|
NEWS 191 - 128 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a feelin this would be the case. Most pre-reviews I'd heard amounted to "If you liked the Mummy, you'll like this." Well, I thought the Mummy was a giant turd and wouldn't even bother to attempt #2, so I think I'll pass on this one as well. Too bad - the idea is a cool one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The previews looked entertaining to me and although I agree that The Mummy was a turd, I was still entertained. I might check it out if I have time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You also should own up the fact that you like vampire movies, even if by your own reckoning, they suck hind teat (Underworld style). That's okay, we all have our weaknesses - I tend to like B grade sci fi movies a little too much so I can't throw too much stank your way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True, true!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"pinnacle of economic indiscretion" - classic. This is a hilarious review, my friend. I think it's my favorite.
Dude, at least you're getting to review movies, right? And this is a step up visibility-wise from "From Justin to Kelly," right?
Have you thought about adding your reviews to Rotten Tomatoes? I checked their site, looks like you have to have some kind of film review accreditation, but how hard could that be?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/pages/critics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard the xbox-exclusive videogame of Riddick is hot too. I did enjoy the movie Pitch Black (that was before Vin was known) -- so I'm hoping Chronicles is good. I have avoided All Things Vin otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a co-inky-dink, the new OXM disc came in my mail today. There's a playable demo of RIDDICK on it. It's pretty cool. It's mostly first-person (like Halo) but there are bits where it goes to third-person (like when you use something or climb). It looks very well done from what I saw. I was actually startled a couple times in the gameplay (I was playing it on the 65-inch afterall!). I got to one part where this giant robot was after me (kind of a RoboCop enemy-looking thing). All the while the robot would say "Come out, come out wherever you are... I'm gonna get you, motherfucker!" Funny as shit!
Oh yeah, there's also a few pages on HALO 2. This game is gonna rock hard! Vehicles take damage and the warthog is supposed to feel more realistic when you driving (shifting, and an emergency brake for drifting around curves).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love the emergency brake!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We saw "Super Size Me" last night - I don't know if it's showing GR yet, but that movie will make you never want to eat fast food again. Basically, the filmmaker decides to eat nothing but McDonald's for 30 days straight, and monitor his health closely. He went from 185 to 210 lbs, his cholesterol and triglycerides went thru the roof, and he was causing his liver major damage - akin to an alcoholic. What was so funny was that of his three doctors, two almost seemed nonchalant about the whole thing before he started - that all that would happen would he would elevate his trigylcerides. By the end of it, they were all practically begging him to stop.
This movie is kind of in the vein of Michael Moore movies, but far more responsible and honest. The main character obviously has the opinion that fast food is going to be bad for him, but he doesn't hammer this point home at all - he actually likes the taste of it. He also tries to get interviews with McDonalds executives, but instead of being like Michael Moore and barging into someone's office and acting surpised that they don't want to talk to him, this guy just flails around on the phone for weeks on end.
Roche, even though you might not have a diet quite the likes of this guy's, I thought of you a lot during this movie. The guy would talk about how he would be cranky if he didn't eat, but after eating the crap he'd feel great (a discussion you and I have had before). He was clearly getting addicted to it. This movie should be a wake up call to many, many Americans, though I'm sure it won't be.
www.supersizeme.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen Super Size Me yet, but I'd like to (it's not playing in GR yet, natch)... the problem I have with it is, who in their right mind would eat fast food for every meal every day? Even the stupidest, fattest retard in the world isn't going to do that. So what's the point he's trying to prove? Isn't the outcome obvious from the beginning - that his health is going to deteriorate (even if we're not certain how much)? Don't get me wrong, anybody who takes McDonald's down a peg or two is a fucking hero, if you ask me, but it's setting off my bullshit detector even before I set foot in the theater. I'm sure it's fascinating to watch, but isn't it common sense that fast food has no nutritional value? Maybe if he ate at McDonald's 4-5 times a week for a longer period of time (say, a year), it would be more akin to what a regular (uneducated?) person would do, and have more practical results.
Fact of the matter is, our generation is somewhat conditioned to like fast food. Maybe it's a subtle addiction or it was just ingrained in my upbringing (where McDonald's or Burger King was a treat or reward), but I admit to craving it once in a while, or at least being tempted when I catch a nasty greasy whiff of a BK when I drive by. Bert, you still need to read Fast Food Nation, which is a pretty thorough exploration of the integration of fast food joints into American society... THAT will make you never want fast food again. Or possibly red meat, even. Funny thing is, even after reading it, I still eat a Checkers burger and fries or a couple of Taco Bell tacos or something on occasion (NEVER McDonald's - I definitely swore that off), but there's more guilt involved. Besides, eating it once a month isn't going to kill you, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that your 4-5 times a week for a year would be much more enlightening. Probably also less entertaining, and also much more difficult for an independent filmmaker. However, we actually WEREN'T sure that his health would deteriorate - his doctor's didn't even say it would. I think his main argument was that the fast food companies, while on the one hand admit that the ill effects of their foods are documented, they also say that they can be part of a healthy diet. So yeah, it's a bit unrealistic, and he admits that. But I guess the idea is, if this happens after only one month, what could the long term effects be? Perhaps it's not a valid comparison - it's certainly not scientific. But you know, it still is scary as hell.
Speaking of Bullshit, you guys would love the latest episode - it's the best one yet. It's all about the Bible. It had me howling several times. The best quote was from Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic: "Smart people are excellent at rationalizing beliefs they formed for non-smart reasons."
God, I love Penn and Teller. Did I mention that I got tickets to see them in Vegas at the end of June?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At one point here in Spain, I went more than a year without fast food for two reasons: 1 - The food is far better over here and 2 - it is usually cheaper at the local eateries than Mc D's or BK.
I think its more expensive because they don't have a very well established distribution channel. A year or two ago, BK was celebrating the opening of it's 250th restaurant in Spain. That's 250 BK's for more than 40 million people (There might be a few more Mc D's). The supply chain has to be way more expensive.
I sometimes get a craving for fast food ( a taste of home), and I make the trip to Mc D?s or BK but after eating there I remember why I let so much pass since my last visit. The food is nasty! (but it tastes so good) My body goes into shock and I inevitably get the shits.
The local Spanish dives still by fresh from the market. Ask Fatty about ?The Sock? and the chicken and potatoes we ate or the T-bone steak we had at my girlfriend?s restaurant. You simply can?t get that kind of goodness over there. You are limited to whatever Sysco and GFS have to offer. All processed and/or frozen. Try to find a restaurant over there that doesn?t rely heavily on Sysco, GFS or the like. I bet you can?t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over where? Here? I think you've been drinking the Spanish Kool-Aid a little too often, my friend. In fact, we went to a steakhouse in GR that I guarantee doesn't have their beef supplied by a big food service company. And there are THOUSANDS of restaurants that can claim the same in this country. The problem is that you're equating "US restaurant "with "chain".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your talking about one ingredient, but if you look in their cupboards what do you bet that they have it stocked full of SYSCO-Frost-Pack. They may have fresh meat, but what about their condiments and other foods?
And about chains... what percent of US restaurants aren't chains?
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are good restaurants over there, but they usually charge an arm and leg. All I'm saying is that in Spain you can get fresh unprocessed food free of genetically modified crap as a norm, not an exception. And it dosen't have to be expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lowell has Gary's Meats, right across from Rookies. Fresh meat from local farmers and some TASTY jerky! Just to show, once again, that Lowell has everything one needs in life.
Lowell... The Secret's Out!
This message brought to you by the Lowell Chamber of Commerce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Zilla -
You ever think about opening a bar or restaurant where your shop is? I thought it was a pretty sweet location right over the river and all. You could put a deck out back. and if you made it a sports bar you could keep all you sports memorabilia.
I bet you could catch some of the Riverboat crowd and if your lucky, maybee even take some of Balls high-end clients.
I can recommend a good chef if you need. Hell, I'll partner with you and even work at the bar serving drinks if you like. We could even serve some of Gary's fancy meat.
