me and idoleyes too :)Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Printable View
me and idoleyes too :)Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
You're so finicky.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerI'm keeping myself pure till I meet the right furry.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
I wasn't even aware that there were furries unsuitable for that kind of thing.
One has standards.
No I complimented your mother.If I had wanted to insulted her I would have said that her vagina smelled like 3 day old tuna and I wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole.Quote:
Originally Posted by LemOnzoo
Begin argument in Lem0nzoo's language..... mumble....mumble..... virgin...... mumble... mumble.
It needs one to recognize one.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
I'm pretty sure a cock can find a vagina without being a pussy.Quote:
Originally Posted by LemOnzoo
Hey, now.
That sort of talk belongs in PhilosophyWorld.
2nd episode is very good. i gigled when jeff trow down cellular.
I don't know.
When the plot is driven by media professionals screwing up emails, I'm a little leery (Not a "little Leary" which would imply that I'm related to Dennis Leary, which I absolutely am not*).
*This last little interjection is just for you Lemonzoo, I'm helping with your engrish skills.
That whole confusing/conflating "leery" and "Leary" is a long established and always hilarious quirk of the language where two distinct words sound exactly the same even though they mean different things.
I know, crazy, right?
I can assure you that every native english speaker is just now recovering their wits, having been rendered helpless with laughter.
We are a fun loving, quite freely witty society and the sooner you submit to our will, the sooner you'll appreciate it.
It's a thread killer, I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
OK, let's call it then.
Official time of death is 22:53.
Anyone else need a drink?
You've been spending too much time among the p2p minions, how about pure lustful desire of the CH3CH2OH?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
The second episode was certainly weaker than the first although I guess that is sort of to be expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by LemOnzoo
The main "problem" was that it didn't really expand any of the burgeoning relationships and chose instead to hang the entire episode on a cheap plot contrivance.
The cell phone throwing was good though.
That's now two people on whom the "phone throw" made an impression, I barely noticed it and it certainly wouldn't make my highlight reel.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
Did that make him "cool" or "hip" to "stick it to the man" by abusing ubiquitous/disposable technology...was it a visual metaphor for the triumph of "spirit, man" over "corporate fat cats"?
Did he throw it ironically or was it a spontaneous expression of the horror a modern man faces in an overly mechanized world?
Or maybe it was something rarer, that revealing moment where Jeff Daniels realized he would never master Angry Birds, the core philosophy of Minecraft would forever elude him and his inbox was infected and sending stock tips to his closest friends.
This requires frame by frame analysis.
Somebody get on that.
I dunno about the other guy but I just liked the violence.:unsure:
If was directing the scene though I would have had him first sit on a whoopee cushion to make it funnierer.
I you directed the scene Rob Schneider would have made a cameo, amirite?
He could have played the part of the whoopie cushion and probably fucking nailed it.
I still don't understand why he didn't get at least a nomination for The Animal.
I mean come on people , not only did he have to play a man but also mimic the actions of various animals.
That was probably his greatest moment as an actor is you discount that racist portrayal of an Asian man in some Adam Sandler film that I am trying to forget.
What about when he was a 14 year old Japanese girl, did that ever happen? I really, really need to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
There was also his racist portrayal of a Cajun man inQuote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
Waterboyanother Adam Sandler film you are trying to forget. :blink:
All this talk of racism leads to the question, "Can one species be racist towards another?"
Can a dog truly be racist, can a rose?
Surely, you see where this is going.
I can only speak for myself but hopefully someplace really racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Of course, why else would they start wars?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
You'd think I'd remember a great canine/flower battle.
I on the other hand, am not the least surprised.
I actually meant the in-fighting. You know, how like some roses go to war other roses due to a gap in discontent over other species. Stuff like that, I think it's like reductive history or something.
Moving on, I finally found myself investing some time into this series. I'm instantly in love with it. I was grabbing a sense that they weren't paying enough attention to the interpersonal relationships between the character from what I remember reading here, but I found the opposite to be true. They may not have progressed them very far, but I think I'd be disappointed if they did by ep 2.
After this last episode I'm afraid The Newsroom is beginning to lose me.
One of the criticisms leveled by advance previewers was that by setting the show in 2010, Sorkin had the advantage of hindsight and it was easy to be properly aghast at events that were more muddled in real time. The takeover of the GOP by the "grassroots" Tea Party is just such low hanging fruit, much simpler to spot today than 2-3 years ago as the Tea Party was just coalescing.
