

I never heard that one, but I did hear Osama bin Laden was already captured and it would be announced the weekend before the 2004 election.

You, sir, are wrongfully implying there was any quality to this thread to begin with.

Because they actually managed to make them look younger...?

Naomi Watts has been very good in just about everything else I've seen her in. I really strongly disliked this movie, though. None of the relationships between the characters seemed genuine. I just didn't buy that any of these people cared about each other the way the subplots needed them to in order to work. And since no one was ever developed that well, I did not care about any of them. Why does Darrow care so much about Kong? Is it just because he saved her from the dinosaurs, or was there something else? Why does Driscoll care about Darrow? What's going on between the crew boy and the first mate exactly? And do we really need to spend the first 1/3 of the movie telling the story of Carl Denham when the only reason he's even in the movie is to give the characters a reason to go to Skull Island? He's played entirely too sympathetically in the rest of the movie to serve as a stand-in for the evils of the entertainment industry (or whatever point his inclusion was trying to make). All of the CGI looked fake. Dinosaurs were handled better in Jurrassic Park (which was 13 years ago), and the lighting of the live-action characters never seemed to match the lighting of the CGI characters and backgrounds, so everything just screamed "sound stage" the whole movie. Since gorillas (the non-25 foot variety), biplanes, and the Empire State Building all exist in the real world, they should've figured out that the ending sequence looked terrible.