Maybee this could be my ticket back home!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creeko, you definitely sound like the propoganda has gotten to you and critical thinking has gone by the wayside. Where to begin? In regard to your "genetically modified crap" comment, could you elaborate? Exactly which foods are you concerned about? Why? I'm sure you know this if you're involved with the food industry, but people have been genetically modifying foods since agriculture began, over 10,000 years ago. These wackjobs who clamor about genetically modified foods are the worst kind of people: ignorant ideolouges who want to tell you how to live your life not because science is on their side (it isn't), but because you might threaten their way of life, or worse, that you offend their obsolete sensibilities. I fart in their general direction.
Don't get me wrong, in general, most "processing" (a very generic and loaded term) and "preservatives" (same) added to food often reduces its nutritional value. However, you have to ask yourself "to what extent?" and which of these multitudes of modifications are unacceptable and which are okay? This, like any other issue, is complex, not at all clear-cut, and full of tradeoffs. Making blanket statements about these things without explaining why you think it's such a bad thing doesn't hold much water in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Bert, I was thinking the same thing. I just spent a couple of days with the Bone and his family (which was sweet) and had to listen to the same propoganda. The European belief is American food is all processed and none of it's fresh. My bullshit dectector went off but I kept it to myself. Fatty has already been brainwashed as he was spouting the same shit and I did argue the point with him. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that's incredulous in this matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, the FDA in the United States rigorously controls what we put into our food and the additives we use. There are scientific studies to back up the reasons for adding these things - they don't get put in simply because some company wants to. In some cases, the additives may have negative effects on the human body. The question is, "how much?" It is never a simple answer. Furthermore, it's a cost/benefit equation. How many people are likely to get sick from food potentially spoiling if we DON'T put these additives in?
Remember, unpasteurized milk, smallpox, and polio are all "natural" too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amen, brother-man! We will not be victims of the European Propaganda Machine! Besides, hot dogs are tasty!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will read the book, Swerb. However, I have a long summer reading list already, including these books on my shelf (among others I can't remember):
Innumeracy - a book on the consequences of mathematical illiteracy that plagues our country
The Blind Watchmaker - my favorite biologist ripping creationist arguments to shreds in a very well-written and entertaining way. It is widely regarded as the definitive book on evolution for the layperson.
I, Robot and Caves of Steel by Isaac Asimov, which will be turned into the sure-fire-shitfest with Will Smith this summer. The books are classics, though.
Choke - another novel from the author of Fight Club
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...my favorite biologist...
See? Now that's why Jackassery is sweet. What other site has member's naming both their favorite movies AND favorite biologist? Hey Fatty! Who's your favorite?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point! I should have said "everybody's favorite biologist" :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross -
When was the last time you spent some time in Spain? I suggest that before making any textbook analysis, you pay me a visit and I?ll take you out for the best damn steak you?ve ever had in you entire life! Then we?ll see if you?re dancing to the same tune.
I am merely sharing my experience and my opinion, if you want to try to knock me down based on scientific facts and Discovery Channel knowledge that?s fine
In regards to genetically modified crap, I mean oversized flavorless fruits and vegetables that are designed to look better then they taste. It?s more a question of taste than a health issue. I didn?t know tomatoes had flavor until I tried me some Spanish tomatoes. I bet even Fatty would like him a Spanish tomato!
Europeans generally stay away from genetically modified foods because European Food Manufactures are required to inform consumers about generally modified ingredients on food labels. In America this is not required.
I feel Americans rely too heavily on food service providers, the Spanish don?t. My girlfriend has worked for different restaurants and all of them would buy fresh from the market daily. Excuse me if I prefer this as opposed to SYSCO Frost-pack.
I know one thing for sure - Americans are fat. I think it has more to do with lifestyle and cultural values than the food?s nutritional value. The whole low-fat, low-carb diet phenomenon doesn?t exist over here, mostly because the Mediterranean diet is based on fresh and healthy and not fast and convenient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Classic straw man argument gentlemen. All we are saying that fresh food tastes better than processed and there is more fresh food in Europe than in the US. Where did all this stuff about GMFs and crap come from? You are missing the point. Sometimes people are so quick to be argumentative that they don't even try to hear what message the other person is communicating. You are too busy dissecting their statement, planning your attack. Maybe listening to the person to understand is better. We are not all master debaters Ross. Can't we all just get along?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hot Pockets are people too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All, right, all right, I'm not trying to get anyone riled up. Just a friendly debate. Allow me to explain. I read this sentence as written by Creeko:
All I'm saying is that in Spain you can get fresh unprocessed food free of genetically modified crap as a norm, not an exception.
and simply questioned what his point was. I (incorrectly) assumed that it was the same as all the looneys who clamor for GMF "registration", though they have clearly gotten to him - the very fact that some countries force foods to be labeled as such is entirely ridiculous and without merit. There has never been a study that has convincingly shown any statistically significant negative effects from eating genetically modified fruits or vegetables.
I agree with you about the taste of the generic giant US supermarket tomatoes. But I have two comments on this: 1) every supermarket I go to also has "organic" tomatoes that have the great taste you're talking about, that taste like they're straight from my Mom's garden. And yes, they are more expensive. But it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out why. 2) I have seen the "big" tomatoes all of my life. I doubt that back in the day, these tomatoes were engineered by what you would call modern-day genetic engineering. They were created the same way dogs were created - by breeding strains that tended to have desirable traits. No one, to my knowledge, has ever had qualms with this technique. And yet it produces those nasty tomatoes.
And Fatty, if one's statements can't hold up to scrutiny, perhaps they shouldn't be stated out in the open without undue consideration. And yes, I'm including myself on that one. I'm not saying everyone has to be posting a thesis on any topic, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with picking holes in people's logic, especially when one is making statements that another doesn't necessarily agree with. Creeko is making some assumptions - that GMF foods and the US food service industry in general are inferior to what he experiences in Spain - and he might be right - but I'm asking him to explain why. And, after some prodding, he kind of has (though I don't think his reasons are too sound). It's all good.
One last topic, that I happen to have a bit of interest and knowledge about: fat Americans and skinny Europeans. Creeko, as you alluded to earlier in your post but apparently subsequently recanted on, weight differences between America and Europe are not in any way related to "fresh" vs "convenient". I am offended that you would even intimate that even my big ugly tomatoes are anything other than "fresh" - okay maybe not the ones that have been in my fridge for a week and a half.
The point is, Europeans by and large do not have any advantage, dietary, genetic or otherwise over Americans. The key difference is simply how much they eat (the cultural aspect Creeko mentioned). As you said, Europeans have no need of the latest and greatest diets here (some of which are based on sound science, while others are not) - in fact, their knowledge of nutrition, by and large is quite inferior to an average American's. But none of that matters much if they're eating roughly appropriate amounts. I've noticed myself that I can eat crap, so long as I don't eat much, and I won't get fat, and I'm a guy with the metabolism of an 86 year-old paraplegic. Furthermore, as one last piece of evidence for my claim, just take a look around both populations. Yes, you're going to be sickened by the number of fat Americans. However, you will also notice more Americans who are not thin, but actually in GOOD shape. While many Europeans are skinny, they often don't have much in the way of muscle tone. Exercise and proper nutrition are actually much more prevalent here but this concept doesn't get much press because it's not interesting to most people - because most people here are worried about the difference between "obese" and "not obese" than "not obese" and "in good shape".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Hot Pockets are people too, then your name is undoubtedly "Cannibal Jack"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in my best Charlton Heston voice):
Hot Pockets are PEEEEEEO-PLE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't want to get into skirmish with Ross, after all this is his site and he controls all.
I still say:
Food in Spain = good
Food in USA = bad
I don?t feel disparaged as long as I know I?m living the culinary good life. Ross can have his Zone diet if that makes him happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope I don't present myself as a tyrant, Creeko. I don't think I'm likely to find myself censoring your views unless they bordered on slanderous. However, I won't hesitate to call you on childish sweeping statements, like.... oh... I don't know.... "Food in Spain = good, Food in USA = bad," just as an example off the top of my head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one. I?m not forcing you to agree with me, quite the opposite.
I don?t need scientific facts to prove that I prefer Spanish food to ?American? food. I don?t like pickles on my hamburgers either. Dose that also mean my critical think has also gone by the wayside.