I'd like to see them try to be so incisive and correct about scenarios happening in real time. If the news is really about educating voters (something the characters have asserted a couple of times already), then why not own your bully pulpit and educate with current events?
They completely squandered Jane Fonda last night. She was a mere silhouette for the first half of the show and then was used to set up a crumby Jesus/Moses joke in the second half.
The scenes with Fonda and Waterston should have been electric, instead he continues with the loopy Yoda and she tries for "tough broad" (a take that either Christine Baranski or Maggie Smith could have nailed while sleeping).
I've started watching The Good Wife and think it's more enjoyable and less strident.
I don't know, that all seemed obvious to me at the time but the sensationalism was too wildly embraced for most to realize what was actually happening. If one is trying to make a point, wouldn't it be more effective to use a recent history where memory of the self and clairvoyance can both come into play?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
I have to agree. That last episode just came off as Sorkin showing his agenda and being "historical" having very little real point.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
I'm having a hard time imaging the 3rd episode was all that different than the first 2. I'll come back and tell you all why you're wrong when I watch it.
It's not practicing what it preaches, that's The Newsroom's problem.
A fleeting reference to Michelle Bachmann -referred to as merely "a hairdo"- proves the point.
No one disputes that she's a self-aggrandizing waste of carbon but the obvious (and more important) next question is not asked, namely, how does she continue to retain office?
Who is voting for this shameful excuse for representation and what does that say about her constituency?
All of the idiot blowhards we've seen in the past year of the Republican runoffs- remember Herman Cain and Rick Perry?- are still around and still popular...who supports these people?
Just pointing and laughing, which is all that The Newsroom has done so far, is too easy and has already been done.
Let's see Sorkin get all Biblical on more worthy opponents like Norquist or Rove, two people smart enough to realize that getting elected is actually an impediment to controlling the masses.
The mention of Norquist was much less fleeting than the passing of the Bachmann reference. So that kind of seems a bit contradictory. As for everything else, isn't it still a little early to conclude the direction the show is taking?
It's not like every news media outlet had succumbed to the sensationalized nature that has swept that industry, just all of the major ones run by profit motive corporations. They are just now introducing the crux of the problem with the Koch brothers thing. The question to address is, how to continue the type of programming they want to achieve when the overlord isn't on board? News media had to have gone through these same predicaments and went with the poorer decision (e.g. Iraq pre war coverage relaxation in exchange for easing of FCC regulation). Major news is still brought to us by media conglomerates that answer to shareholders, I'd like to see how they address their stance on the show before I write it off. If Fonda just simply subscribes to the ideal, then I would find myself disenfranchised since I'm looking for something a bit more realistic.
I think Clocker was mainly talking about how setting things in the past purely to hammer home already well established points comes off more as whining than enlightening.
Setting it in the past is the reason I'm looking from a different point of view. The atmosphere was poisoned by capitalism, what could have been done about it? What difference would it have made? If they continue working with real events, how will this dogma coexist with reality, or do they all come to a realization that it's pointless and # of viewers dictates everything? Also, they've progressed time rather quickly in the show (5 months in 3 episodes?), so a lot of speculation could be undone depending on the setting pace they keep. So with that said, I think still too early.
As you can see, my opinion is that the show has a lot of potential, additionally it has a lot of opportunities to disappoint me, but it hasn't yet. For the same reason, not enough has really happened. My favorite line was, that makes her literally a brain surgeon or something to that effect.
Hindsight is 20/20 and anyway besides the fact that my head isn't quite so thick yet as things don't require to be driven home with a sledgehammer and as I couldn't really care less about politics my main current concern is when/if that Olivia Munn chick is going to show some skin or not.
More or less, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
Let's see Sorkin address some more timely issues...The SEC's continued inaction in the face of ever more egregious bank industry crime, a Presidential contender with massive secret offshore holdings, an ongoing war with no hope of successful resolution (and no definition of what "success" might even be).
Let's see him sight on some fluid, moving targets and see how good he is.
She shows her tits in some recent male stripper movie. A heavy price to pay if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
If you mean that Magic Mike thing ,my first thought when I heard of it is was "Why would someone go out of their way to make a movie that no straight male would ever want to see?"
Clearly not a date movie so what are the demographics? Drunken groups of women under 25?
Through the channels from which I heard about it, a gaggle of 30-something female school teachers.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
I assume that is how they get all sexed up to the point of needing to sleep with their 14 year old students.
That's one position, the other is that they feel like prostitutes get a fairer deal, meth, abusive pimp, and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787
In other news, my mom recently swore off fox news. It's some type of progress, so the show must be doing something right. Not that she watches newsroom.