yeah - not saying I think it looked that great, but it looked like a normalish movie, and pretty beautifully shot of course.
those messy German street artists could take a lesson from that preview and put Iggy Pop in the background of their next mediocre video. that song in the background makes ANYTHING look good probably.
actually, being real here: that little moment of the trailer is going to turn off anyone who likes that song, and went into the trailer thinking "maybe the movie is just called 'This Must Be The Place' so that cool people like me get it and want to go see it, but the movie is cool and subtle enough that it doesn't explain to all the people that don't know that song that it is a Talking Heads song..."
they see that and they're like "Oh man, I'm so above this shit"
we are kind of above that shit, actually
haha, if avant-garde had been spelled correctly that probably would be true.
I bet Keanu spells it like I did though - and he probably writes that sentence like every day.
it's obviously making a point (and what will of course be a controversial point around here) about the absurdity of judging the words that other people write, when really all written words are are just collections of random squiggly lines.
Son of Gabe, so obvious you square! you need to get a LOT more avante-garde dude!
and they made kind of a short, not very festive video. i mean, c'mon artists who are doing something neat but fucking up a whole bunch of shit. let's make a fucking VIDEO guys!
I mean, really - how bout a little "Paradise City" and some ladies in bikinis?
maybe this has been pointed out, it's pretty obvious - what an awesome analogy that movie title is for all of Sarah Palin's relationship with the concept of "truth." the Undefeated. She a John McCain TOTALLY were not defeated in that last election. it just doesn't get any more TRUE than that movie title.
everybody's gotta be surreal and absurd and sort-of funny now. even retarded republican piss-beer companies are weird now.
i guess it's cooler than using tits and farting horses to sell beer. it's making everything too easy and not that funny though.
Nabby, don't destroy Bristol Palin like that. Her slutty bitch mom is now going to say you are hateful and she doesn't know why you are hateful. You said that just because that family runs a bunch of reality shows... very hateful.
the "I love seashells" thing was a reference/ripoff of the Dan Deacon lizard video "drinking out of cups."
this video is to Tim and Eric what those late-arriving Pulp Fiction rip-offs like "Two Days in the Valley" or late-arriving "quirky" "indie" movies like "Garden State" or "Little Miss Sunshine" were. A bunch of ripped off shit you've seen before that is not interesting or funny or effective.
yeah, ok, my bad, somewhat. I wasn't clear that I WAS talking only about how he posted this specific tweet, other peoples' defense of this specific tweet, and the suggestion that came up here that the surviving jackass guys should be talking about the dangers of drunk driving themselves already.
so, my bad for being vague. But you did kind of run with that vagueness pretty far to get to a point where you summed my comment up as me saying "we shouldn't be talking about the dangers of drinking and driving."
talking respectfully about drinking and driving already is as ok as killing babies is NOT ok. but since you and I agree that there was something wrong with the tweet, then take whatever it was about the tweet that made you say you think he was wrong in how he posted it: maybe that's the cruelness of it, or the self-righteousness of it... I'm saying that anyone justifying THAT with the idea that "well, it's true," when they know this tweet is making it worse for the people that are going to be dealing with this for a long time, and when they themselves are not going to be forced to think about this a week or even a day from now, is cowardly.
In all the hundreds of comments on the other thread and this one there's this ton of people are saying "Well, I mean, Ebert was right. don't drink and drive. He could have killed innocent people..." And "the jackass guys should be the first to tell their fans not to drink and drive!"
Do you guys that said that realize how easy it was for Ebert to say what he said? Do you guys that supported him for it realize how easy it is for YOU to say it too?
It reminds me of David Cross making the joke about how if you think it is ok to kill and eat babies then he wants to tell you "NO WAY BUDDY! IT IS NOT OK TO KILL AND EAT BABIES!"
This is a first grade lesson. Everyone is going to hear that lesson a lot of times. When it's a normal, not hurtful time, everyone is going to hear it in the context of this accident. It's not a secret, you don't have to be smart, and you don't have to be brave to say it.
