Comments

Nice! Thank you for teaching me this embarrassing lesson.
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/q1zav.jpg
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/t/q1zav.jpg
Well, I blew it. I don't know how to post pics. I had an url link and everything for you guys. :/
The funny thing is, that Jim Carrey sculpture USED to be dressed up in Ace Ventura garb. They just changed the hair and clothes and moved a couple fingers around. Here's what it looked like circa 2007.
My office did one of these yesterday. And I didn't know what it was at first, so someone showed me a few of the videos, and I was like haha this is funny let's do it. Then I went online shortly after we posted and looked it up because I wanted to see some other ones, and I was directed to an article that called this the "New Gangnam Style" and I immediately shot myself.
I'm really surprised no one tatted Pinkman's neck with Walter White. Or Fring's neck with Walter White. That was what I wanted to do, but didn't have time. Well I had time, obviously, because I was reading the post and thought about it, but not ENOUGH time to execute it. Also, SETTLE DOWN, KIA SOUL ADS!! I can't even log in with Safari and Firefox barely works.They are like a callback to the worst MySpace memories of 2003-2007.
I misread part of your comment...yeah, they probably re-took a lot of Dr. Phil's reactions.
They don't retake reaction shots. They just cheat it from somewhere else in the interview. That's what really bugs me about this promo. You can tell pretty much the whole thing is cheated to make her look in far worse condition than she is. For example, that whole "Are we to camera now? We're rolling?" is a very normal thing someone would say when they begin an interview, but the way they play it (dropping the music, cutting to a shot of Phil to create an awkward pause) is a poorly executed attempt to make her look banonkers. Or maybe it was well executed, since a lot of people suddenly seem excited about Dr. Phil.
Isn't that copy of Leaves of Grass connected to Gale somehow? Someone remind me...
But that's exactly the root of it; I'm pretty sure the only reason people care is because it's so goddamned good. To clarify, if Yoshinoya Beef Bowl announced its stance against gay marriage and its many contributions to anti-gay organizations, I don't think anyone would bat an eye.
The purpose of making a movie (at least, the purpose of them making THIS movie) is to spend some money in the hopes of making it back and then getting a bunch more on top of it. This would be a cool thing if it ended up being fan-funded and then distributed for free. But it's not. They're doing this in the hopes of selling it to a distributor for a much bigger chunk of change than $200,000, and they don't have to pay any of that money back. They very easily could have invested the money themselves if this was a project they believed in so much. The fact that they are asking to get money from people - the real world would call them "investors" - with much of the ROI being whimsical shit that doesn't cost any actual money? That's some seriously entitled bullshit.
I wish the $10,000 tier for Executive Producer credit came with the ability to give a round of notes.
How is his ex-wife being black any kind of reveal? This show has never been about continuity, about the only thing in his universe that is constant is that he has kids. His ex-wife will be someone else later on down the line. His siblings and parents and girlfriends are always different, not just the actors playing them; the characters they portray are completely different people. And sometimes he has different quantities of brothers/sisters. We know this! We watch the show! Cmon, everyone! Wise up already.
I also noticed that. I think we should get the writers of Jurassic Park to sue the writers of The Net. I mean, why not? Rodney King was in the news today and Newt Gingrich was just recently running for President.
You know why this is fucking bullshit? Because if the current trend were about being strong and embracing what makes you different (which was moreso the case in the mid 90s), and not the fear of being singled out and made to feel ostracized, then Christina Hendricks and everyone else that's jumped on this train would instead talk about how bold they were for not just changing their appearance in an effort to fit in with the mainstream crowd. In other words: "Biiiiiiiiiiiitch. Your personal style is quite literally a cry for negative attention. Own it."
There is a gravely serious lack of live sloths in this video about meeting a live sloth. If I was a network exec, I might play it off to the producers and be like, "Kristen is great on camera, but I'm really just not getting enough sloth here." But internally I'd be furious that she went on TV and built up this whole story prior to showing us the footage of what she looked like on the day she met a sloth, and then showed NO SLOTH.
That would be a Tesco bag on his head, which makes me think this is not a disguise at all, but rather an uninspired Rubberbandits costume. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8