Show Entries

Entered on: May 30, 2005 12:00 AM by Ross
Click for full size
Serba ingests copious amounts of alcohol via turkey baster at his bachelor party.

PHOTO 196 - 44 Comments
From: Jackzilla Entered on: May 30, 2005 8:42 PM
I did that with Diet Coke once and got WOOOOO FUCKED UP!
From: Swerb Entered on: May 31, 2005 8:00 AM
I was WOOOOOO FUCKED UP, believe me. I spent all day Sunday feeling like ground-up monkey turds. It was one of those days when you wear sweatpants all day....
From: Ross Entered on: May 31, 2005 9:18 AM
Whaddaya mean, ONE of those days?
From: BigFatty Entered on: June 1, 2005 12:04 AM
When Steelcase let me go a few years ago, the very next day I went to Meijer to buy 2 pairs of XL sweatpants. I got XL so I had room to grow. Fatty had a funny feeling that he was not jumping back into the workforce.
From: Swerb Entered on: June 1, 2005 8:13 AM
I think it was a Seinfeld joke that said if you wear sweatpants outside the house for any reason other than working out, you've lost the will to live. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bert...  
By the way, thanks to Bert and Fatty and Jackzilla and Johnnybells for coming to my little shindig. It was fun. More debauchery will certainly be had come Bert's bachelor party...  
And where the heck is Bells? His computer is fixed, so he doesn't have an excuse anymore.
From: Ross Entered on: June 1, 2005 8:55 AM
I'm going to be ordering up some DSL for him today I think so he will be completely free of reasons not to come on. We will be legally justified in firebombing his home if he doesn't start showing up, I checked with an attorney.
From: BigFatty Entered on: June 1, 2005 9:12 AM
Yes, with high-speed porn available to Bells, his wack sessions should be cut in half, leaving ample time for a JA visit.
From: Ross Entered on: June 1, 2005 11:52 AM
It's funny - Bells actually DOES have email - on his phone! You can reach him at - I asked him how he got that and he just said "That's how I roll"
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 1, 2005 7:26 PM
Swerb - Thanks for the invite to your shindig. It was fun -- And the new guys were cool. I think it would have required a turkey baster to get any more food in me. I don't want to become ZillaFatz, but BigFatty keeps pulling me to the Dark Side.  
Also - are you going to be seeing an advance showing of BATMAN BEGINS? I want to see this movie so bad I almost crap my pants thinking about it. Do you know anything about the IMAX viewing? Or any possible way to get sneak peak tix? I get free passes at the store for LORDS OF SHITVILLE, but I doubt Batman will make its way to me...
From: BigFatty Entered on: June 2, 2005 12:58 AM
Man, I have watched the 10 min trailer for BM Begins twice! I am so pumped for this movie! I have to say this, but I am looking forward to this movie way more than Sith. Why? Cuz, Lucas gave me what I expected, a lukewarm movie with a good story. I have far better expectations for BM Begins. I am thinking this is Batman done PROPER! Even the Batmobile is sweet! I did have reservations when I first saw the photos. Seeing it in action on the trailer squashed all that. That is what a Batmobile should be! It is badass and kicks ass. That trailer is sweet!
From: Ross Entered on: June 2, 2005 8:59 AM
Is it possible that Fatty is more excited about a (non-Disney) movie than Bert? Though I am definitely optimistic for Batman, I still haven't seen anything in the trailers that make me think they nailed the Batman character. They seemed to have gotten Bruce Wayne down pretty well, but Batman? Not so sure. In that 10 min preview the exchange between Bats and Katie Holmes didn't inspire me much. It wasn't bad, per se, it just didn't wow me. The only part that really did was when he jumps down that giant stairwell with the bats swirling around him. I just haven't seen the footage of (save for very briefly in the superbowl ad) where Batman is scaring the shit out of people. Also haven't seen him doing very athletic things. This doesn't mean it's not in there, but I just haven't seen it. Still, I'm anticipating this one more than any others that are left this summer by far.
From: Swerb Entered on: June 2, 2005 9:00 AM
Fatty, I find it rather amusing that you refer to it as "BM Begins." Discussions never stray far from the shitting topic around here... but I agree with you that it looks badass judging from the 10 min. preview.  
