Entry tags:
(no subject)
Kevin Hart had to step down because of old homophobic tweets but everybody is still looking forward to "Bad Boys III"? Right..... :-I
Entry tags:
Political pondering US1
An argument I've encountered a few times in regards to the last US presidential election is that Hillary would have been as bad a president as Donald, that she is corrupt, in collusion with Russia and would have led the States into war in no time.
Now, I am a pretty.... rather.... very cynical person, so yes, I am willing to go with that argument. Even looking at the eight years of St. Obama, there are enough aspects that make you shudder in horror. So let's assume that Hillary is really corrupt and in the pocket of american/international industrial interests.
I would have still preferred her over Donald, and here's why:
If you imagine you were at the end of a party at your place and just had to pop out for a sec. In your living room are Donald and Hillary and to be honest, you think they've both had a bit too much. But Hillary looks reasonably prim and proper and also she assures you that she has herself under control. A day later you find a wet spot under one of the carpets smelling of piss. So you ask Hillary whether she has pissed on your floor in your absence and she assures you that no, of course she hasn't. And while you say you believe her, the suspicion that it might have been her will not leave your head.
Then you have the same situation with Donald. Donald is shouting a lot about how rude people are and how he hates that. Donald has also a reputation for pissing on carpets, is wearing a t-shirt stating "Bane of Carpets" and has already opened his flies by the time you turn to leave.
In both cases you might feel miffed about leaving this person alone in your flat but in the case of Hillary you at least saw a smidgen of decorum to reassure yourself that your carpets might not suffer. With Donald, this was never going to end well, you had no reason to think he would not piss on your carpet and leaving him alone, you have noone to blame but yourself.
And I am not a fan of essentially hitting yourself in the face in this manner.
Now, I am a pretty.... rather.... very cynical person, so yes, I am willing to go with that argument. Even looking at the eight years of St. Obama, there are enough aspects that make you shudder in horror. So let's assume that Hillary is really corrupt and in the pocket of american/international industrial interests.
I would have still preferred her over Donald, and here's why:
If you imagine you were at the end of a party at your place and just had to pop out for a sec. In your living room are Donald and Hillary and to be honest, you think they've both had a bit too much. But Hillary looks reasonably prim and proper and also she assures you that she has herself under control. A day later you find a wet spot under one of the carpets smelling of piss. So you ask Hillary whether she has pissed on your floor in your absence and she assures you that no, of course she hasn't. And while you say you believe her, the suspicion that it might have been her will not leave your head.
Then you have the same situation with Donald. Donald is shouting a lot about how rude people are and how he hates that. Donald has also a reputation for pissing on carpets, is wearing a t-shirt stating "Bane of Carpets" and has already opened his flies by the time you turn to leave.
In both cases you might feel miffed about leaving this person alone in your flat but in the case of Hillary you at least saw a smidgen of decorum to reassure yourself that your carpets might not suffer. With Donald, this was never going to end well, you had no reason to think he would not piss on your carpet and leaving him alone, you have noone to blame but yourself.
And I am not a fan of essentially hitting yourself in the face in this manner.
Yoga Hosers
I haven't seen "Cop out" or "Tusk" yet but for the moment "Yoga Hosers" is absolutely the worst Kevin Smith film ever. There are a few very entertaining bits in there, but for the most part it feels like Kevin and Johnny just wanted to see their lovely daughters on screen as much as possible. Who admittedly are fairly good musicians but not enough to carry a whole film, and who may be decent actresses.... if the film gave them something to act with.
Entry tags:
Shards of Nostalgia
In my circle of friends there is currently a wave of nostalgia for "Fresh Prince of Bel Air". This made me reflect and I came to the conclusion that I had never really watched the series.
Then I remembered a single image of Uncle Phil that had stayed with me through the years and I realised that I must have watched "Fresh Prince" a bit after all.