Besides, Ross, you have gone in and weeded out an insignificant commentary as if it were the main argument of my original statement. What I would have liked you to come away with was that in Spain you can usually eat better for cheaper than in the USA ? with or without GMF?s. (by better I mean, as a general rule, both quality and taste).
It may not be well know, but Spain has many of the best chefs in the world as well as some world-renowned restaurants.
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2001/02032
7_mfe_ferran_1.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't doubt that Spain has tasty food. I also don't doubt that the US does. And I would never dream of critiquing your actual taste in food.
What is going on here is that I am taking issue with SOME of the things you said. Just because they're not your "main arguments" does not make them any less worthy of criticism: if you attempt to use them to lend credibility to your argument, they must themselves be credible.
So anyway, in general, I tend to believe the spirit of your argument is true. I think you're off on some of your specifics, but it's plain to see that as a large country like the US grows, it faces major distribution issues with respect to food, as well as issues with growing more and more food to feed an ever-increasing population (not just of its own citizens, but of the world). These issues directly effect the end-product. The question is, as I have said all along - how much has the food been effected? In some cases, a lot. In some cases, it's pure hype.
If your argument is "mine tastes better than yours," there is nothing I can say to that. That's an unwinnable argument that has no business being waged in the first place. But if you start expanding it beyond that, into the realm of science (GMF foods) or talking about nebulous terms (quality, to take an example from your most recent post) without defining them rigorously, I will take you to task if for no other reason than I'm bored at work.
I'll be the first to admit that some of this comes from an irrational belief that "my country (or my dad, or my house) is better than yours" - it's too difficult to break entirely away from that instinct. But I can do it - but what I need is evidence, not opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creeko - I want you to know that I was THIS CLOSE to Photoshoppin' a picture of you taking it up the butt with a "quality" Spanish tomato. But I'm better than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I gotta side with Creeko on the Euro vs American food arguement. Bert, Roche, and Zilla don't know what the fuck they're talking about negro. Bert's maybe spent a couple days in Amsterdam, Roche and Zilla have never been outside the country. I've travelled to at least 15 different countries and every single fucking one, even 3rd world Thailand, has far, far better food for much less than the U.S. If you disagree, it's as if you are saying a movie sucks that you've never seen. I don't know for sure what makes it better. It's probably the fresh vs unprocessed. I don't know - it's just better on the order of a cardboard couch vs a leather couch. Case closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright you ass clowns -- What's the argument again? That you can't find fresh food in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eveyone is missing the point - What about the bear? It depends on the type and size of the bear GODDAMNIT!
Man Ross, you can pull off a term paper in a New York Minute! The amount you wrote would have taken me 6 hours of laborious typing. My posts are of a certain length because it takes me too damn long to type them and I say fuck it. I am nearing my typing limit now....... Fuck it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross brings an interesting point up that I've been noticing here in France. I believe it definatly is not the food in Europe that is keeping Europeans Slim, it is the cultural aspect - the French here eat smaller porportions and are not as sedentary. From what I've seen from the international students is interesting, but purely anecdotal. I've spoken with quite a few people about this - it seems that the female international students tend to gain weight here in France, while the males lose it. The American girls all put on weight and they all said they are more active here from all the walking. The same can be said about all the Chinese students. The food here is full of fat and calories. If you eat alot, you will gain weight. The males tend to eat less than in the US (myself included) and lost weight. The females said they ate the same or more, but of the richer, tastier french food. Only the few people who are fitness freaks maintained their diet and weight.
When I was back in GR, I ate like a hog and gained back at least 5 pounds. I am still trying to lose it again. America's problems with obsesity stem from an abundance of unhealthy foods, large portion, sizes, and a lack of exercise. We are used to finishing everything that is served to us. I feel guilty if I don't finish everything served to me at restaurants - and those portions are huge! When I ate better, I always planned on taking half the dinner home with me. We don't need fad diets, just smaller, healthier portions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So don't finish all the food on my plate? What about the starving kids in Etheopia?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doggie bags are frowned upon in Spain. It dosn't matter though because they don't serve up Hungry-Man-Jack sized portions so you can finish you meals without left-overs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, since Bone says case closed, I guess I can't argue with that.
Waitaminute... I'm Bert Johnson, of course I can! Bone you do have a point that I haven't done enough travelling in Europe to have a super solid opinion, and I really don't. I'm not so much saying that Fatty or Creeko or you are full shit as playing devil's advocate and poking some holes in their arguments for sport. That said, your weigh-in on the matter doesn't hold any more water than Creeko's since only in the most technical sense would one consider you to have been living in the United States for the past 10 years or so. Your primary control group is some kind of quasi-US-esque island.
I've heard tales from both sides, I've talked to numerous Europeans, and yes, I have spent a couple of weeks in Holland (where the food sucks terribly, though I swear that's not even a slight consideration in this discussion) and spent months in Canada, and let's not forget our Costa Rican road-chicken adventures. I've heard just as many people say the food in France, for instance, sucks, as those who love it. But Creeko is right, my anecdotal information is sparse on Spain. But the point is, I don't put much stock in it.
So in conclusion to my term paper, I would like to say that Bone is pretty much right, I don't have enough info to make up my own mind on this one. But I know a little bit about economics and farming in general, and even more about science. And I put more stock in these things than what my asshole friends tell me. So until I drag my ass over to Europe - hopefully in the next year or so - I'll have to listen to your clamorings with a grain of salt before *I* officially close the case. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what have we learned? American food is so tasty and plentiful that we eat too much. Europeans serve stingy portions. Yep, that's it in a nutshell!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Bert already said there is a rather large amount of the American populace that is actually in good shape, far sweeter than the average skinny runt Frenchie. I see chicks and dudes in sweet fucking shape all the time. The obesity problem in America while it exsists is blown out of proportion by the press.
Bert, you are perhaps the sweetest debater I know. It doesn't even matter if you're right or wrong, you'll be putting the smack down on anyone on this site in a debate.
On another topic somewhat related to this one, I got back from NC a couple of days ago and just got back to the gym. I told Bert I had lost 7 pounds before I went to NC and when I weighed myself today I had dropped another 5. Two weeks ago I weighed 228 in the gym and today I weighed 216, what the fuck! The only thing I've done different is eating less in general but all of the crap style.
So to keep the trend going I added cardio today and will try to take some more weight off. I'm going to keep eating less and try to eat some healthier food and see how it goes. This time I'm not going to go Zone crazy and I'll try to gradually shift to healthier eating ways. Wish me luck guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So... getting back to Van Helsing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good luck, Roche. I mean it. Your pragmatic approach is probably going to be the best one in the long run.
And yeah, I do kind of get a kick out of debating even if I don't have a very strong opinion on a subject. Richard Dawkins (everybody's favorite biologist) would hate me - in his book he mentions how he doesn't debate creationists anymore because he doesn't like the fact that expert debaters (one of which I certainly am not) will argue either side, just for practice. He saw this girl arguing for creationism and he couldn't believe that she was a creationist, so he asked her and she confessed she wasn't, but she found it more challenging to argue on that side.
And lest anyone think that I unfairly side with those who side with me, I will take issue with one point of yours, Roche, as I am an equal-opportunity offender. The American media is definitely not playing up the obesity crisis in this country, in my opinion. Fat, disgusting people are EVERYWHERE in this country. More than half of adult Americans are considered obese. That's a crisis that cannot be overplayed if you ask me. Which you didn't. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Getting back to Van Helsing, I was talking to my Dad on the phone and I mentioned how much I enjoyed Swerb's review. He said he didn't enjoy it. I asked him why, and he said because he wanted to see the movie before reading the review "There's only a handful of movies that come out this summer that was even slightly interested in, and he tore this one to shreds!" Talk about shooting the messenger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are many fat asses in America, this is true. Looking around your old hood there were quite a few in shape motherfuckers (many gay) not to mention those you see in the gym. I was just saying like yourself that the persentage of in shape fuckers is ignored. Some parts of the US are fat for sure while other parts are not as bad. Michigan is fatland with Detroit as Fat Town USA. I've read that some areas of the US are not quite so bad as this but you don't hear too much about this on the news. If there was a rise in fitness around the country would it be on the news? The news seems to focus on the negative, at least around here.