Zilla, here's the scoop: I'm seeing Batman this coming Monday... in Detroit. The only early screening here in GR is Tues. 6/14 on IMAX. How to get tickets? Well, the Press is having a contest, but I think it's just a send-your-name-in-and-we-draw-the-winners-out-of-a-hat deal. Other than that, I dunno. I'd try to hook you up, but I'm going to be on my honeymoon that week.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 2, 2005 10:02 AM
Hey! I'll send my name and address in... It worked for Spidey 2. Is the contest in the paper yet? I haven't noticed it. We'll be back from San Francisco Tuesday the 14th so it could work out.
From: BigFatty Entered on: June 3, 2005 12:26 AM
Hey, I think the non-Disney remark was a cut ;)  
You make a good point that occured to me during the trailer that did not make it into my short review. I too thought the Batman scene was kind of, well, turdy. It was his voice and dialog that wrecked it for me. But, I am optimistic. The Bruce Wayne angle looks sweet as fuck, and that is what I am interested in now. Of course I want to see Batman fuck some dudes up! The real story is Bruce Wayne becoming Batman, not Batman battling bad guys - thats been done plenty. We shall see in 2 weeks what the show is all about.
From: Ross Entered on: June 6, 2005 6:08 AM
DAMN this place is dead lately. Put Fatty in GR, Bone off the grid, and Swerb and Johnson busy with wedding-related bullshittery, and you have little need for Jackassery.
From: Ross Entered on: June 6, 2005 8:55 AM
But hey, I will say that Ebert and Roeper absolutely LOVED Batman Begins. Roeper said that although he really liked the original Tim Burton Batman, this is BY FAR the best Batman movie ever made. I have to admit, I started to get really excited at that point.
From: Swerb Entered on: June 6, 2005 9:29 AM
Yeah, I have to say I was a bit surprised by Ebert and Roeper's reactions... I'll be seeing the movie tonight, so I'll post my reaction later.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 6, 2005 9:36 AM
I've watched the Batman Begins 10-min preview about a dozen times now. There's "goose bump" moments in that trailer that I couldn't get in the entire Episode III movie. (Ok, I'll leave Sith alone now...)
From: Swerb Entered on: June 6, 2005 10:00 AM
I am also taking back any of my skepticism about the new Batmobile. It's sweet!!!!! I almost bought the toy version of it yesterday for my nephew, just so I could play with it....
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 6, 2005 10:22 AM
Let the record show that I thought the new Batmobile was sweet way back when everyone was saying it was ugly. I want one.  
Swerb - so when are you swinging by to pick me up for the preview in Detroit? ;)
From: Ross Entered on: June 6, 2005 3:42 PM
I also always kind of liked the new Batmobile. I actually really liked the original Tim Burton Batmobile quite a bit, but this one might be better - I don't think it LOOKS better, but I might end up liking it more just because of how badass it is.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 6, 2005 6:26 PM
I believe the term "jankmobile" was coined to describe the new batmobile and used by Bone, Swerb and Bells. Fatty called it ugly but functional. Bert was on the fence.  
I said it was sweet! Now y'all are calling it sweet too? Bunch of cock-suckin', limp dicked, Johnny Come-Latelys... (sorry, too much Deadwood).  
Come on, Swerb! We want a full Bat Report when you return tonight!
From: Swerb Entered on: June 7, 2005 12:01 AM
I think seeing a picture of the new Batmobile and seeing it in action are two different things entirely. When it's movin', there's nothing janktastic about it at all. It's all ass - BADass.  
As for the movie, it's pretty damn sweet. As a point of reference on the scale of comic book movies, I'd say it's on par with Sin City, but not as good as Spider-Man 2 (which is still the best ever). I don't want to give away too many details, but the screenplay does a good job of getting into Bruce Wayne's head. I think it nails the psychology of Batman almost perfectly. Christian Bale is very, very well cast - he's a terrific Bruce Wayne, and I think it says a lot that I can't think of someone else who could have done a better job. In fact, the acting is good across the board, the dialogue is solid and often funny... if there's any weakness to it, I'd say some of the action sequences are a tad lackluster in comparison to the rest of the movie.
From: Ross Entered on: June 7, 2005 6:05 AM
This is exactly the impression I got from the previews. Oh well - maybe in the sequel. Still, can't wait.
From: Swerb Entered on: June 8, 2005 3:19 PM
Here's an exclusive on my review... almost a week before it sees print! Consider yourselves Swerb Sweet (and I gave it 3.5 stars out of 4):  
