Aww.
How about "If you thought this toy looked kinda cool, part of my job is coming up with 12 opinions on things every day, even if my actual opinion is that the things are all equally middle-of-the-road, but who wants to read a blog about how middle-of-the-road everything is?" -- Gabe
Just kidding. You, Godsauce, have terrible taste in stuff was my point!
It doesn't matter at all, obviously. I am just surprised at the public vehemence of your opinion about a movie that doesn't come out for another three months.
I promise that that feature will come back in good time. I also promise that a democratic vote is not how this works.
Also: what are you talking about, "what we have sunk to"? Both of those things are great news!
Not very many, actually. Besides the Smurfs movie, I can't think of another one, because children's movies are for children, so who cares? I did write about the Smurfs, though, because I have real affection for those stupid little creepy weirdos.
The idea that I would travel across the country and spend four days wishing I was dead just in order to "complain" about something that most people in the world don't even know exists is ridiculous. As everyone here knows well enough, I can get plenty of complaining done from the comfort of my own home. While I certainly expected aspects of Comic-Con to be "less" fun, I was really looking forward to this trip. It was not until I stepped out onto the Convention floor that I realized perhaps things would not be going as hoped/planned.
And as far as "hurting innocent nerds" is concerned, I assume you are talking about the Photobomb gallery, and, again, I strongly disagree with you. The single constraint we placed on ourselves when talking about how to cover Comic-Con was that we had no desire to make fun of people in costumes, because a) that is extremely tired and overdone, and b) that is mean and there is no reason to make fun of them. This is the time of year where engaging in that particular hobby is not only allowed, it is celebrated, and it is a very small person indeed who would like to take that pleasure away from anyone. So, I disagree with you. I think that posting a gallery of Photobombs is a fun and funny way to cover a well known aspect of Comic-Con without ANY malice or ill-intent or mean spirit whatsoever. On the other hand, if you AREN'T talking about the Photobomb gallery, then what are you talking about?
That's really not fair. It's a condescending and dismissive argument to say that the only reason someone doesn't like something is because they didn't understand it. And it also suggests that only people who really "get it" like it, which is equally false. I'm sure lots of people loved this movie who were confused by most of it, just as plenty of people surely disliked it and knew exactly what was going on the whole time.
Also, who is screaming?
Hey,
Can you please pick a commenter name and stick with it. I know that in the Spit on Your Grave post you changed your name a few times, but when you change your name, even if it is just for your amusement, the name change doesn't automatically reflect on your old comments, which allows users to get into all kinds of tricky business in the threads and is also very much against our User Agreement.
We will allow you to make one final name change if you do not feel like being saddled with "Insensitive Nut-Job" for the remainder of your time here. Please just email me to let me know what you've settled on. But if you change your name again (other than this one final time) then I will ban you.
Thanks,
G.
That is not picky. That is just FACTS. I have updated the post to reflect your corrections. Please send all factual and typographical errors to tips@videogum.com
Oh shit. I forgot about that! That was the best part!
I think the reason I liked it so much was because of HOW SMOOTHLY IT WAS WORKED INTO A LOGICAL POINT IN THE SHOW WHERE IT MADE SENSE.
If it makes you feel any better, I have actually read all of the Harry Potter books (as an adult!) but I will never read any of the Twilight books. Because give me a break. Incidentally, I really like books four and five, but then the series went down hill for me. I just stopped caring, and also JK Rowling's attempts to make you feel like you were part of an entire universe, but a universe that still only consisted of, like, half a dozen characters, did not work for me (as an adult!). And the movies honestly stink. They are bad movies. Except for the third one, which was great. Alfonso Cuarón should have directed all of them.
You are going to use an AMC television show starring the dad from Malcolm in the Middle to defend Jeremy London against accusations of racism?! Jeremy London, you need a new lawyer! This one did not even rest his case!
The argument that it is not racist to accuse a black man of forcing you to smoke crack at gunpoint because there are white people who use/sell crack and own/force people to do stuff with guns is nonsense. For precedent in this case please see:
Susan SmithJennifer Carol Wilbanks
NOTE TO THE JURY: these cases involve real people NOT televisions hows.
NOTE TO THE JURY: the fact that Jeremy London spent time in the proximity of a black man is insubstantial evidence, sorry everyone. The "I have a black drug dealer" defense is even thinner than the "I have a black friend" defense, which is well known as "the thinnest defense."
NOTE TO THE JURY: I rest my case.
It's kind of a leap, Steve Winwood, to argue that Jeremy London would for sure have made up an elaborate and insane story about being forced to smoke crack at gunpoint if the person he had bought/done drugs from/with had been white. I totally see your point about how something is not racist just because a black person is involved, and that is a good and true point, OBVIOUSLY. I mean, OF COURSE. But in this particular instance, a white person concocted (probably) an elaborate lie involving guns and crack because the person he bought drugs from/with was black, and I think that is racist. Perhaps if Jeremy London had actually smoked crack (and again, there are still tons of maybes here, and maybe he was forced to smoke crack at gunpoint [LOL] but I really strongly doubt it) and been in the presence of a gun, and then turned it into a like about gun-forced crack smoking, then it would just be a drug addict trying to avoid suspicion/blame/punishment/the world knowing he was addicted to crack. But if it turns out this version of events is true and he just did prescription drugs and drank beer, then, yes, accusing a black man of having a gun and crack is absolutely racist.
Comments