Today I saw a couple of girls in my gym that just started the Body for Life challenge. I overheared them talking about how their husbands were also doing it. Bill Phillips has inspired many people to take up this challenge. I think this has made a small dent in the fat populace. In any case there are many fitness minded Americans and that was all I was trying to convey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good points. Actually my old boss (who just took 6 months off from work) is doing the Body for Life as well with all his extra free time. He has no excuse not to return in six months looking like a bodybuilder. Though I'm sure he won't, primarily because of his lack of emphasis on proper nutrition. He figures that working out alone will be enough since he's starting from a baseline of a relatively low bodyfat percentage.
Anyway, yeah, this country is at the same time the most health-obsessed and one of the least healthy. I also helps me to stay in shape by "staying scared" and also taking note of how unhealthy people are in order to convince myself not to let it happen to me again.
Actually though, yes, I think if there were a rise in overall fitness, it would be on the news. Unfortunately, the number of people in sweet shape in this country is still tiny compared to the disgusting ones so that's why we don't hear about it much as they don't affect the bottom line very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If any of you guys ever watched the old GI Joe cartoons - or even if you didn't - and remember those stupid "Knowing is half the battle!" PSA's, you absolutely MUST watch these clips. These jokers have dubbed over the audio and it is so funny that I have tears running down my face. Numbers 5, 7, and 10 are my favorites, but they're all pretty funny:
http://www.fenslerfilm.com/?sec=video
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeez, I don't check the site for 36 hours, and find lengthy debates about fatness. And, like Jack, I find it very amusing that the original discussion was about Van Helsing.
So, anyway, Bert, to answer a question from about 2536262 posts ago, I can't register at Rotten Tomatoes until I've had 50 reviews published, and since I'm relegated to third-string backup critic status right now, I fall short of that (even though John Douglas is completely inept... he reviewed Troy, and didn't even mention that Brad Pitt plays Achilles! To quote Zilla, Good lord!! I'm barely touching upon my frustrating career path...). And for your dad's response to my Van Helsing review, that's hilarious. Tell him that if he goes out to see movies without reading reviews, he'll end up wasting a lot of time watching crap like Van Helsing...
And finally, I saw Troy, and it's very "meh." Eric Bana is pretty sweet, and is the only actor who overcomes a horrible script to save some face. The battles are pretty cool - I'm always up for blood and swords - although Brad Pitt is wooden, and at 2:45, the movie is needlessly long. That's the Unofficial Swerb Review, take it or leave it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude! Thats got to be your tagline after every review - "That's the official Swerb Review, take it or leave it.." It is just what you need to elevate you into reviewer stardom. Douglas has no tagline, and he is hardly sweet. People will wait until the Official Swerb review is out.
Start it and see how it goes. I'll bet you will be pleased.
And that advice has the Fatty Seal of Approval!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that advice has the Fatty Seal of Approval!
And that's your tagline, no doubt? :)
Yeah, I can't understand why anyone thinks Troy is going to be good. I like Brad Pitt well enough but he is so NOT Achilles. Bana is a reasonable choice for Hector, though. Anyway, I guess with the official Swerb review noted, I'll probably wait for video.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got the new Entertainment Weekly and Brad's on the cover. What a goddamn pretty boy. Yes I admit it and no Zilla this doesn't make me gay. It was just hard to overlook is all. As far as the movie goes I kinda wanted to see it for the fighting of course. Eric Bana looks like he did a good job from the previews. So Swerb, would it be a waste of my time to see it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roche, you won't be wasting your time if you go see Troy... it's not bad, just mediocre. It's kind of cool seeing epics like that on the big screen, and the battles are kinda cool, but it's far from essential viewing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just watched it yesterday. I agreed with Swerb - its OK, I enjoyed it, but didn't find it great. If you are going to see it, see it at the movies. The size and sound of the theater will improve the experience. They toy with the notion of nudity, but unfortunately the most skin you see is male. Johnny will be pleased that Pitt is parading around nudish :)
If you got nothing else to see, go see it. No Fatty seal of approval though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, the mere mention of a semi-nude Pitt is all I needed to hear to get me to see this flick. I'll probably check it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
America vs Euro food Redux. The whole case should be moot in the next 10 to 20 years as American culture is so globally pervasive that our shitty food and eating habits will be a Euro problem as well. I've read a few article recently that European nations are starting to see obesity as a problem. A trend that coincides with the spread of American chain restaurants, propotion, and a shift in cultural values.
Can you get fresh qaulity food in America on par with European food. Absolutely no doubt. However in general you have to go to a pricely gourmet restaurant to do it. For guys like Roche who are culinary drones raised on TGI Fridays, the subtlety of gourmet food prepared by someone who's job is a passion is completely unappreciated. Fuck Van Helsing, case triple closed. It's a cold case file now biatch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuck "the subtlety of gourmet food" -- peoples be starving in the world! Besides, ain't nothing tastier than a grilled burger anyways!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except a grilled burger with cheese motherfucker, with cheese!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YYYYyyyHHHEAAAAH!!! With CHEESE! Case closed, BEYOTCH!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bone, why does it have to be guys like Roche? I would not go so far as to call me a culinary drone. I like well prepared food as much as you do so I don't know what the fuck you're talking about except that you like talking out of your ass. While it's true I like crap food I also like gourmet food even better. Do I get to eat gourmet food often? No, I don't, but this doesn't mean I don't like it. So knock off all the pretension Bone, because most food you like I like just as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swerb, I just saw Troy last night and I thought it was a bit better than mediocre. I admit though that I'm partial to this genre of movie as I loved Gladiator. Even though it was two and a half hours I never got bored which is more than I can say for Master and Commander which I found to be mediocre. I'm not calling your taste into question however because much like Gladiator I know it's just my own personal preference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rocheburger - Don't be offended by the Bone: Not all of us can be as refined and sophisticated in the art of culinary delights as he. Besides, you'd look like a real pussy holding your pinky out while you drank your milk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bone, sounds like you should have said "For guys like Zilla who are culinary drones raised on TGI Fridays..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More like Olive Garden and Red Lobster - Those are Zilla's fancy nights out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that's the Zilla brand of justice there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that there is some fancy dinin'!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zilla's Olive Garden Farts: Too Fancy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone seen Man on Fire? The critics generally shit on it but I thought it was pretty damn good. It's pretty intense so if you are expecting a light hearted comedy you'll be dissapointed.
Basically it's The Punisher done right. Only in this flick the Punisher's name is Creasy and he's black. He's got some dimension to his character and the filmwork conveys a sense of anxiety throughout the film. In the end, however, Creasy is a peerless (means without peer), psycho fucked-up butcher. For those who rely on the opinions of film critics to tell you what you want to watch, brush their negative comments aside and check it out for yourselves. It's worth the money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ang & I saw MAN ON FIRE too -- when it first opened (Ang loves the little girl Dakota Fanning that's in it). And I felt the same way, Bone. I wasn't sure what to expect but ended up really enjoying it. I forgot how sweet Denzel Washington is on the screen. When they took that little girl he became a mushroom-clowd-layin' Punisher-type. Plus Christopher Walken is in it -- always a plus in my book. I mentioned to Johnnybells that I liked it, but I think he was too busy gettin' back in line to see KILL BILL 2...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I'll talk you guys' words for it. When it's out on video, I'm in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are gay!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who? Me? For taking your advice about a movie? Or did you mean that to apply to Roche's "man boobs" comment in another thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know you want to see my man boobs, Bert. The only one gay on this site is the dude in ass pic. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I almost forgot, KILL BILL 2 was fucking sweet! Can I get a hell yeah, anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, if you want to read a great review of The Punisher, go here, it's hilarious:
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2
004/punisher.shtml
Also, anyone who thinks Troy is better than Master and Commander is nucking futs, sorry Roche... the dialogue in Troy must have been written by a preschooler, it sucks so bad... and Brad Pitt is no good... but the scene with the fireballs is kind of cool, admittedly. And I have a very soft spot for Gladiator (I think I saw it at the theater two or three times), and Troy is sewer rat in comparison to such pumpkin pie.
Finally, I saw Shrek 2 tonight, and it's a hoot. It's just as clever as the first one, and crammed with funny references... go see it. Roche will like it because it shows Shrek's man boobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, that "review" is priceless. Especially to the all-too-common fan-hatemail that SOME of us are all-too familiar with.
