borntohula

i don't like her, but from what i saw of her speech yesterday, she's pretty good at spin. yes, she's totally not qualified, but she equates "not qualified" with "small town values" and "not being popular among the washington elite." people were going nuts... and thats the only time i've seen people go nuts for anything involving john mccain. i think she definitely increases his chances of winning, but perhaps things will change once we get her behind a debate podium. i'd like to see how obama and biden are going to counter this to their advantage.

anything by marnie stern. i've looked all over the internet for her. torrents, blogs, etc. nothing. this is my last attempt, and i really doubt many people listen to her, aside from maybe shade or beth. so how bout it, guys?

right, but it's not like stephen harper goes through the ballots himself. i think your protest and outrage at our shoddy choices for candidates is misdirected at vote-counter #3490. and it's not like they care, or will even tell a superior. you're just wasting everybody's time, including your own. i share your feelings about voting. for the longest time i didn't do it because i didn't think it mattered, and i still feel that way. it's an illusion of choice, especially in canada. all of our candidates are very similar,and voting one way or another doesn't really affect the outcome of the election. but what i didn't know was that the party you vote for gets somewhere around $2, regardless of whether they get a seat in the house of commons or not. so since then, i've been voting green. i don't like their leader, and i know they won't win an election, but they're a party that i agree with, and who are also severely under-represented in the canadian media. your vote isn't important, but at least consider the full ramifications of your wasting it before you do. vote for a party whose ideals you share, regardless of whether they're the communist party, the bloq, or the conservatives, so at least you can help a party improve, rather than stay the same. and i mean, if you do have a problem with the voting system, write a letter or do something positive rather than something apathetic. you're right in thinking that your vote doesn't matter, and that the changes it brings about are insignificant. but the logic that your boycotting of the vote will somehow prove something is the same as those who believe their votes do make change. what you're doing is reactionary, and is still based on the fundamentals of democracy. not voting is still a choice given to you by the government. it is not an exercise of free will, nor does it prove anything. i believe in civil disobedience, but if you really don't like the government, stop paying taxes.

i have no idea... but i think that there used to be more regulars at that time...

jj abrams' fringe and joss whedon's dollhouse look fresh and exciting. the latter is loosely sci-fi, but counts for me. i'm frankly a bit tired of space-station drama.

well that sounds promising.

wow, my dad will be disappointed. although, the space channel in canada has been showing things a season behind, hasn't it? so he's still got time.

i'm just as ambivalent toward v for vendetta as i am sin city, although i'm probably less likely to watch the former than the latter. v for vendetta was a piss-poor film, but as an adaptation it's interesting, and acts as quite the counterpoint (almost as a criticism) to the comic it was inspired by. by completely skewing the anarchist ideals that were so integral to the book, the wachowskis made their film more about the conflation between terrorist and vigilante; they actually condemn v for his actions, whereas moore celebrates him, taking much more time to explain his actions and give reason for them, rather than just having him become the catalyst for meaningless explosions and violence. the similarities between the forceful coercion of v and his tyrannical oppressors are emphasized in the film, making it a an adaptation worth watching, but one that ultimately cannot stand on it's own, apart from the text, because it tries to pass liberal, almost conservative ideologies, as being revelatory. apsahm: do you really think that if the films just copied the books verbatim that they'd really be doing the books justice? adaptation does not work mimetically. film is a completely different medium, with completely different conventions, and although modern comics are praised for their "cinematic qualities" they really do not translate well to film without making some changes. look at the 1960s batman television show, or even the batman films from the 90s if you'd like. each took what they saw from the comics, and simply applied it to the screen. you know what happened. it became a joke. if you tried to make an x-men movie identical to the 1960s book, or even the ultimates version, it would be laughable. a lot more effort needs to be put into the suspension of disbelief when it comes to film than in comics. it's just not a straight translation.