Similarly, I though I never watched "Roseanne". And then my younger self prodded me to point out that he had had a slight crush on Sara Gilbert. Which speaks for itself on quite a few levels.
Then I remembered a single image of Uncle Phil that had stayed with me through the years and I realised that I must have watched "Fresh Prince" a bit after all.
Similarly, I though I never watched "Roseanne". And then my younger self prodded me to point out that he had had a slight crush on Sara Gilbert. Which speaks for itself on quite a few levels.
Article containing the Morrissey interview audio
Don't trust the written word. Trust Morissey's voice.
(Haven't listened to it yet, though)
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/musik/morrissey-audio-mitschnitt-zum-spiegel-interview-a-1182981.html
(Haven't listened to it yet, though)
http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/musik/morrissey-audio-mitschnitt-zum-spiegel-interview-a-1182981.html
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Ridley Scott talks about cutting Spacey out of film (BBC Entertainments)
"In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Scott said: "You can't tolerate any kind of behaviour like that."
The director said: "You can't condone that kind of behaviour in any shape or form," adding that keeping Spacey in the picture would have spelled disaster for the film.
"We cannot let one person's action affect the good work of all these other people. It's that simple," he said."
Or in other words: You had words with the accounting department and they told you what it would cost to reshoor the scenes with Plummer, compared it to the projections of how much money you would lose in revenue and potential awards and told you to go ahead. Do not insult anybody's intelligence. This has nothing to do with moral integrity. It all comes downs to money.
It was known for decades what Weinstein was up to but as long as nobody made too much of a fuss and the dough kept rolling in, who cares about a few starlets? Even if damaged, they are a renewable source of revenue. Now was a good time to hang the fat Jew out to dry. The political climate is right and as long as everybody uses him as a pinata, everything else can go as always without drawing any attention. Nice going.
"In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Scott said: "You can't tolerate any kind of behaviour like that."
The director said: "You can't condone that kind of behaviour in any shape or form," adding that keeping Spacey in the picture would have spelled disaster for the film.
"We cannot let one person's action affect the good work of all these other people. It's that simple," he said."
Or in other words: You had words with the accounting department and they told you what it would cost to reshoor the scenes with Plummer, compared it to the projections of how much money you would lose in revenue and potential awards and told you to go ahead. Do not insult anybody's intelligence. This has nothing to do with moral integrity. It all comes downs to money.
It was known for decades what Weinstein was up to but as long as nobody made too much of a fuss and the dough kept rolling in, who cares about a few starlets? Even if damaged, they are a renewable source of revenue. Now was a good time to hang the fat Jew out to dry. The political climate is right and as long as everybody uses him as a pinata, everything else can go as always without drawing any attention. Nice going.
Current events
Sorry, this is currently all over the news and normally this isn't something I don't cover. (Be grateful. I have reams of stuff I wanted to post/write but well, reasons.)
But here we go: Hear thee now the words of Jayda Fransen, Deputy Head of the organisation "Britain First". The excessive capitalisation is all hers:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DONALD TRUMP, HAS RETWEETED THREE OF DEPUTY LEADER JAYDA FRANSEN'S TWITTER VIDEOS! DONALD TRUMP HIMSELF HAS RETWEETED THESE VIDEOS AND HAS AROUND 44 MILLION FOLLOWERS! GOD BLESS YOU TRUMP! GOD BLESS AMERICA! OCS
You know. what DJT has done is hardly groundbreaking. It's not the first time he shared unverified material from an extremely right-wing source and it is well know that the KKK loves him and he loves the KKK, so this is only shocking inasfar as he shared material from a gasp! non-American source.
But Jayda, do you recall what your organisation is called? Yes, that's right: "Britain First". And do you know what Trump's slogan for the election and his guiding principle for the past year of his presidentship was? "America First". So yeah, suck up to him, why don't you? It shows how much you are actually interested in the nation you profess to love so much. Your toadying will be renumerated after Brexit, no doubt.