Yeah, Roche has pretty much owned up to the fact that he just likes sword-and-sandals movies ("Do you like old gladiator movies?"). I also must confess that I don't know how Roche couldn't enjoy Master and Commander. But without having seen Troy, I must refrain from comparing the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never said I didn't enjoy Master and Commander, I just thought it was mediocre. Sorry if this offends some but not all tastes in every mater are the same. I know Swerb being an official movie critic and all means he pulls rank. Thing is I did get bored during parts of Master and Commander. I'm just telling it like it is, for me. I found some parts pretty sweet but others were tedious. I certainly don't think everyone should feel this way, but I did. Troy was fun for me, I never said it was a great movie. Some people on this site hate Kill Bill so opinions vary and they're just that, opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw Man on Fire, and enjoyed it despite its multiple plot holes, annoying "artsy" directorial techniques and Dakota Fanning, who, oddly, knows how to act more like an adult than a child. There's some cool stuff in it, so it's definitely worth a rental.
Also saw The Day After Tomorrow, and I'd consider it a guilty pleasure. The script is laughable (Roland Emmerich is a major hack!) but the fx are actually pretty sweet. The first hour is fun, cuz stuff blowed up good, but when it focuses on poorly written characters and cheeseball melodrama, it really sucks.
As for Mean Girls: It's a hair more clever than your typical teen flick. Lindsay Lohan isn't really that hot if you ask me (she has bad hair - especially in the movie - and a fat, round face), although her mogumbos are gargantuan.
Finally, the Harry Potter movie is as mediocre as the first two. I really fought the urge to doze off during the first hour, and was completely underwhelmed by the events that transpired. Why filmmakers create characters with tons of sweet powers and then hardly ever let them use their abilities is beyond me...
And if y'all are wondering why I've seen so many crap movies, I have a legit excuse: I'm reviewing all the local movie theaters (about a dozen of them in the Press' distribution area) for popcorn quality, seat comfort, floor stickiness, etc. I'm sure I'll end up seeing tons of stupid movies before it's all said and done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swerb, I will reserve full judgement until after I've seen the film myself, but I've always felt that you have a slightly irrational bias against the Harry Potter franchise. Yes, Christopher Columbus is a hack but the books are actually quite entertaining and I even felt the movies were pretty decent. But what really gets me is that for this one, every review I've read has been practically a rave. Everyone seems to agree that it's better than the first two films. Check the Tomato-Meter - it's very well received. Perhaps an emerging Swerb Factor is becoming apparent?
As for Lindsay Lohan: she isn't that hot in the movie, from what I've seen. I never looked at her twice until I saw her in interviews. She's way hotter in "real life." And yeah, she does have a roundish face but I dig it anyhow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I finally saw Shrek 2 tonight. Pretty good - though it was hyped up quite a bit by numerous people. But there were a few really funny parts (the prison escape, especially) and yes, the movie references were fast and furious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Swerb Factor? If the Harry Potter movies have done anything, they've made me want to read the books (and I plan to do so soon), because I like the characters and the "mythology" of the stories. Maybe if I had read the books, I would have more affection for the movies, but as they stand, they're too exclusive. Plus, the third movie doesn't generate much suspense; it just slogs through the plot (although the last 1/3 of the movie is much more interesting than the rest of it) and comes to a really underwhelming conclusion. You know, one of my editors said her 12-year-old daughter gets more excited about a new Harry Potter book than a new movie, and I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of kids out there like that. Even Stacy, who loves the books, thought the second movie was a turd.
And just because I don't agree with the Tomatometer doesn't mean my bias is "irrational." Bert, even you wouldn't call the Harry Potter movies "great," right? And they're not as good as the books, yes? So, if the books are so good, then why don't the movies follow suit? I think the filmmakers are underachieving because they have such a massive built-in audience. I'm not just being reactionary because it's so popular, either; there are plenty of "popular" things I really enjoy - like, say, Shrek 2. (My favorite part, by the way, is when he wakes up in the shack and has transformed, and the three chicks are all over him... "I'll be true!" "I'll be true...enough." Hilarious.)
So, Bert, I await your reaction to the movie. And don't just jump on my shit... what about the Bone Factor? He liked Man on Fire (Tomatometer: 40 percent, although a little harsh in my opinion) and didn't like Kill Bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a Bone Factor when it comes to Kill Bill as far as I can tell. Both Bone and Zilla loved Man on Fire but I have yet to see a good review of this movie. This is not to say that critics know shit about shit (Ebert) but you would think if it's as good as they say there would be more positive reviews of it. Bone loved it and said I would too but I erroneously thought he would like Kill Bill and he didn't. I'll probably see it at some point but remain mildly incredulous to the greatness of Man on Fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You weak ass motherfuckers can't take a shit without first consulting Rotten Tomatos or some other source of bandwagon hype! Most reviewers I've ever read don't have an original thought in their head. The follow the tried and true fomulas for movie review that they learned in film school or the like. They are usually like a school of motherfucking fish. The lead fish turns left, then all the rest go left as well. The couple who go right and hang it out the line get eaten by bigger fish. Don't get me wrong, some reviews are interesting to read, like Swerbs, cause they are entertaining but as a guide to what I should or shouldn't see, I prefer to check it out for myself and if I end up watching a shitty movie, big fucking deal!
I guess if you are a dedicated movie afficionado and can't allow your pretentious ass to enjoy a movie unless it is flawless in every respect then maybe you should read the reviews. Heaven forbid you actually aren't on board with the majority opinion. Mindless zombies!
For the record, MAN ON FIRE isn't a great movie. It's got it's flaws but I found it really entertaining. There is a nervous quality about it that I liked. It's pretty intense and it's exactly what The Punisher should have been in my opinion. I really think Roche would like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Swerb Factor? The Bone Factor? Otherwise known as an opinion based on original ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with da Bone in regards to both MAN ON FIRE (good, fun movie and I strongly think Roche WOULD like it) and reviewers in general (just another opinion, but hopefully a well-written one).
I read reviews on a lot of things I like: movies, music, videogames -- But I'm often of a different opinion from the reviewer. I'd miss some of my favorite things if I went strictly by reviews -- And I've also wasted time with a lot of well-reviewed things. Also, ever notice how critical opinion on things converge over time into the Definitive Opinion?
Many reviewers are also lazy. For instance, I can't tell you how many times I've read a review of a Prince album that reads something like "a return to form!" or "his best work since Sign O The Times!" and then the very next year, with the very next album, they'll say the same damn thing.
Or maybe it's just the Zilla Factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I have defined it, Factor = Bias.
Do I really need to explain what the intended purpose of a film review is? The point is, Rotten Tomatoes is a good resource for trying to see how a movie is generally preceived. It's not going to make me like, say, Spider-Man 2 any more or less (as I have my own bias on that one), but it might tip the scales toward me seeing or not seeing a movie that I'm on the fence about. You can get a gauge as to how well you tend to agree with them, and use that knowledge accordingly. This is generally not worthless information. However, it is also not canonical.
Similarly, I know that I can generally trust the opinions of Swerb and Roche about movies, and I can trust Zilla's and Bone's somewhat less - these are reference points to my own personal tastes. Which is why I have challenged Swerb, since I usually tend to agree with him fairly closely. I want to try to winnow out what our differences of opinon are. But like I said, this will be easier after I see the movie myself.
As for critics on the whole having none of their own ideas or opinions, well, I'm not even going to combat that line of reasoning.
Swerb, I wasn't calling your disagreement with other critics irrational, I was wondering aloud if your opinion about Harry Potter in particular was overly-negative for irrational reasons. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing - you're not supposed to like things for purely rational reasons anyway. But you betray yourself by referring to your "bias" as irrational - by admitting bias, by definition you are admitting to irrationality.
As for the Bone Factor, it definitely exists, but it's not easy to pin down. Something to do with vampires and shit. And psychopaths.
Aww, who the hell cares? I'm just picking fights with you fuckers because it's fun and keeps the site lively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bert: As I have defined it, Factor = Bias.
Bone: True. Everyone has a bias.
