Jingus

Ahem, "Bad Santa", "The Man Who Wasn't There", and several others would like to have a word with you. A Simple Plan, The Ice Harvest, Sling Blade, Tombstone, and Friday Night Lights, too. One False Move, Dead Man, The Apostle, Princess Mononoke, Primary Colors, Pushing Tin, Bandits, Monster's Ball, Intolerable Cruelty...

Yeah. Compare this to the matches HHH had with Kevin Nash just a few months later. Nash is even more limited in what he could do than Steiner ever was, but Trips actually tried to have a good match with him. With Steiner, he pretty obviously went out there with the intention of passively making Scott look bad, and then burying him with the old "see, he didn't get over and doesn't know how to work" afterwards.

Has this been officially confirmed? Except for IMDB and some rumor sites, I haven't seen anything about it. Has any studio announcement been made? If it is true, I dunno, I've got mixed feelings. Thornton is a better actor than many of other guys they could've gone with. Considering this is a modern horror remake, we should probably feel relieved that it's not Liev Schrieber or Matthew Fox or some damn thing like that. Though I do wonder why they feel the need to replace Englund in the first place. Sure, he's sixty years old now, but Thornton is fifty-three himself.

Not necessarily. I've done community theater. I certainly act like I know everything there is to know about acting and directing or making a movie/play/performance piece. Yet even I'm nowhere near as idiotic or pretentious as those tards. They weren't just misinterpreting the movie or going against the critical consensus, they were absolutely making shit up and fabricating things out of thin air.

Most people who never watch their shows have this misconception of IWA being an all-hardcore company. Which is absolutely not the case. Half their shows have no garbage matches at all, and even the ones which do typically only have one hardcore match on a card which is otherwise just straight wrestling matches (except for the deathmatch tournaments, of course). 95% of IWA matches have no hardcore elements at all. But incidents like this one certainly help perpetuate the image of IWA being some kind of blood-soaked outlaw promotion in the minds of people who aren't familiar with the product.

Im so sure the PE target audience is staying home on a weekend watching the Olympics on tape delay. I could totally see stoners doing that, what are you talking about? Truthfully, in 2004 the biggest stoner I know sat home all week watching the gymnastics events. Well, he was a wrestler who did a lot of moonsaults so it was kind of a professional obsession type thing, but still, dude toked up all week while watching the olympics.

I saw Rogue. Meh. Calling it "the least crappy movie about a giant killer crocodile" is about as much praise as I can give it. Beautiful cinematography of the outback, but the croc looks fake and there's too many random characters just cluttering up the scenery and doing nothing important. Not terrible, but very generic and forgettable.

I never even said they were the exact same level of scumminess. "Barely a step above" were my exact words, iirc. Clearly picketing a whole bunch of funerals is worse than throwing red paint on people wearing leather or making annoying posters. But in trying to hijack the bus murder victim's fate for their own goals, PETA does approach being in the same ballpark in this instance.

Thing is, you could use the same logic regarding the Westboro nuts. They think they're right. They really do believe that God hates homosexuality so much that he somehow decided to kill heterosexual American soldiers because of it. They really think that they're trying to help people, and that the world would truly be a better place if they got their way. And since it's a matter of religion, by definition they can't be proven wrong. My original point is, both groups are using similar methods, in this case at least. Fred Phelps looks at the death of a soldier and sees only an opportunity to spread his message. PETA looks at the death of this kid and sees only an opportunity to spread their message. It's reprehensible exploitation of a real human's horrifying demise in order to further a cause which that person had nothing to do with, and there is no good excuse for it.

Their job is to exploit a human's murder in order to advance their own utterly unconnected agenda? This is my entire point here: the Manitoba murder had nothing, not one teeny-tiny damn thing, to do with animal cruelty. Their only connection was that a sharp object spilled blood, and that's about it. The decapitated kid had about as much to do with animals in slaughterhouses as the dead soldiers Phelps protests had to do with god hating fags. They had no reason at all to get involved. PETA had absolutely no business whatsoever in this matter. But they coldly chose to jump on the media bandwagon anyway. This is one thing which is so annoyhing about the blindly single-minded activist groups like PETA, how they're more than willing to co-opt anything, anything at all, for their own gains. They do not care one bit about the actual matter at hand, they just want to get more face time to babble on about their cause. That I happen to think their entire cause is bullshit is just the icing on the cake.

Me and a buddy have agreed for the past few years now that Eddie Murphy needs to get the hell out of Hollywood, away from his mansion and team of yes-men, and hit the road for awhile doing standup so that he can get back in touch with reality. With Chappelle's Show (especially Rick James Bitch) still relatively recent in the audience's mind, I think having his brother Charlie open for him would attract a different demographic, people who've never seen Eddie Murphy: Raw and have no idea what a capable standup performer Eddie is.

