borntohula

some of that landslide should be chalked up to misinformation (i'm not saying that it lost because of misinformation). there was a lot of fear mongering going on during that time, and i remember my dad was getting email forwards about why he should vote against the bill because it would give "more power" to "fringe" parties. luckily, my dad already believed that shit without an email telling him to, but i was surprised at the overall lack of information about what a representational voting system entails.

wouldn't this avoid an election? if the parties vote against harper's budget plan, but do not form a majority in a coalition, then parliament would dissolve and we'd have to vote. but if they just form a coalition, and therefore have the majority of the votes, they would be usurping the gov't without the need for an election. i could be wrong. i like the idea because, like someone else mentioned above, the parties on the left side of the spectrum are crippled financially. not only that, but i think at this point, the liberals have only been able to survive for so long because they rely on the "left" vote, in most cases if one chooses to vote strategically. the greens and the NDP have much stronger campaigns and ideas than the libs. this last election was definitely a sign of that. "uniting" the left, or at least reducing the number of parties on the left side, is definitely beneficial for those of us who vote left and would like to have our voices heard. it's nonsense that the cons won the election, even with a minority gov't. this is why i hate the first-past-the-post system.

thanks christy... and wow bishop, i didn't know you had made a thread like this already. i would've just posted my crap there. i wasn't around much in the summer time though, so i didn't see it when it was first posted. i'm also surprised that this didn't take off... not that i'm patting myself on the back for it or anything. it's just that it's a fairly simple concept, and a discussion that i have quite often in my circles of friends.

pretty sure it was joshua jackson's character who said that, but i can see how you might've made that mistake, haha.

try not to take me so literally. so you're contradicting yourself? you just said a clean translation of the watchmen would've been an interminable 4 hours in length, therefore the finished product will not be an "exact" representation of the comic, and yet you'd prefer a more literal adaptation of lord of the rings? those films are long enough already, thankyouverymuch. you just proved my point that some interpretation needs to be done in order to adapt a story from one medium to another. where did i say that? correct. a film is not a comic book, even if their content is similar. and this "ability" you speak of, that each medium has to convey the same thing, but differently, speaks to exactly why i think that the film should not be a literal shot-for-shot interpretation, which it is trying to be. that is the approach that director zak snyder takes when adapting comics to film, and should not be over-looked. he did it with 300 and he's doing it again with this film: watchmen objections http://io9.com/326662/first-look-at-watchmens-bleak-nyc-sets http://io9.com/5029469/six-new-posters-for...omic-book-cover i think there should be MORE of an effort put forth to make the film a departure from the comic. especially since its own creator thinks it's unfilmable: of course, a comic can't always be tied to its author's own intentions, but he nevertheless makes a strong point. these two sentences contradict one another, so i won't even bother responding to them. if watchmen is to be a film at all, then it should at the very least make an effort to distance itself from the comic and make itself unique. the fact that it is simply in a different medium does not make it any more purposeful or original. it wasn't only a book about a weird group of superheroes, it was also a comic about comics themselves, and that aspect is a significant part of what makes watchmen special in the first place. to make it into a film, that has to be taken into account and acknowledged, and perhaps toyed-with and changed to make the film its own autonomous experience. that said, i am looking forward to seeing it.

i was getting a bit annoyed with the show, but last night's episode helped redeem it in my mind. until last night, the show had been relying on a simple formula that they rarely faltered from: start off with a weird death, reveal a bit more about "the pattern," the characters' cloudy pasts, solve said weird death by performing an off-the-wall kind of experiment. i enjoyed it, but it started to get a bit tiresome and predictable. thankfully, last night's episode changed that by departing from the usual formula. i understand the role that the formula plays in the show's watchability, particularly from the standpoint of a viewer who is catching the show for the first time, or an irregular viewer, but i was glad to see things get shaken up a bit for people who've been following the entire time. did anyone else catch it? SPOILER (Highlight to View) i'm glad olivia is starting to catch on to the idea that she can't trust massive dynamic, and maybe not even her boss. if she exposes him and his relationship to massive dynamic and "the pattern" (like i imagine she will, probably at the end of the season) i wonder how she'll continue to "fight" massive dynamic, especially if it is against the gov't, or at least, without the consent of the FBI .

ive listened to it a few times now, and i can't get over how bland it sounds. some of the songs are ok, but really, was it really worth the wait? no.

i'm not a fan, but i intend on listening to the record sometime in the near future. the single is terrible though. are they working with paul oakenfold now? william orbit? is this their ray of light period? what happened to their earthy aping of the "boss?"

suit yourself. i just don't think there's much point in adapting something to the screen unless you do something interesting with it and make it different than what it once was. why do you need two copies of the same thing? film is different than comics. there are similar elements, but the interpretation of one to the other should not be so literal. but i'll wait to see it to make further judgements.

behind the hill valley sign?

and yet you've indicated that at least half of the tracks are trash, not including the ones you're uncertain of because their shittiness just polarizes the heck out of you. either you're a masochist or you've time travelled here from 1997, a time when this album still had a (slim) chance of being relevant.

it looks like a shot for shot version of the comic book, which i wouldn't really call an "interpretation". i call that unimaginative.

that guy looks like 2-D of the gorillaz if he were real.