Bert: Do I really need to explain what the intended purpose of a film review is? The point is, Rotten Tomatoes is a good resource for trying to see how a movie is generally preceived. It's not going to make me like, say, Spider-Man 2 any more or less (as I have my own bias on that one), but it might tip the scales toward me seeing or not seeing a movie that I'm on the fence about. You can get a gauge as to how well you tend to agree with them, and use that knowledge accordingly. This is generally not worthless information. However, it is also not canonical.
Bone: What I'm hearing you say is you can glean whether or not you will like a movie based on the general perception on Rotten Tomatoes and how you tend to agree with them? Man, that's some well calibrated system you've got.
Zilla: I read reviews on a lot of things I like: movies, music, videogames -- But I'm often of a different opinion from the reviewer. I'd miss some of my favorite things if I went strictly by reviews -- And I've also wasted time with a lot of well-reviewed things.
Bone: My point exactly! You're smart motherfucker, that's right.
Ross: Similarly, I know that I can generally trust the opinions of Swerb and Roche about movies, and I can trust Zilla's and Bone's somewhat less - these are reference points to my own personal tastes
Bone: That's cause Roche follows the same heard of cattle you do at Rotten Tomatoes. I don't know Swerb well enough to comment. Zilla and I are just freethinkers. What can I say?
Bert: As for critics on the whole having none of their own ideas or opinions, well, I'm not even going to combat that line of reasoning.
Zilla: Many reviewers are also lazy. For instance, I can't tell you how many times I've read a review of a Prince album that reads something like "a return to form!" or "his best work since Sign O The Times!" and then the very next year, with the very next album, they'll say the same damn thing.
Bone: Zilla makes a good arguement for my statement. Besides, I said most of them don't. I also wouldn't be suprised if there are instances where reviewers havn't even seen a film and review it based on reviews of others.
Bert: As for the Bone Factor, it definitely exists, but it's not easy to pin down. Something to do with vampires and shit. And psychopaths.
Bone: What can I say? You got me there. It's a gulity pleasure. I like Zombie flicks too. However, if I were voting for the Acacdemy Awards I would never vote for any of that shit. I know the difference between what is good and what entertains me.
Bert: Aww, who the hell cares? I'm just picking fights with you fuckers because it's fun and keeps the site lively.
Bone: Thats right. It's been kinda dead lately and I just handed you your ass! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bertacular - If you come across a bit torrent for THE OMEGA MAN let me know. It's part of Charlton Heston's APES/SOILENT GREEN trifecta. After seeing 28 DAYS LATER (which was kinda snazzy) it got me interested in those old end-of-the-world movies I saw parts of as a wee little lad. LOGAN'S RUN could be part of that too (but sadly... there's no Charlton Heston in that one).
And for you comic geeks out there: Anyone else reading Vertigo's Y: THE LAST MAN? Fun series I started reading last year on the cruise that I highly recommend in the same genre. (Note to JohnnyBells: It's featured on the 10 MUST HAVE list of your current Entertainment Weekly)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I'm hearing you say is you can glean whether or not you will like a movie based on the general perception on Rotten Tomatoes and how you tend to agree with them? Man, that's some well calibrated system you've got.
That's right, I've got my technique down and everythang. Funny how I can notice trends and use them to my advantage to help me predict roughly how much I'm going to like something. It's called pattern recognition. It's not foolproof, but it's a useful tool.
That's cause Roche follows the same heard of cattle you do at Rotten Tomatoes. I don't know Swerb well enough to comment. Zilla and I are just freethinkers. What can I say?
Please. My bet is Roche has never sought a movie review online or anywhere other than Ebert and Roeper, which he hates anyway.
And no offense to Zilla, but you'd best beware how much you two compare yourselves. Zilla maintains that sponges are more closely related to humans than chimps are. Not exactly freethinker material there. 'Nuff said.
I really don't think you mean that anyway because you know full well that for both Roche and I, not all of our favorite movies are necessarily well reviewed.
I would also like to note, Bone, that you make the classic cover-your-ass argument whereby you criticize others' tastes, but when someone tries to pin you down on your choices, you fall back and proclaim "Oh, I know that's not a good movie. It's just a guilty pleasure." In fact, I can't remember a single recommendation of yours that doesn't fall into this category.
Zilla makes a good arguement for my statement. Besides, I said most of them don't. I also wouldn't be suprised if there are instances where reviewers havn't even seen a film and review it based on reviews of others.
Now this is just heading off into the land of conspiracy theories. That's a pretty heavy charge considering you have no evidence beyond your own intuition.
The bottom line is that I pay attention to what lots of people have to say about movies in particular, to varying degrees. There tends to be a bit more objective information to judge them on than, say, music. And I generally give some people more benefit of the doubt than others.
I certainly hope you're not painting me as someone who listens to whatever reviewers have to say. As I said, they're a tool, nothing more. Absolutely, many of them are sloppy - in fact, odds are that most of the time, the reviewer doesn't even want to be reviewing what he's reviewing, so they don't care how good a job they do. But the reason I like Rotten Tomatoes is because it's a stastical sampling of MANY reviewers. This makes it on the whole much more reliable. Not foolproof, but I have found that barring my own biases (irrational as they may be), I tend to more-or-less be on the same page as the amalgamated scores on that site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bert, I just wanted to chime in with I have checked out Rotten Tomatoes and other reviews online. Porn is not my only online activity, in fact I look up shit I'm interested in almost every day.
Bone, you can be pretentious about food so I guess I can be pretentious about movies. Then again, I did like Underworld and I don't know if that can be considered pretentious. I think pretentious is when you love a movie like oh, I don't know, Once Upon a Time in the West even though it's one boring motherfucking movie. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had to edit my own html process fornication out
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross: That's right, I've got my technique down and everythang. Funny how I can notice trends and use them to my advantage to help me predict roughly how much I'm going to like something. It's called pattern recognition
Ha Ha, what's even funnier is that you devote your time to studying trends when it comes to movie reviews. You should use your pattern recognition skills to get rich in the stock market. Besides, Super Pattern Recognition Trend Analysis Man, I bet it's not to far a stretch to say that if a movie gets good reviews, a large percentage of people will like the movie and vice versa. Hell, I usually tend to like movies that get good reviews as well.
Ross: Please. My bet is Roche has never sought a movie review online or anywhere other than Ebert and Roeper, which he hates anyway.
Well then he must really be influenced by you because he's always comparing shit he's seen with movie reviews and he's made mention of Rotton Tomatoes several times.
ROss: And no offense to Zilla, but you'd best beware how much you two compare yourselves. Zilla maintains that sponges are more closely related to humans than chimps are. Not exactly freethinker material there. 'Nuff said.
I can't remember what this arguement is called but it's basic argumentative logic that one learns about in college. You are making an associattion between two dissimilar things. That's a weak attempt. Still, Zilla - that's some fucked up repugnant shit.
Ross: I really don't think you mean that anyway because you know full well that for both Roche and I, not all of our favorite movies are necessarily well reviewed.
Yeah and Roche acts suprised as fuck when he likes something that got poor reviews - you probably do to. It's cause you take too much stock in what the Review Monkeys say.
Ross: Now this is just heading off into the land of conspiracy theories. That's a pretty heavy charge considering you have no evidence beyond your own intuition.
That's pretty much why I qualified it with the phrase,"I also wouldn't be suprised ". However, it's based on something that I read by a reviewer a long time ago who actually admitted such a thing. I can't substantiate it so we'll call this one a wash.
Ross: The bottom line is that I pay attention to what lots of people have to say about movies in particular, to varying degrees. There tends to be a bit more objective information to judge them on than, say, music. And I generally give some people more benefit of the doubt than others.
Good point. No arguement there.
ROss: I certainly hope you're not painting me as someone who listens to whatever reviewers have to say.
No, but every single time I mention a movie that got poor reviews, Roche invariably counters with, "Really, it got poor reviews" or "Really, Ross said it got shitty reviews on Rotten Tomatoes".
