Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

Photo

Entered on: September 4, 2003 12:00 AM by The Bone

Roche Family Crest

PHOTO 70 - 33 Comments
From: BigFatty Entered on: September 5, 2003 12:12 AM
Tony - Your graphic rendering skills are astounding! That almost looks like a real zero! You missed your calling. Get out of the Navy and go work for Electronic Arts. You could work on the next Pong!     I just watched a pretty funny video - "Rodger Dodger" (It might not have the 'd's in the title - thats how I spell it Asshole). Its about a guy who teaches his 16 year old nephew how to pick up chicks. It has some pretty good dialog. I think most of this bunch would enjoy it.
From: Ross Entered on: September 5, 2003 7:12 AM
Bone - Seeing this picture is the hardest I've laughed in a long time. Wiping tears away from my face now...     Fatty - Where can I get the movie? Oh wait, I found it, I'm downloading it now.
From: Ross Entered on: September 5, 2003 10:01 AM
Let me also add that the "zero" could also be interpreted as the artists's rendering of a top-down view of someone mooning someone else.
From: Ross Entered on: September 5, 2003 11:06 AM
You could have used this as a launching point, Bone:     http://www.allfamilycrests.com/r/roche-family-crest -coat-of-arms.shtml
From: The Bone Entered on: September 5, 2003 11:52 AM
Yeah, I was in hurry to get something up when I got the idea. Like a child unwrapping Christmas presents in a haphazard manner.
From: John Entered on: September 5, 2003 12:45 PM
If you were in Grand Rapids you would be like a child getting his ass beat in a precise manner.
From: BigFatty Entered on: September 5, 2003 4:38 PM
What's up with the three fish on the Roche Crest? I can't imagine the family sitting around a table designing their crest and some guy suggests putting on three fish. But it happened. Maybe fish were real cool back then. Naw, don't put any swords on there, put three fish - fish are sweet!
From: Ross Entered on: September 5, 2003 4:41 PM
They are the number of full-sized fish that your typical Roche can eat whole, at one sitting.
From: The Bone Entered on: September 5, 2003 5:04 PM
Should be 3 pizza's instead.
From: Ross Entered on: September 8, 2003 4:08 PM
Fatty - I downloaded and watched Roger Dodger this weekend! It was awesome. So many good lines, Roger was hilarious.     "Have you met my nephew? His name is Jesus."
From: John Entered on: September 8, 2003 4:13 PM
Fatty was telling me about how well he liked this movie. Looks as though I need to check it out. By the way Fatty, how are you feeling, any better?
From: BigFatty Entered on: September 8, 2003 7:24 PM
I thought you'd like the movie. It had me cracking up too. I liked     "Wrong sport, but I liked your enthusiasm."     If shitting hot burning tea with tea leaves is better, then I'm 100%! I hope I'm a bit better tomorrow. I think it is food poisoning (mild case).
From: Ross Entered on: September 8, 2003 8:08 PM
What did you eat, Fatty? A rare burger from Checkers?     Yes, Roche, I recommend Rodger Dodger (British Fatty spelling) wholeheartedly. Nice job, Fatty. I can't endorse every scene (the opening dialogue was a nice idea but the ideas fell flat on my ears) but there are plenty of funny lines and the plot keeps you interested. Also I liked the way certain scenes are almost shot in a voyeuristic fashion as though we're along for the ride, getting some inside information on how to pick up chicks.
From: John Entered on: September 9, 2003 8:41 PM
Bert - cool, I'll have to check it out.     Fatty - I hope you're well enough to workout tomorrow. I'm hopeful for a good showing and I need you there.
From: Swerb Entered on: September 9, 2003 9:21 PM
I've just added Roger Dodger to my Netflix list.     By the way, Bert, did you ever see American Splendor? It opens here on Friday, and I can't wait to see it again.