Longtime Batman believers will rejoice to learn that "Batman Begins" features nary a primary color in its visual scheme.  
For the first time in Hollywood history, the Dark Knight is truly worthy of his moniker. Christopher Nolan's translation of the comic book icon reinvents the character's mythos in the spirit of writer Frank Miller's gritty, grimy crime-drama style. The director takes cues and plot tidbits from Miller's acclaimed "Batman: Year One" origin story and expands Batman lore into a shadowy, psychological journey rife with equal parts horror and heroism.  
Which is exactly where it belongs. Nolan and screenwriting partner David S. Goyer correct the blasphemies of the previous, deadly-dud "Batman" franchise, replacing camp and overbaked villiany with a superb, dead-serious script punctuated by sharp, occasionally humorous dialogue. It says a lot when the bad guys in "Batman Begins" are not cartoonish grotesqueries, but fundamentalists devoted to imposing their misguided morality on the rest of society.  
It's a provocative twist when we learn that Bruce Wayne was trained by those same fundamentalists, whose worldviews seem remarkably familiar in an age when terrorists are the new face of evil. Merge the bad guys' techniques with the good guys' sense of justice, and voila! Batman begins.  
Having endured several actors of dubious capacity playing the Caped Crusader, we'd be hard-pressed to imagine anyone filling the role any better than Christian Bale. The actor's credibility convincingly carries Wayne from a young heir traumatized by his billionaire parents' senseless murder to a well-honed and focused vigilante who overcomes and uses his deep-seeded fears to extract justice upon the corrupt.  
In his pre-Batman days, Wayne finds himself in Bhutan, where a brief prison stay leads to several years of ninjitsu training under Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) and grim clan leader Ra'as Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe). When they tell Wayne to transform his fear and anger into power, there are shades of the Dark Side of the Force -- and like "Revenge of the Sith," "Batman Begins" suggests that good and evil are not so easily defined.  
After seven years, Wayne returns to Gotham City with a desire to clean up the metropolis, which was his father's dream -- but he tells his faithful butler Alfred (Michael Caine) that one man alone can't do it, but a symbol, a legend, can. He contacts Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), an employee of the Wayne family's corporation who provides him with experimental gadgetry and body armor. When asked what he's going to do with the shadowy paraphernalia, Wayne simply quips, "spelunking."  
In truth, Wayne is targeting crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), and recruiting police Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman), apparently the only straight cop on the force, to help him. Wayne ends up uncovering a conspiracy involving Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy), the head of Arkham Asylum whose screw-loose alter-ego is the Scarecrow, who wields psychotropic powder that causes his victims to hallucinate wildly. Also tangled in the plot is Wayne's childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), a do-gooder district attorney with a price on her head.  
I've discussed Bruce Wayne's psychology, which is the brooding heart of "Batman Begins." But many will trek to the theater to see Batman in action, piloting his rocket-tank-from-hell Batmobile or whopping the bejeezus out of thugs. There are plenty of both, but when Batman unleashes the power of fear on his enemies is when the film sinks its teeth into our jugular veins.  
The chases and combat, however, are the film's weak point -- with "Memento" and "Insomnia," Nolan proved himself superbly capable of conveying the intricacy of his characters' psychosomatic undercurrents, but he's not quite ready to don the cowl of action director.  
Hand-to-hand combat suffers from overzealous editing; we wish the camera would back off, and the lighting crew wouldn't lean so heavily on the dimmer switch so we can actually comprehend what we see. Without the screenplay's depth and the excellent cast's complete devotion to it, we'd less willingly forgive the film's elaborately messy, action-heavy conclusion.  
But appropriately, lurking in the shadows of the mind is Batman's forte. The brain is the place where "Batman Begins" cuts its teeth, where all the greys and blues blend into black, much to the delight of Dark Knight devotees.  