i'm subjecting myself to their discography before i listen to chinese democracy. i might as well have a context before i listen to it. all the albums blow hard except for appetite.

uhhh usually a rattle means that your fingers aren't on all of the notes properly or depending on the rattle, i know that if i leave the lower notes open while i strum on my acoustic, my guitar rattles because of the tuning pegs not being the greatest quality. i could be of more help but i really dont know what you mean by this: "some strings?" could you be more specific? when you're holding down a note? an open note, or a chord? when you hold down said "note" are you strumming the other strings as well?

meg's cat died for my freedom.

exactly how it sounds. there are always films out there that are marred by poor casting. now's your chance to make it right. or--- if you're a fan of a book, comic or whatever and you want to share your interpretation of who should bring it to life, go nuts. my choice for recasting would be the spiderman franchise, particularly the two leads: for peter parker, ladies and gentlemen, meet jake gyllenhaal. he's way more versatile an actor than tobey mcguire, and i think he could balance out the nerdy/superhero dichotomy of parker better than mcguire as well. as for mary jane, any actress is a step up from kirsten dunst, but here is a woman who i'd rather see as mary jane than snaggletooth: christina hendricks. 'nuff said. she's a NATURAL redhead and a stunner. what helps her case is that she harkens back to a classier period of hollywood (perhaps its her role on mad men that makes me think that) and i would believe that she was a successful model/actress/etc after being peter's "girl-next-door." thoughts? (re)cast your own film!

a lot of people are comparing this film, or at least what they expect it'll be like, to transformers. i kindof see that, but i also expect this to be a bit better. i think it's going to be flashy, campy and moral, but for some reason i still want to see it. this is the first time i've ever really been looking forward to seeing a star trek film actually. if this fails i say they do a ds9 film, hahah.

when you hear someone say "encore, encore!" what does that mean to you? the word has been in popular use since the 1700s, where it had the same definition and use as it does today: what an audience would yell or chant in order to bring a performer back on-stage, although it wasn't necessarily a complimentary term, some would "encore" a terrible performance for their own enjoyment. nowadays encores are technically a sign of gratitude from the band to the audience, but i agree they're a bit silly since they've become so commonplace and don't really mean what they used to. a perfect circle stopped doing encores during their last tour, but were nice enough to explain why beforehand. it showed that there was a bit of thought and organization that went into the development of their set. i thought it was fine, and it was nice to see people break from a needless tradition.

a RSS feed might be handy, but i don't know if anyone else would use one or if it'd be hard to do.

not really my thing, but they sound alright. how'd you discover them?

yeah i don't think that's what the chatroom would really function as.

maybe i went about saying it in the wrong way. i was wondering what calgary dave was going to reflect on. i am unsure of what to reflect on myself. i've had grandparents in the war as well as other family members who were in the military. i was taught, especially at school, that remembrance day was a time to reflect and remind oneself of the cost of war, as many of you have stated. but what do we learn from that exactly? as a child, i understood that being aware of the sacrifices others have made for you helps to prevent such sacrifices in the future. as i've grown older, that meaning has started to crumble under its own weight, especially considering canada's approaches to foreign policy within the past 5-10 years ... this new batch of soldiers is dying for a completely different reason. there's no romantic ideal about freedom this time, mainly because the people in afghanistan do not represent a threat to my freedom whatsoever. i find it especially disturbing that war has become so ingrained in the definition of canada, that it's considered unpatriotic or ungrateful to not want to remember. in this sense, remembrance suddenly involves co-opting other people's pain and suffering, in order to define oneself and prove one's "canadianess." so what do i reflect on this remembrance day that's worth reflecting on? "YOU COULDA BEEN A KRAUT!!!" nope. sorry. that doesn't work for me. it's too selfish. i'm here now, and that's all that matters. there's no point in ruminating on "what could've been" because it didn't happen. i don't think i should be guilted into "remembering" just because i may or may not exist because of something as huge as a war. the war has happened, let's at least think of what it is versus what it could have been. i want to make sure that everyone here knows i'm not criticizing their beliefs or anything of that matter. i've merely become disenfranchised with the whole remembrance day celebration. to end, i thought i might share a ted hughes poem that first sparked this questioning of remembrance day in me:

what is there to reflect on, exactly?

again.... dead. had he lived, they would've continued on with him as the singer. it is blasphemy to go on without a key member such as plant. as i've said in another thread, perhaps it shows a clear bias in rock music that the "key musicians" are usually the singer and the lead guitarist. it's sad but true. take eddie vedder out of pearl jam and you've got mother love bone or temple of the dog. take PJ's first drummer, dave krusen, out of the mix and replace him with dave abbruzzese and you've still got pearl jam. the drums and bass are subtle instruments, and although their changes in the lineup are noticeable, they are nevertheless minimal. so sure, you and ian could tour w/ the MGB name, all the more power to you. but would you really want to? can axl rose really call his band guns n roses? can billy corgan call his band the smashing pumpkins? they shouldn't, but they do. even the doors have the sense to tour as "the doors of the 2st century," (or whatever they're calling themselves) because they're willing to acknowledge that they are missing significant contributions from significant members. if bonham, jones and page decide to tour without plant, they shouldn't be named "led zeppelin"... just because it's misrepresentation. "page & plant" never used the name when they performed.