From: Ross Entered on: September 9, 2003 10:16 PM
Heather and I tried to go see it on Sunday without knowing the showtimes ahead of time (the listings werent available online for some reason, and you can't convince me there is any other way to know when a movie is showing) and we arrived at the theater the very moment a show was starting and another wasn't starting for 2 hours so we called it off. I am going to try my damnedest to get in a showing this weekend, though.
From: Ross Entered on: September 13, 2003 9:47 PM
We saw American Splendor tonight - it was pretty fucking great, man. There are definitely times you identify with Harvey Pekar and other times you really don't. But he is fun to watch. I have to wonder what the deal with the last Letterman appearance was, though?
From: John Entered on: September 14, 2003 10:39 AM
We saw American Splendor last night as well and loved it. We were also wondering about the last Letterman appearance and why there was no clip of it. At any rate it was a clever little film.
From: Swerb Entered on: September 14, 2003 5:18 PM
Well, I think not using the clip was thematic... part of the cleverness of the film involves the use of multiple Harvey Pekars throughout, i.e., the real Pekar, the one played by Paul Giamatti (aka Pig Vomit), the few different animated ones, Pekar from the '80s (when he was on Letterman). I think the filmmakers wanted to get away from the hyper-reality of a TV clip and have a more "realistic" view of the incident by, ironically, re-creating it, thus giving a different perspective of his appearances on the show. Also, his wife wasn't there to watch it on TV (it's through her eyes that we see the other clips), which contributed to Harvey's antisocial on-air rant. I also think that's why most of the scene was shot from an angle behind Letterman's desk, which shows the crowd's reaction, the guy setting down the cue cards, etc. I dunno, maybe I'm just full of shit, and we just have to wait until the DVD comes out, and hope there's a commentary track...     Funny thing is, Pekar writes jazz CD reviews for the GR Press. Douglas actually knows the guy.     I also love the scene where he talks about the other Harvey Pekars in the phone book. Brilliant. This is the best movie of the year, as far as I'm concerned.
From: John Entered on: September 14, 2003 8:37 PM
I too loved the scene where he talks about the other Harvey Pekars. It was a great movie indeed. Your take on the last Letterman appearance seems plausible to me. I hope the DVD will have a commentary track for more insight into this wonderful movie.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 14, 2003 11:21 PM
Regarding the last Letterman clip: I'm betting they simply couldn't get clearance to use it. I think Letterman would like to have the whole thing forgotten about. Re-creating the episode worked great though for the reasons Slerp mentioned.     I was completely entertained by this weird little movie. Harvey is such an interesting character that if anything the movie could have used even MORE of the REAL Harvey -- but that's not to take anything away from the guy that played him (who had all his mannerisms down pat). He's so gruff, ornery and negative... yet you can tell he's a real softy underneath. And he's just funny as shit.     I also saw ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO today. If you liked DESPERADO you'll like this too! Some real cool action scenes, lots of funny shit (one Mexican joke I can't wait to use on Maria), Jonny Depp is a hoot. The only bad thing I can say is that there isn't enough SALMA HAYEK... But then again, there never is in my book.
From: Ross Entered on: September 15, 2003 8:35 AM
I'm glad you said it, Jack, because I felt that yes, Swerb, you are indeed talking out of your ass about the Letterman scene. All those literature courses have you searching for hidden meanings that just aren't there, man. :) I'm pretty sure it's exactly what Jack said, that NBC didn't give permission for them to use that clip. The only hole in that argument is that if that's true, they might just not let them use ANY clips. But somehow I have trouble believing that it was purely for (dubious, IMO) artistic reasons.     A quick web search turns up this article which is tenuous support for the Permission Argument:     http://www.post-gazette.com/movies/20030912splendor 0912fnp3.asp     Anyway, I want to see OUATIM as well... Turdbert and Roeper gave it 2 thumbs up and it really did look like Desperado 2, which ought to be enjoyable enough. I also concur about Salma Hayek but it's too bad she's too famous now for some good old fashioned extended nudity. Maybe the pendulum will swing back and she will pull a Halle Berry/Monster's Ball (as Ebert claims Meg Ryan does in her new movie).