From: Ross Entered on: June 8, 2005 4:36 PM
Pretty frickin' sweet, Swerb! But: I knew it!
From: Ross Entered on: June 15, 2005 10:15 AM
Good article on Batman Begins in the NY Times:

From: Ross Entered on: June 16, 2005 3:34 PM
So Johnnybells saw Batman Begins last night - what about the rest of you??? Speak up!
From: Jackzilla Entered on: June 16, 2005 5:10 PM
It was super sweet! I think Swerb's review hit it on the head. The only down-side was some of the action scenes -- the fighting was up-close and Bourne Supremacy-like (exagerated no doubt by watching it on IMAX). The acting is all top notch. The character of Bruce Wayne is particularly well-done -- his motivations and such are very real and believable.  
Everyone loved it!
From: BigFatty Entered on: June 17, 2005 1:16 AM
Fatty likes!!!  
Yep - Swerb was dead on. It is all super-sweet but the action scenes drop it a notch from total sweetness. Actually, I thought having the action scenes being a bit murky would have been cool - adding to the mystery and fear of Batman. Having your imagination *see* the action.... but this was not the case in this movie because the action sequences are far too long for it to be effective. Granted it is tough to make Batman in all his getup be sweet on film, but that is what CGI is for.  
It is certainly Batman done right. I hope they continue the story with the Joker in the next movie!!!!
From: Ross Entered on: June 17, 2005 10:54 AM
Well, I'm going to try to see it tonight, then. I've been warned that the action scenes are shittay... but I'm still looking forward to it.
From: Ross Entered on: June 18, 2005 12:11 AM
Saw it. I liked it a lot. I will say this - it didn't feel like a superhero movie at all. Heather loved that - she proclaimed it to be the best superhero movie ever, as a result - no cheese.  
But something wasn't right for me, and it was that Batman didn't seem quite like Batman. Granted, he seemed like Batman's more realistic cousin - but I really missed having any money shots of Batman doing sweet shit. Even the Michael Keaton style flapping of the cape to scare the criminals wasn't there, and I really liked that kind of thing.  
I did like how they lifted a lot of shit straight out of Year One: Flass (not the same character, but a corrupt peer of Gordon's with the same name couldn't have come from anywhere else), the bootheel sonic signal to lure the Bats, and the Joker being mentioned at the end was exactly out of the pages of Year One. Great shit, all of it.  
I also thought perhaps the coolest part of the movie was Bruce Wayne in the Batcave with all the bats, conquering his fear of them.  
The best Batman scene was him interrogating Flass. His hiss and growl were perfect. It's just kind of sad that as good as that scene was, it was the best one featuring Batman.  
But I just don't think Nolan is a very good visual director. The less said about the flash-cutting actions scenes the better. They were among the worst I've ever seen in any movie, ever. I still don't like the suit much, either.  
The Batmobile was cool, but I do think it was a departure from the general idea of Batman being a stealthy, precise kind of a guy. It was fun, but not very Batman-like.  
Overall, I'd say the origin story portion was probably the best I've ever seen - better than Superman or Spider-Man. But Spider-Man 2 whups the ever-loving shit out of this movie on a visceral level.
From: Swerb Entered on: June 18, 2005 12:52 PM