I don't care that Ebert has no tact or whatever. Ebert is a moral coward. What does he have to get through in the next few months or years that is related to this? How hard is ANYTHING that he's going to have to do related to this going to be for him? He's an old man who knows exactly how hurtful he's being to people that DO HAVE a LOT to get through. And he that it took NOTHING as far as effort or intelligence, or courage for him to say it, and he did it anyway.
it was meant as a nice consolation. many people on this thread are saying it is a kind of mean thing to do to point out the day the guy died that it was his fault for drunk driving. I think it's mean, and yesterday I said I thought that kind of thing was mean. but I also basically said who the hell am I, and it wasn't THAT mean and it's not THAT bad to say it.
since all that was sort of already on the table, I was now saying I thought tomjoad's mean joke was actually a kind of funny parody of the way they introduce stunts on the show. it was a dark, mean, clever joke. it's a compliment.
to be fair to twitter, Louis CK looked like a much bigger idiot when he actually was given space to show how unprincipled and illogical his feelings about Tracy Morgan actually are in that Slate interview that was linked on Friday.
to be honest man, out of the mean jokes about him dying that got made here yesterday, I thought yours actually was the witty one.
it still hurt, but it is weird and not fair to you that someone else made fun of what happened to his body as he died in an unwitty way and got upvotes for it.
facetaco, you can see that chris, rootmarm, Elvis vs Shark, Jeb, DS3M, and That One all did read more into it than that.
and you can see that katydid either didn't get why all those people were reading more into it than that and you got a little bit of scolding and teasing. or katydid feigned that they didn't get why all those people were reading more into it than that and you got a little bit of scolding and teasing, and katydid asked what was going on.
I gave a detailed, respectful, and hopefully interesting explanation of what was going on. plenty to talk about in there.
you're reply is passive aggressive and dismissive
you can't have read the first paragraph I wrote and say that I was saying that "Anti-Pitchfork equals anti-intellectual."
the premise of your joke wasn't "Pitchfork primarily focuses on more obscure music that the average person has probably never heard of." There's no joke there yet.
it was "Pitchfork primarily focuses on more obscure music that the average person has probably never heard of, and therefore I don't want to go to the website cause it makes me feel bad about myself." That doesn't even have to be true, and I'm not saying you really think that. But that premise IS what your joke was.
that's either a 100% self-deprecating joke along the lines of something like "I'm getting old and I don't know what the kids like nowadays..."
or some percent of it is a dig at Pitchfork and the readers for the "elitist" action of knowing about more music than the average person. and, if so, the joke is some amount akin to jokes along the lines of George W. Bush's proud jokey proclamation that C students can be president.
It's not reading too far into the joke to try to get the joke, by considering whether some percent of the joke was a dig at "elitism."
some people here obviously did see your joke as some percent a dig at something larger than Pitchfork just "focusing on obscure music" in a vacuum. the "squares vs. hipsters" paradigm and what it all means is well-worn territory, and yeah, the angle you come at it from means something, even in a joke. I thought you looked bitter. Some other people seem to have also. people either defended Pitchfork's writing's integrity, teased you for admitting being out of the loop, asked you whether you were actually bitter about anything, teased you for seeming bitter, defended you for seeming bitter, or took the opportunity to generally hate on "hipsters."
katydid,
Yes, it definitely is common to have beef with Pitchfork. I'm not sure there's any one "easy joke" to make about that, cause there's not just one reason to have beef. Some reasons are reasonable, some are bad. A fair, good reason to have beef is that they have a lot of power which can hurt artists, and they have many times posted some unfairly thought through bad reviews and done just that. That'll rightly piss a fan off.
I think chris, rootmarm, Jeb, and That One made the assessment that the intent of facetaco's Pitchfork complaint, and therefore his "joke," was not a self-deprecating confession about his lack of knowledge about music and his insecurity with that, but instead a proud anti-intellectual claim as well as an incompletely committed to vague accusation that Pitchfork and its fans are snobs.
when facetaco realized he was being challenged, he walked it back to it just being a fact about him and his lack of interest in music.
