lepercolony

responding to your spoiler in spoilers for those who still have to (need to?) get into this show: that said, probably the best testament to how good i think this show can be is that i'm not even trying to guess what happens next -- it's like i don't want to ruin the surprises with my own imagination.

Matt . . . just saw this, probably true. i don't hate cats, my allergy does. so since this thread doesn't seem to be about Dangle's dog problem anymore (updates?), just thought i'd post something i saw that should make some folks happy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/breed-specific-legislation_n_4738583.html?utm_hp_ref=pit-bulls i might be biased but i can still recognize this is a step towards fairness, and will hopefully combat the stigma about the breed for the better.

**opens thread, wonders where are the lesbians, leaves in confusion and embarrassment**

aka Matthew McConaughey wins an Emmy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXwCoNwBSkQ seriously, anyone watching this on HBO? it's pretty excellent. if so, check out this link that fleshes out some of the mythology the plot is based on -- made me go back and rewatch the episodes that are out so far: http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2014/02/16/3292391/true-detective-carcosa/# EDIT [feel free to listen to this song from the end credits of episode one while reading this thread. because it's awesome.] ". . . Then start asking the right fucking questions." BOOM:

i don't think you necessarily have to be practicing faith to find stuff like this worthwhile or powerful. i remember being pretty moved by The Passion of the Christ and that was around the time i was beginning to let go of my faith. if it's good, i'll check it out. lemme know man. i think this was originally a mini-series right? and now they're releasing it as a feature film? all i remember was some fabricated controversy over how the guy they cast as the devil kinda looked like Obama. (ridiculous.)

she's on that crazy cheese yo.

yeah it was good for action i thought, but i still placed it below Untouchables/LA Confidential when it comes to gangster movies for me. i also liked the dialogue at times -- snappy, just like an old-timey movie. i just found that without a good mystery to solve (LA Confidential) or straight-up classic action sequences (Untouchables) it felt like a rehash of those movies. doesn't really stand out to me. the real question is have you checked out Miller's Crossing yet? i'm telling you, it's the whole enchilada man, it'll probably surprise you. dialogue, acting, plot -- it's everything you want in a gangster movie. not to mention it has Albert Finney in one of the most badass shootouts ever put to film (imho). i'm a fan -- Drive was the shit. wait that's like the only movie i like with him in it besides Remember the Titans. maybe i'm not a fan haha.

Gangster Squad. (aka The Untouchables without character development, or L.A. Confidential without the mystery.)

yeah, this hasn't shattered my reality or anything, but there's something at least a little bit disingenuous about what they're doing that doesn't sit well. i think the issue lies with their viewers (falsely) assuming that when they watch one of these vids they're getting an objective opinion of a product, and not a pitch from a paid spokesman. sounds like payola all over again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola let's face it, none of us can imagine one of these YouTubers actually standing on principle and rejecting cash they're offered. and don't get me wrong, i have no problem with kids getting popular online and making a buck out of it . . . but misleading viewers by accepting bribes under the table which dictate the content you put out there is kinda gross.

sorry to hear this Datte. interesting points, i'm enjoying the read.

ohhhhh mannnnnnnnnn this girl. i remember this. i have a pretty dry sense of humor (which, as the title of the video suggests, totally means that i "want you to know i'm smarter than you.") so when this all first came out, i didn't even get how it was being interpreted as "bullying." it just seemed like an actor having a little fun with a "reporter" who's clearly out of her depth. i dug up this post because i remember reading it at the time and agreeing with it: http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2013/06/i-am-romina-puga.html was it dick-ish? sure. but i'd probably be tempted too after hours of fielding inane, repetitive questions from entertainment journalists. and hey, i'm sure some people have an instinct to "defend the cute girl" here, but as her borderline-illiterate (and since-deleted) blog post proved, she could barely defend herself. to sum it up, as the link says above, "All any of this means is that if one wants respect within the context of one's profession, one ought to conduct oneself professionally. That's not a guarantee that respect will be given, but at least it gives you a leg to stand on." [and honestly, she could have run with his schtick -- she just wasn't quick enough. any media reporter worth their salt should be able to roll with the interview instead of coming in with cutesy prepared bits and hoping the interviewee is game. hopefully whoever generated her paycheck has since realized that putting a pretty face in front of the camera and hoping for the best isn't (always) a magic recipe for "entertainment journalism."] TL;DR she seems like kind of an idiot . . . go Team Eisenberg (without, you know, endorsing his casting as Lex Luthor)

i dunno, i can totally see how for owners, absolutely, this is unfair. but the idea that the laws are there solely out of ignorance doesn't make much sense either. yes, dangerous dogs are the result of bad owners, but what happens when there are significantly more bad owners of a specific breed than others (unfortunately)? and what if that breed also just happens to be capable of much more damage (even deaths) than other breeds? do we just ignore measurable statistics for the sake of fairness? and do we also suspend common sense? ("common sense" in terms of how i wouldn't let a little kid approach an unknown pit on their own, even if it means hurting the whole breed's feelings.) of course it's not fair when a breed gets singled out, especially when there are so many good exceptions to the rule, but i think pits are a breed that we can all agree are unique in some unfortunate ways that set them apart from others. i'm just saying we can talk about "fairness" all day long, but surely we can also admit that as a breed, beagles are less likely to maul a small child to death for approaching it "the wrong way" than a pit might be, for a number of reasons. and that's why the laws are there. TL;DR . . . agree it's unfair, disagree it's unreasonable. [full disclosure: some of you will remember from the last time this came up, but i'm a bit biased as a pit killed our dog and mauled my grandma.]

i fear miniature dachshunds, British bulldogs, and house cats. just kidding i love those guys. cats suck tho.

rumor has it actually that they're positioning Hank Pym (who Douglas is playing) as a villain in the movie to Scott Lang's (Rudd) hero. kinda like the mentor-gone-bad relationship from the first Iron Man. if this is true, i doubt we'd see Douglas with the Avengers cast, as the only villain in the MCU who seems to make any cross-appearances is Loki.

i concur with the shotgun suggestion. everything i know about guns i've learned from Joe Biden, and he says that shotguns are the best guns for women, so you should be all set. missed u.

is it getting hot in here or is it just me.

yeah i remember it was a tough nut to crack when i was younger. i think i might give it another shot now though because to this day one of my good friends says it's his all-time favorite series. maybe over Christmas break.

any Sandman fans? http://movies.yahoo.com/news/joseph-gordon-levitt-enters-sandman-warner-bros-002049604.html

Oldboy (original). re-watched over the weekend. . . . yep, still messed up.

i think i like Javier Bardem for Apocalypse. massive intelligence meets physical presence. what do you guys think?

made me feel so many feels.

i'd probably go 1, 3, 2 (in terms of ranking). i gave so little fucks about the villains from 2 (Rourke and Rockwell) that i remember feeling pretty bored with it the whole time.

this reminded me of this: http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2013/05/15/iron-man-3-what-should-have-happened?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_61033 check it out; kinda impractical, but totally sweet.

that would require both of us to finish the race. let's not set the bar too high.

we should maybe just do one lap. that's all it usually takes for me to secure the loss. it's possible i may not even finish. [i'm kinda off and on the rest of the week with the Red Sox playing, but if you're online this weekend i'll probably see you. should be epic.]