There's one scene in particular that sticks in my mind: The courtroom scene where the murderer of Bruce Wayne's parents is released. The tension and Bruce's rage were utterly palpable, and that's what convinced me that Bale was perfect for the role. That Bruce Wayne would actually attempt to murder somebody for the sake of revenge - such a defining moment in Batman's development, to think that he's psychologically capable of killing somebody. That's some ultra-dark, heavy shit.
From: Ross Entered on: June 20, 2005 10:08 AM
Here is the text of a review I almost entirely agree with, except their qualms about Bale:  
atman Begins? is more memorable for what it's not ? another Joel Schumacher camp fest ? than for what it actually accomplishes.  
Taking over the all-but-moribund Caped Crusader franchise, writer/director Christopher Nolan (?Memento?) and star Christian Bale have injected it with a good dose of psychological realism, creating a back story for Bruce Wayne/Batman that is both plausible and emotionally moving.  
But they try too hard. ?Batman Begins? falls prey to the same hubris that undermined Ang Lee's ?Hulk.? Dramatically there's only so far you can push a comic book character before you're obliged to deliver some satisfying, old-fashioned derring-do.  
This new Batman is thought-provoking, certainly, but rarely fun.  
As a new interpretation of the creation of the Batman legend, the movie succeeds.  
We first meet the 20-something Bruce Wayne (Bale) as he's fighting for his life in a Chinese prison. There he's recruited by the mysterious Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson) to join a centuries-old brotherhood of assassins and terrorists. The self-proclaimed mission of these rigid moralists (think of them as karate-kicking Taliban) is to destroy corrupt and decadent societies.  
Studying at a remote mountain monastery under Ducard and the order's boss, Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe of ?The Last Samurai?), Bruce becomes a master of fighting styles and learns ninja techniques to achieve near invisibility.  
These scenes are intercut with flashbacks from Bruce's childhood, especially a traumatic encounter with thousands of bats living in a cave under his family's mansion and the deaths of his philanthropist parents at the hands of a petty crook.  
The screenplay by Nolan and David S. Goyer examines fear as both Batman's motivation and his most effective tool. Fear is what drove Bruce on a quest around the globe to recklessly test his own mettle. In a sense his fear led directly to his parents' murders. And now back in Gotham to reclaim the fortune he spurned years earlier, the mature Bruce adopts fear as his major tool in the fight against lawlessness.  
This is heavy stuff for a comic book flick, but it's effective, thanks in part to Gus Lewis' excellent turn as the boy Bruce, and sets up yet another theme running through the film, that of the fine line between justice and revenge.  
?Batman Begins? also offers a terrific take on where all that high-tech Bat-gear comes from. The always classy Morgan Freeman plays Lucius Fox, a scientist for Wayne Industries who is out of favor with the management and has been consigned to a basement lab. But he has been busy developing all sorts of gadgets ? military body armor, a fabric that becomes rigid when given an electrical charge and an all-terrain vehicle designed to throw itself across rivers and over buildings.  
These become the Bat suit, a cape that allows our hero to glide like a flying squirrel and the Bat car, a machine so nasty that it will leave Hummer owners doubled over in testosterone deprivation.  
Michael Caine is Alfred, the Wayne family's butler, who becomes a surrogate father (and conscience) to the brooding Bruce. Caine plays his scenes for genuine feeling.  