1. How do they mean well? They literally seem like they think animals are more important than humans. That is not "meaning well" in any normal mindset. 2. Yes, when you give up debating the point and just go for the insult, you've forfeited the argument. 3. Making pointless, intentionally offensive attacks like that is always out of bounds, period 4.a. Yes it is a bullshit cause, the way they go about it. Besides, don't we have enough problems involving actual people to solve before we should be worrying about dumb animals? b. As previously mentioned, and as further stated by dubq, no, their heart is nowhere near the right place. If you can point out any real tangible good which Peta has done in the past several years, it might back up your assertation, but I doubt there has been any. c. They go out of their way to support a cause which I find ludicrous. Westboro's is based on religious homophobia, Peta's is apparently based on thinking that we should treat animals the same as people. Very different idealogies, sure, but they're both fucking annoying and retarded, and have caused zero actual positive progress for our planet in general. I mean, come on, LOOK at this shit. They're directly comparing this vicious, cannabalistic murder to making hamburger. They're quite literally saying that they're the exact same thing. This is so offensive on so many levels, I barely know where to start. First of all, that they'd stoop so low as to use this atrocity as more material for their MEAT IZ MURDER propaganda campaign shows a shocking callousness to the act itself, the victim, his family, and anyone who's ever been involved in this sort of crime. Not to mention the speed with which Peta acted, getting this ad out there mere days after the murder itself. They seriously just came out and said, "All the news media is talking about this kid getting slaughtered. BUT WHO CARES? ANIMALS ARE SLAUGHTERED EVERY DAY!" They released no statement whatsoever dealing with the actual crime itself; they only saw it in terms of the one unconnected issue they obsess over, and tried to exploit the tragedy purely for their own selfish publicity-seeking reasons. Now, please explain. Heart. Place. Right? In what bizarro world is this an acceptable or sane reaction to something like what happened on that bus in Manitoba.

Are you fucking kidding me. Well this is about the most pointless thread ever.

Ah yes, when you've got absolutely no argument whatsoever and you've completely lost, go for the pointless (and currently inaccurate) personal insults in order to distract everyone from your bullshit statements.

Jesus almighty, that's just terrible. She spends half the review babbling about how the visual storytelling is supposedly nonexistant, which is just a blatant lie. Then the guy says that he wishes the movie was less comic bookish and more realistic; odd, considering this is about the least fantastical comic book movie ever made. And then finally they both spend some time talking about how you can apparently see how the Joker is really so lonely and tormented down deep inside and how they felt sorry for him... what?! The only time the Joker ever shows any vulnerability whatsoever is when he's explaining how he got his scars, and since he tells multiple contradictory versions of that story, I tend to think he's just being manipulative.

I like how their link to a more detailed account of the story is just a dead end which doesn't go anywhere.

How would you describe their seemingly instinctual tendency to automatically go against whatever the mainstream happens to think, then?

I don't see much difference. Peta's entire cause seems to be that people = animals, if not people < animals. Sorry, not buying it, not even taking it for free or if they paid me.

Never. That's kind of the point. When they stop saying outrageous things, we'll stop reacting with outrage. PETA is barely a step above the Westboro Baptists in terms of publicity-seeking assholes who tirelessly crusade for a worthless cause and are really, really fun to hate.

Nothing new there. A lot of Salon's reviews are dissents from the majority consensus, for no apparent reason other than sheer hipster snobbery.

I will not apologize for liking Titanic. In fact, I view the massive backlash against that movie with an almost giggling feeling. You can't find anyone these days who simultaneously considers themself a "serious movie buff" yet admits to liking that movie. But, uh, why not? The standard snob party line on Titanic usually goes something like this: "no other good movies were out, so all the preteen girls went and saw it ten times, and thus a legend was born". That theory has plenty of holes in it. Firstly, sales of tickets to preteen girls alone doesn't even begin to account for its massive, unprecedented dominance of the box office for months on end. Especially since it also made a ton of money overseas, where the Western schedule of movie releases wouldn't have had any effect. It also doesn't account for its pretty serious acceptance from grownups; the vast majority of critics gave it strong positive reviews. And there's also that pesky little detail about it winning eleven Academy Awards. While I certainly agree that undeserving films can often net themselves an Oscar or two (English Patient, Gladiator, Crash, looking at you!), in general winning that many awards is a sign that the film is generally regarded by most people as being pretty damn good. Yes, it was too long. Yes, the romance was a bit trite. Yes, Leonardo DiCaprio really isn't as good an actor as some people would have you believe. Yes, Billy Zane was an awfully strange choice for a villain. Yes, that Celine Dion song sure as hell got overplayed to a mind-numbing extent. But the good things about that movie were plenty good enough to easily outweigh all the bad.

I had a lot of problems with Punisher. Too long, too slow, too complicated, not enough action, and what action it had wasn't nearly as brutal as the best of Garth Ennis's spectacularly gruesome run in the comics. And Tom Jane looked more like he was playing Maxx Payne, not Frank Castle. But, to put it in full, my review I wrote at the Pit:

Yeah, what he said about what I said.

I haven't seen much in these stories which described exactly how this went down, in a physical or logistical sense. How many other people were on the bus? Why didn't anyone try to stop this guy? What caused the hours-long standoff? Did all the other people get off? If so, why didn't the police just shoot in the tear gas/tasers/bullets/whatever and take him down? If you were a cop and you saw a guy eating someone, why wouldn't you just shoot the fucker right there and then?

Yeah, marksman or not, a single shot is unlikely to cause any immediately fatal wound. No matter what the movies taught us, just one bullet doesn't have a real high chance of instantly killing someone. Also, does Ohio not use any other forms of execution other than lethal injection? I know that changing the dosages and/or specific drugs used in the execution would probably require a veritable nightmare of bureaucratic red tape. But does the state not allow the gas chamber, electric chair, or hell even a good ol' fashioned hanging? With a guy this heavy, the noose might decapitate him, which is always a bonus.