Ross: As I said, they're a tool, nothing more. Absolutely, many of them are sloppy - in fact, odds are that most of the time, the reviewer doesn't even want to be reviewing what he's reviewing, so they don't care how good a job they do. But the reason I like Rotten Tomatoes is because it's a stastical sampling of MANY reviewers. This makes it on the whole much more reliable. Not foolproof, but I have found that barring my own biases (irrational as they may be), I tend to more-or-less be on the same page as the amalgamated scores on that site.
Ok, I acknowledge that you aren't a mindless drone subject to the influence of others. Guess what, I also happen to be more-or-less on the same page as the amalgamated scores on that site. Probably most people are. I just don't care. Anyways. I guess I just have a personal problem with critics of any kind. Sorry Swerb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No apology necessary. The critic's role lies in a grey area: Are they there to guide the reader, i.e., tell them whether or not they should see a movie? Are they there to determine whether a film is art or merely a tool for commerce? Are they there to entertain the reader? Yes, to all of the above. Admittedly, I like to read reviews because I'm entertained by the general notion of intellectual debate - hence, why I love my job reviewing music and film. I also find a bunch of bored nerds posting their two cents on the internet to be highly amusing.
On the other hand, I value my time too much to waste it watching a piece of crap movie - unlike Bone, who, if he sees a bad movie, big deal. I never have enough time in the day to do everything I want to do, so, like Bert, I read the reviews to educate myself. Sure, I see a lot of crap movies, but I'm also getting paid to do so - and besides, I kind of like watching a crap movie once in a while, to remind me why I love stuff like Pulp Fiction and Star Wars and, yes, Roche, Once Upon a Time in the West. Which, by the way, is a great film, and you'll think I'm an infantile retard for thinking such, just as I'll think anyone who's bored by it is an infantile retard. My point: I'm entertained by our debate. I will never stop trying to convince you why it's a great film, and you'll never stop trying to convince me it's boring and pretentious. I guess some of us can appreciate subtlety. :)
I also agree that critics tend to follow each other, and while some may fear their credibility will be shaken if they give a brainlessly entertaining movie a good review (or vice versa) and therefore follow the herd, I think a lot of critics just think alike. I'm sure they have similar backgrounds, they see a lot of movies on a weekly basis, and they get inundated with crappy action movies and dumb comedies - hence, why a "pretentious" foreign film tends to get good reviews. It's all about context. They're also people who are passionate enough about the form to study it and look at it as more than a couple hours of entertainment, but also a form of intellectual enrichment.
That being said, Bert, I have no problem voicing my bias against the Harry Potter movies, and if I had been assigned to review the new one, would have claimed it to be mediocre in spite of its legion of positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes (not that I would ever read any reviews before I wrote my own; don't even want to be effected subconsciously or otherwise by them). So, yes, I admit my bias, and if you want to call it irrational, fine. It's impossible to elimnate bias from anything, because that's a purely human trait - by that somewhat reductionist notion, everything we say and do is irrational, albeit in varying shades of grey. I tend to think rationality and objectivity are synonymous, and while both are impossible to obtain, intelligent people have to strive for them anyway.
In other words, all the back-and-forth yammering on this website (admittedly hilarious; Pattern Recognition Boy should go to Vegas and clean up) is not that far removed, biologically speaking, from monkeys flinging poo at each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bert - I don't know where that sponge DNA thing came from. Though funny it's certainly an unfair way of discounting any opinions I have in a discussion of movie reviews. Kind of like me saying you're full of shit regarding some political topic because you like Moulin Rouge.
What I believe you're referencing is a discussion I had with Roche (which apparently made it's rounds to you). The discussion was something (and I'm paraphrasing) about Roche telling me how chimp DNA is 99% similar to human DNA. To which I responded that the DNA from a grain of rice is 98% similar. I was just talking off the cuff, though I recall reading something along those lines (the point being that DNA in ALL living things are close). I wasn't arguing Roche's point, but more lessening it's impact.
I believe the "Grain of Rice Response" flustered Roche. This is evidenced by the fact that he must have ran to Bert for some additional data in the event that there was any further discussion with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zilla- I need no additional data from Bert as I've read enough on my own to know your statement was bullshit. A grain of rice is not 98% the same as human DNA. At one point you did use the sponge analogy as well which is equally ridiculous. A grain of rice is around 92% the same, which is a bigger difference than it sounds. When ACGT sequences that are mainly active genes are examined, a 99.6% identity is found between human and chimp. At the level of the working genes, only about 0.4% of the DNA of humans is different from the DNA of chimps. Like it or not, that's the hard core science of it, Zilla. No need to consult Bert on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's not nit pick with numbers, Rocheburger! Your exact data of 99.6% (chimp) and 92% (grain of rice) are still hilarious! I think the point is still made.
I still don't recall the sponge business.
Back to movie reviews, I think it was Elvis Costello that said this about music criticism: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." You know that's some funny shit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently science must be hilarious to you then. An 8% difference in DNA is in fact substantial as is the difference between humans and a grain of rice. The difference between chimps and humans is far less substantial so therefore your point is moot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bone: ...I bet it's not to far a stretch to say that if a movie gets good reviews, a large percentage of people will like the movie and vice versa. Hell, I usually tend to like movies that get good reviews as well.
Thanks for making my point for me. I guess we have niggled our way out of any core disagreement.
Swerb: not that I would ever read any reviews before I wrote my own; don't even want to be effected subconsciously or otherwise by them
If Swerb is in any way typical then the fact that he doesn't look at other reviews before writing his own should tell us that reviews aren't generally a "herd mentality". I think that we should, in most cases, extend the benefit of the doubt to people whose professions are to review movies, that they do the same.
Zilla: Bert - I don't know where that sponge DNA thing came from. Though funny it's certainly an unfair way of discounting any opinions I have in a discussion of movie reviews. Kind of like me saying you're full of shit regarding some political topic because you like Moulin Rouge.
You're right, that was unfair, I'm sorry. But in the spirit of fairness, it was the Evil Reviewer Swerb who likes Moulin Rouge. :) I only thought it was vaguely interesting.
As for the off-topic DNA discussion, here's how it breaks down: nobody has yet figured out what the "perfect" system for comparing DNA is. In fact, just last week there was a big study that concluded that chimps aren't as similar as previously thought to humans, when comparing their genes in yet another way that was thought to be more important.
But none of that shit matters because no matter how you slice it, the point still stands that chimps are more closely related to humans than to any other living creature, and vice-versa. We share a close common ancestor, going back a mere 6 million or so years, which in evolutionary time is relatively short. The precise percentages of like-DNA are unimportant. When we talk about animals being related we aren't strictly speaking about their DNA as much as we're talking about where we share parents on the family tree. And rest assured, we meet this point with chimps before any other extant species.
Here is a good article on the subject, from everybody's favorite biologist, Richard Dawkins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Johnnny: So an 8% difference between HUMAN DNA and RICE DNA sounds substantial to you? Now you're just being silly. Me thinks in your case the difference may be more in the 7-7.5% range... BWA-HA HA HA HA HAAAaaaa *ack!*
And as Ross mentions, what method can you even use to measure the difference of DNA? Doesn't it seem kinda silly? It's like measuring the difference between "Funky Town" vs. "Highway To Heaven." I think they're about 12.7% different. I'm going to go dance about architecture now...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roche "When ACGT sequences that are mainly active genes are examined, a 99.6% identity is found between human and chimp. At the level of the working genes, only about 0.4% of the DNA of humans is different from the DNA of chimps. "
I hope you aren't trying to pass this prose as your own writing. It come straight out of SHADOWS OF FORGOTTON ANCESTORS.
I'm not sure I understand the arguement between Roche and Zilla. I guess anything organic should have numerically similar DNA depending on how you look at it. However, those few percentage points seem small on paper but they produce widely different characteristics when manifest as a lifeform. To me that just solidifies the validity of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, Jack, it's not even slightly silly.
Measuring the differences between DNA, in the strictest sense, is incredibly easy and makes perfect sense. DNA is composed of four diffent types of nucleotides, abbreviated A, G, C, and T. As such, DNA can be thought of as one long chain of information (a program, or data, just like a computer file). Whereas computers use base 2 notation (0 or 1) to represent data, DNA uses base 4 (A, G, C, or T). Besides the notation, the only other major difference is the fact that DNA information is stored chemically instead of electronically.