So far so good. It's cool to watch as Bruce examines the possibilities of his developing Batman persona, encountering and/or colliding with characters like his new ally, Jim Gordon, Gotham's one clean cop (a satisfyingly subdued Gary Oldman), or crime boss Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) or devious psychiatrist Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy), who has been playing with psychotropic drugs and has developed an alter ego he calls the Scarecrow.  
But as an action movie, ?Batman Begins? is a near-disaster. When it comes to staging fights, Nolan hasn't a clue. The film's many brawls were shot in semi-darkness with so much slice-and-dice cutting that it's impossible to tell what's going on. Granted, Batman uses shadows to his advantage, but this is ridiculous. And Nolan never gives us a chance to savor and appreciate all of Batman's nifty gear, which is usually half the fun.  
Moreover, once the film kicks into its second hour and the real plot takes over, it's not that interesting. Bad guys are releasing into Gotham's water system a drug that causes citizens to hallucinate and panic. There's a standoff at Dr. Crane's mental hospital that's just plain confusing. Bruce's old childhood friend and now assistant D.A. Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) is caught in the crossfire. (Holmes is reduced to one-dimensional window dressing, and there's little spark between her and Bruce/Batman.)  
There are a couple of stabs at humor that fall flat; the movie's mood is way too somber for joking.  
Finally there's Bale's performance in the central role. Tight-lipped and stoic, the Welsh actor may be the least charming Batman ever. This makes sense when one considers the character's tormented psyche, but it leaves an emotional hole at the movie's center that remains unfilled. It also raises a question: In the inevitable sequel, will Bruce/Batman mellow a bit or just get harder and less human?  
If only Nolan had limited himself to the serious stuff and left the action to someone better suited to handle it.  
We're left with half a good ?Batman? movie.
From: Swerb Entered on: June 20, 2005 12:08 PM
I disagree that the humor falls flat. I thought it was genuinely funny, especially Bruce Wayne's "drunken" antics.  
The issue I take with some of the criticisms I've read of the movie is that people have certain expectations about a "Batman movie." As an action movie, it fails, but as a human drama conveying the complexities of Bruce Wayne's transformation, I think it works superbly. The parallels to the Hulk movie make sense - Hulk failed in the action sequences (phony-looking, cartoony Hulk), the ending was jumbled (WAY more jumbled than Batman, and much, much dumber) and it had a creative director trying to cram his skills into a Hollywood blockbuster. But Batman has a truly enviable script with multi-faceted dialogue and plenty of storytelling depth. Not typically the stuff of a true comic book movie, but certainly qualities of a good film in general. It still pales in comparison to Spider-Man 2, though... but it is sort of like comparing apples and oranges.  
Now, the debate about whether Batman or Spidey would win in a fight, well, I want to hear the arguments. Spidey has him on speed and strength, but Batman is smarter, craftier and has more weapons and gadgets. I'm tempted to say that if Spidey can land a few punches, the party's over, but knowing what Bats did to Superman in Dark Knight, I'm thinking he's too tough for Spidey...
From: Ross Entered on: June 20, 2005 2:03 PM
Oh, you were serious? I thought you realized the sheer absurdity of this argument and were joking. You, my friend, are Bertarded.