So there was really no opinion about anything for anyone to discuss, nor was there actually a joke left in anything he wrote.
Since you say "we" should have liked it, what did "we" "like" about any of that exactly?
yeah, maybe I don't know cause I don't remember the Natasha Richardson thread, and this thread is so relatively decent and nice that it's worth commenting that. Objectively though, this thread wasn't really THAT fucking decent man. This is a weird videogum back-pat.
I'm not really offended by your jokes here. I'll be honest enough to say that they are pretty much Jay Leno jokes he wouldn't get away with, but you probably kind of know that anyway.
But, since it looks like you're sincerely asking about empathy, I'll jump in to talk about that. Yes, definitely. It's nature and nurture of course, but mostly nurture. You're basically asking "can people become more understanding of other people, especially in the case of learning to understand the pain that other people are feeling?"
The answer is yes, man.
I don't mean to try to tone down the jokes or the conversation in any way. I was just sort of sad and thought I'd say why as straightforwardly as I could. I'm not really that offended though, and I'm not saying it's that big a deal or you should feel bad. just saying that I was sort of sad.
well, man, I read what you wrote and wanted to agree with parts.
but since you say "He apologized. Case dismissed?" then why defend Louis CK for re-opening the case in any way other than to say "he apologized so it's over."
You're saying Louis re-opened it to say "this was not a premeditated attack meant for public consumption. It was a comedy show intended for the audience at that show, who did the right thing by walking out if they were offended by it."
but that's not in what is written above. he didn't say anything about how people should have walked out. and i wouldn't agree with that if it was what he said.
he said it was hilarious. And you say "I agree with CK fully." so it was hilarious? I thought you said "he said admittedly terrible things..."
I say I don't care why Louis re-opened it, and I'm not going to speculate much. Other than to say I don't even actually believe him that he thought it was hilarious. It makes me mad that he endorses it as hilarious, and it makes me mad that he's too smart a dude to think it was hilarious, so he's obviously a liar.
and, I'm sure it has been said 5 million times by smart people in the last week, but for the last time I ever say anything this obvious: you don't have to have a job description that includes the words "spokesman for rationality" to still have responsibility for not advocating violence against an oppressed minority.
look, you're defending these dudes by putting words in their mouth and changing the rules about what anybody is responsible for.
1. now I'm getting into what almost everyone here is writing, but since you had that pretty wrong: the reason I am genuinely upset is that 2 people in the very small pool of people I consider "good guys" out there in the world of people who get acknowledged publicly and have a voice, have loudly publicly made nasty statements about violence against gay children, or endorsed the idea that a statement like should be let slide. it is dangerous, and it is a waste of what they can do with their voice. Gabe said all that well though. not sure why you thought I was mad about anything other than that.
2. I think I get how you are trying to make a case that he could not mean the apology but he's still ok. But you do know that this is getting ridiculously abstract into the world of giving everyone involved the benefit of the doubt that NOTHING genuine took place here. So IF he just got a little carried away and I have the story wrong and he wasn't actually saying terrible things, BUT he still apologized as a PR move, BUT he (correctly) knows that it wasn't all THAT bad so the apology is not actually needed, so is not precisely genuine. Yeah, maybe ok, if that's what happened, then I guess he's not a horrible person. All the people I heard about that applauded the nastiness were probably doing it ironically also, right?
well,l back to the my-style your-style argument: I think, no matter what else, I was making a fair and thoughtful point about the timing of the whole thing that hadn't yet been made by Gabe or anyone in comments before that.
On top of it I added some anger, cause I think that's a fair thing to do, realistically and stylistically. you're saying it is "abusive" to call Louis CK stupid. I'm going to express doubt here that you really thought it was that bad a thing to do.
I don't really think you're an asshole. I feel like I was just defending myself there. I get that you sort of were defending your point in the first place, cause my point did kind of contradict yours above it. fair enough I think.