The information capacity of most DNA chains is very impressive and can easily be translated into computer terms. The capacity in one human cell is enough to store all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica three or four times over (that's from Dawkins).
As for measuring differences, I hope it's obvious now that it can be done and does makes sense: just as I can see that a sequence of "0101" and "0100" are 25% different, I can do the same with DNA base pairs and arrive at a comparatively meaningful result.
However, the question is that even though chimps are 98.5% similar to us using this technique (not 99.6), that does not tell the whole story. It is meaningful, but there's lots more to learn. For example, it seems as though only 1% of that information, in humans at least, is actually used. Now, genes (long sequences of DNA) describe what proteins to make, and these proteins are important as well. And researchers are finding that subtle changes in the genetic code have profound changes on the proteins, so the strict percentage differences aren't telling the whole story.
So in conclusion, 8% doesn't sound suitably impressive to you, and perhaps it shouldn't. But to be blunt, it doesn't matter what these differences "sound like" to you, unless you are well educated in these matters. For the record, I'm not particularly well educated in them either - but I know enough to know that 8% of something pretty fucking big is also pretty fucking big - and that the difference between the 8% and the 1% = 7% - is the real number to worry about, and yes, it's still pretty fucking big.
Last, I would like to add that there are people much smarter and more dedicated than you or I who spend their lives working on these kinds of problems using techniques that have been honed by the finest minds over the course of centuries. To intimate that what they are doing is silly is actually quite insulting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Bert, aka Dr. Science, THAT should grind this overlong discussion string to a halt.
And when I say "overlong," I mean looooong. It takes me a while to load this page, and I have cable!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's my fault, not yours. My upstream bandwidth is only a few times faster than a dialup modem. Aren't you glad you loaded this giant page again just to read that? :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ross - If 8% of a big fucking number is a pretty big fucking number (of difference), isn't 92% of a big fucking number an even a BIGGER fucking amount of similarity? That was my only point: I'm less impressed with how similar our DNA is to chimps as I am at how similar we are to a fucking grain of rice! Get it? HA! I was trying to be funny but apparently it was found offensive to all you serious biological scientists. :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you messed around with your DNA and it ended up 92% same as before except your dick and it turned into a corncob I'm sure you would think 8% was a pretty big fucking deal!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shit, get off JA for a few days and miss huge diatribes on movie reviews. Bones expert editing of the responses into a three-way conversation between Bert, Zilla, and himself was hilarious! This discussion belongs in the 'Jackassery Classics' page.
Johnny - I've changed my tune about watching movies twice. I watched the movie Identity again. The first time I didn't care for it because the ending disapointed me. But, knowing the ending, seeing it again enabled me to watch it in a different light. I guess in my 'old' age I am starting to enjoy the subtlety found in a second viewing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you phrase it that way, Jack, I agree. It's much more impressive that rice shares 92% of our DNA but it's also most probably not true, considering that most monkeys are in the 80-90% similarity range. I'll try to find the current best-guess on rice. I think that even the most dissimilar organisms on the planet to us fall into the 50% range or so - I should look it up. Actually what's fun is to do searches on that kind of stuff and see how much creationist bullshit pops up on the search engines - it's truly disgusting.
Anyway, like I've been saying, the strict sequence comparisons (which incidentally so far haven't been done letter-for-letter, as we have only recently fully sequenced a person and have never sequenced a chimp) are somewhat misleading, much to creationists delight.
Here is a good quote from a Human Genome Project website that helps shed light on the issue:
"However, the most significant differences between mice and humans are not in the number of genes each carries but in the structure of genes and the activities of their protein products. Gene for gene, we are very similar to mice. What really matters is that subtle changes accumulated in each of the approximately 30,000 to 35,000 genes add together to make quite different organisms. Further, genes and proteins interact in complex ways that multiply the functions of each. In addition, a gene can produce more than one protein product through alternative splicing or post-translational modification; these events do not always occur in an identical way in the two species. A gene can produce more or less protein in different cells at various times in response to developmental or environmental cues, and many proteins can express disparate functions in various biological contexts. Thus, subtle distinctions are multiplied by the more than 30,000 to 35,000 estimated genes.
The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.) Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are ?neutral? and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does. "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now then... how about that Van Helsing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn?t there a vampire in Van Helsing that looked like a monkey, had a sponge afro and a pee pee the size of a grain of rice? Surely if there was it?s DNA would have an uncanny resemblance to that of a human being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bone- You are correct, my source data was Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors which is obviously a bit dated. I just wanted to make sure that the numbers I quoted to Zilla were accurate. It seems I would have been better off checking into the most recent data on the topic. Science doesn't tend to bog down in dogma and as new information comes to light science evolves accordingly. I thought I read that all DNA is within 92% the same however this could very well be erroneous as the source I got it from is likely out dated or I misread the actual statement. A 50% similarity seems a bit more likely to me.
My point the night I made the 99% similar DNA comment was simply to illustsrate how closely related to chimps we actually are. I could have stated it another way and said we share a common ancester dating back 6 million years ago. I'm sure Zilla would have come up with an equally ridiculous quip for this statement as well. It was pointless to debate Zilla that night because he tends to rely on the volume of his voice, not the sense his words are making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it me? It's him, right?
Johnny: I was not debating you that day. I was not trying to dismantle all of science with my words. I was just trying to make a humorous point. I'm beginning to think I was unsuccessful.
Now, can we get back to talking about Van Helsing? I'll go first: The video game sucks ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a Van Helsing video game? Apparently a shitty movie wasn't enough, a suck ass video game was required as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to mention I picked up The Blind Watchmaker yesterday. I reall ejoyed the chapter on bats and how cool their sonar process works. I found it funny that when it was first discovered that bats used sonar some people were incredulous because they thought it was too advanced a system. Then he argued that if we got around using echolocation people would have thought it impossible that an animal could use light waves and a lens to navigate. Yet they are both equally complex. Richard Dawkins is sweet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, I watched this show once where these blind dudes were using echo location like bats. It appeared legit. The two were able to describe their surroundings and identify objects placed around them. They could also ride bicycles around. Mind you, they were Ray Charles blind. They developed a system where they make multiple high pitch clicks with their tongues and create a metal image based on the return. It was freaky yet cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Dawkins mentioned something about blind people using their hearing to navigate but not to the degree you're describing. That is very interesting, indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also highly suspect. It's most likely some very attuned hearing, not sonar. Sonar would involve them actually producing the sounds themselves and recognizing their own echoes. That's something that requires specialized hardware, as far as I can tell. Bats have it to be sure, though.
I agree that chapter was fucking sweet. I love how when people started developing sonar, they'd run into a problem and solve it, only to find out that bats had evolved very similar compensations and workarounds.
Was it bats or another animal (insects, maybe?) that have the type of hearing where their primary sense is the location of the sound? The explanation for it blew my mind. It was so fucking cool. Maybe I'm getting ahead of you though. In any case, there is plenty of good shit in that book, my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the trouble is that echolocation isn't very well defined. There's nothing in that document that seems to indicate anything other than very perceptive hearing.
That said, I did find some info on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation
Reading these, I can see what you meant. But let's face it: bat echolocation is so much more sensitive and powerful than what even the best people can do, it's kind of silly to attempt to use the same term. The foremost difference in my mind is that bats are actively producing the sounds and comparing what they sent to the echo. Whereas humans can only make guesses about what and where the original ambient sound was, and then make some half-assed assumptions. It ain't the same league, but maybe it's the same fuckin' sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However it yields a similar result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vaguely similar in technique I can grant you, but that's about it. My understanding is that bats' sonar capabilities are as good as our visual ones (specialized for hunting insects, of course, so in that case they're actually better) so that's a far, far cry from anything a blind person claim to do. It's like the difference between Matt Murdock and a regular blind guy. Stevie Wonder isn't taking on Bullseye anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, the comic book references come into play giving us insight into the real world. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ability of a blind person to navigate by feel is called "facial vision". This is where blind people without even knowing it are actually using echoes of their own footsteps and other sounds to sense the presence of obstacles. This is pretty close to as I read it from Dawkins but not verbatim. Please, no accusations of plagiarism, Bone. This does seem to sound like a form of echolocation but no where near the level of a bats sonar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