But here we go: Hear thee now the words of Jayda Fransen, Deputy Head of the organisation "Britain First". The excessive capitalisation is all hers:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DONALD TRUMP, HAS RETWEETED THREE OF DEPUTY LEADER JAYDA FRANSEN'S TWITTER VIDEOS! DONALD TRUMP HIMSELF HAS RETWEETED THESE VIDEOS AND HAS AROUND 44 MILLION FOLLOWERS! GOD BLESS YOU TRUMP! GOD BLESS AMERICA! OCS
You know. what DJT has done is hardly groundbreaking. It's not the first time he shared unverified material from an extremely right-wing source and it is well know that the KKK loves him and he loves the KKK, so this is only shocking inasfar as he shared material from a gasp! non-American source.
But Jayda, do you recall what your organisation is called? Yes, that's right: "Britain First". And do you know what Trump's slogan for the election and his guiding principle for the past year of his presidentship was? "America First". So yeah, suck up to him, why don't you? It shows how much you are actually interested in the nation you profess to love so much. Your toadying will be renumerated after Brexit, no doubt.
Ed Milliband can soon ask the masses the important questions.
Like "You suffer, but why?"
At least if he practices that scream a little bit more. ;-)
https://twitter.com/i/moments/877511071891832832
In other news: Finished "Jekyll", found it even sillier than I remembered and lost faith in Gina Bellman. And in case you are wondering: No, I am not getting my hopes up for Moftiss' "Dracula".
At least if he practices that scream a little bit more. ;-)
https://twitter.com/i/moments/877511071891832832
In other news: Finished "Jekyll", found it even sillier than I remembered and lost faith in Gina Bellman. And in case you are wondering: No, I am not getting my hopes up for Moftiss' "Dracula".
Entry tags:
Rewatching "Jekyll"
About 6.5 years after really liking it. Now, 4 seasons of "Sherlock" and a few episodes of "Doctor Who" later, I'm not quite as taken with it anymore.
James Nesbitt is great, Gina Bellman is gorgeous and at least the first two episodes show a lot of promise. Oh, and some of the dialogue is really funny/witty, just as some of the twists are quite inventive.
But
More than ever I am starting to doubt that Gina Bellman is much of an actress. I have this theory (mainly on the basis of "Coupling") that there is a certain type of woman that pops up in Moffat series that is mainly there to look gorgeous but little else. Gina Bellman is certainly the most capable actress on that spectrum, but it pains me to actually look at her in those terms. Having said that and knowing that she has apparently done good things on "Doctor Who", I always suspected that Michelle Ryan was pretty much a Moffat Woman in this series.*
In the same vein some of the dialogue is clearly funny but delivered terribly which makes me wonder how the director could let it be fucked up so badly. :-/
The Scary Opera Vocal is also starting to become annoying and quite frankly who ever thought that the comedy monster teeth were a good idea particularly as Hyde never really uses them?
Two more episodes to go and I know this is the part where it's getting silly.
* In case you're interested: To me the worst of the bunch is the "Woman with the Legs" in Coupling 2.1. Yes, she is pretty but she cannot deliver an honest line to save her lip gloss.
James Nesbitt is great, Gina Bellman is gorgeous and at least the first two episodes show a lot of promise. Oh, and some of the dialogue is really funny/witty, just as some of the twists are quite inventive.
But
More than ever I am starting to doubt that Gina Bellman is much of an actress. I have this theory (mainly on the basis of "Coupling") that there is a certain type of woman that pops up in Moffat series that is mainly there to look gorgeous but little else. Gina Bellman is certainly the most capable actress on that spectrum, but it pains me to actually look at her in those terms. Having said that and knowing that she has apparently done good things on "Doctor Who", I always suspected that Michelle Ryan was pretty much a Moffat Woman in this series.*
In the same vein some of the dialogue is clearly funny but delivered terribly which makes me wonder how the director could let it be fucked up so badly. :-/
The Scary Opera Vocal is also starting to become annoying and quite frankly who ever thought that the comedy monster teeth were a good idea particularly as Hyde never really uses them?