i think that's the reason why good comic book adaptations are few and far between: the films don't distance themselves from authorial intent. sin city is an interesting exception because it was the first in this new line of "shot for shot" remakes of comic books and looked damn well doing it. but if all comic adaptations just strive for looks, they're going to fail. 300 was awful, as it reproduced the racist boys-club of frank miller's dreams without any hesitation or awareness whatsoever. the film would have been interesting had it at least tried to challenge miller's text in some way... rather than just copy it. why watch the movie when it's no different from the comic? watchmen will blow because it won't have the proper writing nor the critical piss and vinegar that was so integral to the comics. i imagine it'll turn out to be a lot like the recent wanted adaptation with angelina jolie. the book itself was very much critique of comic books, just like watchmen, so of course it didn't translate well to the screen (especially the ending). this style of film making is lazy and will be the downfall of many adaptations to come.

mine says "free webinar." who's webinar?

how is this a point proving as to why either of those bands suck? i'm not a fan of either, but it sounds as though you have more of a problem with the droves who enjoy radiohead or u2 vehemently, and not the actual music that either band makes. if you're going to shit on bands, do it right and actually talk about music. also, i don't hate you. for the most part you can be quite funny and pleasant. but i do find that you fly off the handle quite easily on here... what provoked this post? you write a fucking journal on here for god sakes. if you really didn't give a shit about what people thought, you probably wouldn't waste the time to start a thread about how much you don't care, nor would you take the time to bore us with the mundane details of your life.

thanks for the jesu split, shade. i was wondering if it would end up online right away or not because there are apparently only 2000 copies.

are you kidding? george michael might've sucked cat balls after wham, but make it big is greatness. "careless whisper" is one of the best love songs i've ever heard. sure, some of the music they did was cheesy, but it was also fun. i don't know anyone who doesn't at least laugh when they hear "wake me up before you go-go" (whether that's due to the zoolander scene that the song is featured in, i'll never know). also, "freedom" is a great example of 80s pop-soul music. i think if you're going to blame wham for anything, it should be for spawning copy-cats like rick astley and starting the boy band trend.

i dont think a vocal distorter thing in the suit would've helped anything. he would just sound like the villain from scream, and it would've made it even more difficult to take him seriously. iron man having a distorter makes sense. but not batman.

heard of them and have listened to their first album. nothing special.

i didn't expect this. if my 8-track player worked, i would have listened to my shaft soundtrack in memoriam.

yeah i don't really know what to say about it, so i didnt start no thread. i was just appalled.

what's wrong with that? it doesnt matter what the artist intended the song to be, people are always going to take it and make it their own and make their own interpretations. do you have a problem with the beatles being associated with drugs? or do you just have a problem because the beatles have said the song is not about drugs, but people still insist it is, and are therefore 'misinterpreting' the song?

yes 45678

blame pedobear.

the hoffman rumour has been floating around since the first film. i don't buy it. not yet. especially since nolan has said "no penguin." as for depp, i'd be interested in seeing him do such a role, but it's all hearsay. i think he's a bit overrated. big deal... he does "strange" roles. i think his riddler might be too much like his willy wonka, or his upcoming mad hatter in the "alice" adaptation... but he might be okay if he makes sure he doesnt do that awful capn sparrow english accent that he's been bringing to all his other roles. i think steve bucemi would be a much better riddler, and woudl also fit with nolan's casting decisions as well. he casts character actors, not really big names.

nothing is confirmed yet about there being a third film. the second has only been out for 2 weeks now. it's going to be awhile before we hear something about a third that isn't speculation.

agreed, but not something that i would take as seriously. how do you follow an "agent of chaos" up with clayface? can't be done, unless they call up tim burton. then clayface will have a gang of claymates and everything will go to shit. i really think that the third film would need to involve two face to be of any interest to me.

true enough. i let it go because the rest of the film is so good. and i mean, if you wanted yo keep your identity secret, especially around people who've met you, what would you do?

so was killer croc. i dont think either of them are really "major" bat villains. they're def. not going to be in the films. especially with how killer croc was represented in the gotham knight short.