I guess really I'm tired of all the "let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they are all saying things that they don't mean. in every single statement they make, whether it is cruel dangerous thing to say, or an apology for saying it." Yes, that's a fine interesting experiment and good for discussing things. I did it for a week. I'm tired of it in this case now.
if tracy morgan didn't mean his apology, he's an idiot and a horrible person, and there isn't an abusive enough thing I can say to fuck with him for it.
if Louis CK didn't actually find Morgan's comments funny, then he's maybe an ok guy. but he said he found them funny, and he deserves a lot of abuse for that.
look, we all know we all read a lot last week about who actually saw what happen. once Morgan apologized, we have to be able to agree on a historical account of this, that he fucked up. my bad, I suppose, in that, yes, it is still interesting and can still be discussed. but history can't be revised: he actually did say awful things, that were even potentially dangerous.
even thought I've been making a case for ACTUALLY MAKING A CASE here - I also haven't read everything else on this comments section, but I feel like I shouldn't get that deep into what is wrong with what Louis CK said - I'm just sure it's covered. But you ARE wrong: the gist of those twitters is definitely not. “It was raw and untested material; don’t crucify him.” Louis said the actual comments themselves were funny. he defended that actual comments.
and, this is back to shit that doesn't matter, but: c'mon dude - I don't care what the dictionary definition of "stupid" or "idiot" is, and 0.00000001% of the people who have ever used those words cares what the dictionary definition is. because most people do not have obsessive compulsive disorder in some way that they demand that every word that is used to be mean to someone is 100% accurate. I don't believe that you do.
You mis-characterize the way I see the world. I like hearing other opinions and debating them on their merits.
One opinion I have is that acting like an idiot, like Louis CK did, deserves being called on being an idiot.
Another I have is that arguing with someone by not discussing anything they have to say, but just telling them to calm down like Godsauce did, or just pointing out that "their opinion is just their opinion" like you just did, is a fucking waste of your life. I know it's just my opinion dude. tell me something I don't know.
look man, what did I say? "idiot" "suck"
you really think my using those pretty tame words (about a famous guy who really needs no defending from his fans when he stick's his foot in his mouth) expresses a strong emotion that outweighs critical thought?
Why don't you actually LOOK I FUCKING WROTE dude! It was thoughtful dude. I said the whole thing was a complicated issue. But I also said it was a complicated discussion that took place already, and the main witness to the event, Tracy Morgan, has already officially told the story and admitted that he said things he shouldn't have said.
Adding an opinion which contradicts his Morgan's own feelings about the situation, 140 characters at a time in a flippant, derivative way, is a REALLY IDIOTIC thing to do.
What do you want, me to start every sentence with "I might be wrong but I think..."? Why should I do that? Do you take every sentence that doesn't start that way as fact? I'm going to call people that do things that I think are stupid "idiots" sometimes. If you want to remind me that that is my opinion every time, go ahead - you'll look like an idiot.
thanks for admitting some fault about how telling me to calm down was not cool.
Hey Godsauce
Tracy Morgan the other day:
"I know how bad bullying can hurt. I was bullied when I was a kid. I'm sorry for what I said. I didn't mean it. I never want to use my comedy to hurt anyone."
Louis CK AFTER that:
"Tracy Morgan is ridiculous and I love just watching him go to wrongful places in his mind and I can laugh."
Louis CK IS an idiot and DOES suck. And you're an asshole.
actually, no Godsauce. the shit-talking about a guy that defended homophobic comments in an unintelligent way line is still wayyyyyy over there ------> and I'm nowhere near being on the wrong side of it. anger is actually the correct reaction. not cool of you fuck with that.
wait, everyone stop debating whether what happened that night was funny or on the right side of the line. we talked about that, the whole world talked about that. it's over, it wasn't ok, and tracy morgan has now admitted that.
that's what is so annoying about this louis ck thing to me. in a fucking complicated discussion he weighs in super late, after morgan admitted he said horrible things, and still says it was ok. stupid louis ck. and really really stupid twitter. don't use twitter for an important subject you complete idiot! you suck!
Comments