Two more episodes to go and I know this is the part where it's getting silly.
* In case you're interested: To me the worst of the bunch is the "Woman with the Legs" in Coupling 2.1. Yes, she is pretty but she cannot deliver an honest line to save her lip gloss.
Entry tags:
Right, another one of my strange questions.
This occured to me recently. I have two or three more profound ponderings I might or (more likely) will not share with a larger audience but this is short and to the point, so I can ask it now:
As I have stated before, I am about as interested in my friends' sexual orientation as I am in their preferences in jam/marmelade for breakfast. However, I have over the years heard various arguments to back up the theory that being gay is unnatural/wrong/sick. And while I disagree with them or in some cases have to say that it might come down to a matter of interpretation/opinion, the proposed arguments do in many cases at least have a coherent internal logic. If for example you subscribe to the theory that the purpose of sex is procreation and not pleasure, yes, it does follow that gay activity is unnatural/wrong. However....
What I can not figure out though is a logical argument against bisexuality that goes beyond those raised against unisex preferences. Have any of you wise and experienced people ever been faced with one of those and if yes, what was it?
As I have stated before, I am about as interested in my friends' sexual orientation as I am in their preferences in jam/marmelade for breakfast. However, I have over the years heard various arguments to back up the theory that being gay is unnatural/wrong/sick. And while I disagree with them or in some cases have to say that it might come down to a matter of interpretation/opinion, the proposed arguments do in many cases at least have a coherent internal logic. If for example you subscribe to the theory that the purpose of sex is procreation and not pleasure, yes, it does follow that gay activity is unnatural/wrong. However....
What I can not figure out though is a logical argument against bisexuality that goes beyond those raised against unisex preferences. Have any of you wise and experienced people ever been faced with one of those and if yes, what was it?
Entry tags:
I shouldn't ask
Why is there money for yet another stonkingly loud but inherently vapid Michael-Bay-Transformers-nassacre but not enough to develop films, or Cthulhu forbid!, a fucking telly series based on The Culture?
Entry tags:
Monetised weapons-grade nostalgia
Having now seen the trailer for the "Ghost in the Shell"-remake on the big screen three times I was reminded of just how breathtaking the film will probably look in that format. Watching trailer (and films!) on a small laptop just isn't the right way to experience them.
At the same time I also suddenly wondered why a "live action" remake of an anime was even considered necessary, except for purely monetary reasons. Particularly, as the "reality" the film presents is a very stylized one heavily influenced by.... anime and computer games. It's ouroboros of modern culture.
The same goes for "Beauty and the Beast". Just.... why..... why.... why?
Fuck this fake nostalgia!
At the same time I also suddenly wondered why a "live action" remake of an anime was even considered necessary, except for purely monetary reasons. Particularly, as the "reality" the film presents is a very stylized one heavily influenced by.... anime and computer games. It's ouroboros of modern culture.
The same goes for "Beauty and the Beast". Just.... why..... why.... why?
Fuck this fake nostalgia!
Entry tags:
Random thought
I saw a video of Jake Gyllenhaal singing "Suddenly Seymour" opposite Ellen Greene. A) It's obviously interesting to have a female romantic interest in a show who could quite reasonably be the guy's mother and B)
I know it's totally unprofessional but I'd be scared shitless playing opposite somebody who has been playing/singing that part for nearly as long as I am alive. o_O
I know it's totally unprofessional but I'd be scared shitless playing opposite somebody who has been playing/singing that part for nearly as long as I am alive. o_O
Entry tags:
"The Mummy" Trailer
Oh yay. It's a skimpily clad CGI-babe. Some of us are still trying to get over "Suicide Squad"!
Entry tags:
In unrelated news
Well, the "Ghost in the Shell"-trailer actually looks fairly decent. Didn't see that one coming.