From: Creeko Entered on: September 15, 2003 10:10 AM
I saw Phone Booth over the weekend. I was convinced that with a premise so weak that it was going to be "Speed 3 - in-a-phone-booth?. But it was actually a decent flick. It helped a little not having heard anything about the movie (good or bad). A friend of mine brought it over and we watched it on VCD in the comfort of my home. Colin Farrell dose some pretty good acting despite the fact that he?s stuck in a phone booth for the entire movie. If you haven?t seen it yet, no need to run out and see it, but if you get the chance (in my opinion) it?s not a waste of time.
From: Ross Entered on: September 15, 2003 10:26 AM
Creeko - I agree with you, and what makes it even more unbelievable is that Joel Shitmaker directed the movie!!! I used to want to deliver a fatal beating to him for what I believed to be his single-handed ruination of the Batman franchise, but I have seen interviews with various people that leads me to blieve that Shitmaker was only one shitty cog in a festering, rotting machine. He admits to making bad decisions and whatnot and he earned a small (a SMALL!) amount of respect back from me. So he can handle a movie like Phone Booth, with a talented lead (Colin Farrell) but if he gets within a mile of a Batman movie again, I'm going to bust out the Bat Testicular Perforator on his ass...
From: Swerb Entered on: September 15, 2003 7:59 PM
Well, I guess my point is, Ross, not using the real Letterman clip makes the film more interesting.     And anyone who has taken a literature course would understand that there are multiple interpretations of any good piece of art. I thought you would have realized that by now, Bert. It has nothing to do with "hidden meanings" and everything to do with how each individual perceives it. And your link to a random film review that is remarkably tenuous proves... what? That some other dude somewhere in the world thinks the same as you? Or that anybody with internet access can pull stuff out of his ass to support his argument? :)     I'm not discounting the idea that NBC wouldn't give permission to show the clip (Pekar did point out some corporate hypocrisy that surely ruffled a few feathers) at all... but if that's the case, I like how the filmmakers re-created it regardless. I think it lends depth to the film.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 15, 2003 9:24 PM
One of my favorite lines in the film, during the "Other Harvey Pekars in the Phonebook" monologue:     "Who ARE these people? WHERE do they COME from?"       By the way, has anyone seen the movie about Robert Crumb that came out 5 or so years ago? I think it was more a documentary (called just "Crumb" I believe). It got good reviews and Ang & I even rented it once, but didn't get a chance to watch it. Is it any good? I may have to try to watch that one again.
From: The Bone Entered on: September 15, 2003 9:39 PM
"Or that anybody with internet access can pull stuff out of his ass to support his argument?" - Obviously one of the greatest lines ever. Attributed to Swerb.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 15, 2003 10:30 PM
Note to self: Don't mess with The Slerp -- he'll fuck you up.
From: Ross Entered on: September 15, 2003 10:55 PM
I guess I deserved that. I guess I'll have to have my ducks in a row if I want to take on Slerp. :)     Anyway, I'm sticking by my point - you can talk about interpretations, that's fine. But I was asking the actual REASON they didn't use the footage. Either they did it for stylistic reasons or they couldn't use the footage - and I'm banking on the latter.     Cochrane be damned!
From: Swerb Entered on: September 16, 2003 12:23 AM
Yeah, well, I'm just not particularly fond of my explanation being immediately discounted as bullshit. So there.
From: John Entered on: September 16, 2003 1:10 AM
Hey, I thought your explanation sounded reasonable, but then again, what do I know?
From: Ross Entered on: September 16, 2003 7:17 AM
Sorry Swerb. Seems my angry icon has been getting me in a lot of trouble lately. That's what I'm blaming, couldn't be my words, for chrissakes...
From: John Entered on: September 16, 2003 9:07 AM
It's the icon for sure Bert. Sure Bert, you're a tasty treat and not to fat for consumption.