Here's how it breaks down:

Batman has more training (though not more experience) in fighting, but generally fights normal humans. Batman has enormous wealth which grants him top-notch weaponry. But keep in mind, he is still just a man.

Spider-Man is 15 times faster than a normal human, and by my estimates in the neighborhood of 200 times stronger than an average man (so allowing for Batman's peak conditioning, he's still at least 50 times stronger which is for all intents and purposes infinitely stronger), and posesses a supernatural sense that basically allows him to dodge bullets. Last but not least, do not underestimate the potency of the webshooter. Between being able to yank himself out of a situation with them, yank things toward him with them, and gumming up any people or things, they are among the most useful weapons in comic book lore.

Also I do not agree with your assessment of their intelligence. Peter Parker is a genius in his own right. He is not that master tactician that Bruce Wayne is but he's no dummy - Batman has no serious advantage there by my estimation.

When we talk about "who would win in a fight", we have to be careful. We're not talking about a scenario that is set up in whatever preconditions the story calls for. We are basically talking about a prearranged match - as far as I'm concerned locale is irrelevant. No one gets the drop on the other and they know what the stakes are.

In short in a REAL fight, based on the abilities of the combatants, with none of the baggage the characters carry (Spider-Man generally pulling punches against human opponents, for example), Spider-Man would separate Batman's head from his body with a single punch. I'm sure Batman could attempt something interesting with his gadgetry but the simple fact is he wouldn't be able to touch Spider-Man, as fast as he is. Batman probably wouldn't even have enough time to mount any real defense, as he'd be dead too quickly. It's really not even a contest.

Now what would be more interesting is a fight between Captain America and Batman. I used to think Daredevil vs Batman was interesting but I generally believe that DD is outclassed by Batman these days.

Also the Superman/Batman arugments are moot as they always have to boil down to a Kryptonite-based solution. Take that out and craftiness won't buy you much against a veritable god on earth.

From: Swerb Entered on: June 20, 2005 3:16 PM
Let me explain: I was under the assumption that Heather said Spider-Man would win, and you were telling her that was wrong. Or perhaps the joke was, no matter what she said, you were going to tell her it was wrong... and yes, I'm aware of the absurdity, but I was under the impression that you believed Batman would win, and I wanted to hear your argument. It seemed like a tall order.  
And yes, I agree, Cap vs. Bats would be much more intriguing, because neither is a fuckin' cripple. Me, I think Batman would beat Cap because Bats possesses a degree of dark psychosis that lends him more of a killer instinct... not that they'd fight to the death, but he has that intangible ruthlessness that a relative goody-goody like Cap doesn't have.  
As for your deeming me "Bertarded," let's put it this way: Bert is a smart guy, so to tard in Bert's direction isn't always such a bad thing; you'd still likely be smarter than average. I'd rather be Bertarded than, say, Shemptarded.
From: Ross Entered on: June 20, 2005 3:37 PM
Hahahahaha, that's especially hilarious that you'd use Shemptarded by virtue of our descriptions alone, never having met him. I love it.  
I still give the edge to Cap over Bats, though. Cap is in theory stronger and better trained than even Batman. Plus when it comes to fighting Cap is not really a goody-goody. He's less willing to bend rules when it comes to political situations but in a fight, he's a force to be reckoned with. Maybe we can get Roche in here to give his 2 cents. If you've forgotten how entertaining it can be, I refer you to a conversation from a couple years ago:
I just read this and cracked up at how funny it is. I wish he got his ass back on here for more of this kind of thing.  
By the way, this guy has a hilarious take on Batman's origin and treatment in films. I laughed out loud several times reading it:
From: Swerb Entered on: June 21, 2005 1:29 PM
Oh, I met Shemp briefly once, but it was long, long ago, and he didn't leave much of an impression.
From: Ross Entered on: June 21, 2005 2:12 PM
Really? What were the circumstances? I believe you, I'm just shocked that there was ever cause for the two of you to meet.
From: Swerb Entered on: June 21, 2005 6:51 PM
One of the first times I ever met Roche, you and I picked him up to go to a movie, and Shemp came with us. For the life of me, I can't remember what movie it was, but I remember going to pick up Roche at his house on Diamond St.
From: Swerb Entered on: June 22, 2005 1:36 PM
Back on the comic book-movie subject, this is interesting:
If all this happens, it will be beyond the comic book-movie saturation point. methinks.
From: Ross Entered on: June 22, 2005 4:31 PM
Annoying quote from that article:  
Regarding Jean Grey's possible evolution at the end of the last movie, however, Arad says, "Dark Phoenix should not be the centerpiece of the movie."  
Arad is full of bravado, but let's face it, he's been an important part of getting the Marvel movies made. As long as they're good, I say bring 'em on.
From: Ross Entered on: July 1, 2005 10:43 AM
This is a great article on the history of Batman and DC Comics. Interesting:


[Log In to Add Comment]

a division of

© 2003 Ross Johnson
RSS Feed