IntenseDebate - Redhawke

14 years ago @ Breitbart.tv - Maher To Limbaugh: I C... · 0 replies · +5 points

Just one point of order...Bill Maher DOES have one sponsor...HBO, and they CAN be touched. I cancelled my subscription a few months ago, and told them why. I urge anyone with an HBO subscription (even if it comes free with cable service) to cancel. And don't feel like not having a subscription means you can't tell them how you feel - you just need to send it directly. Below is the URL to their comment screen. Please, anyone who uses it, be more polite than HBO would, or Bill Maher could...
http://www.hbo.com/about/index.html?title=Real%20...

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - 'Act of Valor': 'Paren... · 0 replies · +3 points

IIRC, the first time I saw Dax Shepard was in "Idiocracy." Nice to see an actor who inhabits his role 24/7.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - 'Broadcast News' Predi... · 0 replies · +2 points

PART TWO...

Neither my parents nor I could see much moral distance between Brooks' manipulation (done purely to make the story more "punchy"), and Hurt's (done merely because the subject AND the cameraman thought Hurt was about to cry when the camera was on the subject, so he recreated his near-reaction).

Now, admittedly, the message (Director James) Brooks seemed to want to convey (the danger of flash winning in the end over substance) is one that should be paid attention to. But the simple fact, in my opinion, was that Brooks' character was already a "salesman," just one selling things with a little more subtlety. That Brooks (and, to a lesser extent, Hunter) was so aggressively pompous about his point (and, it seemed to me, also sabotaging Hurt out of jealousy over Hunter's and Hurt's relationship, and envy of Hurt's success, not to register some important message), again, in my opinion, fatally undermines any moral high ground Brooks wants his character to stand on. FWIW. IMOO. YMMV.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - 'Broadcast News' Predi... · 1 reply · +4 points

Sorry, Lawrence, but I couldn't disagree more with your conclusion. I watched this movie in the theater with my parents, and the three of us all concluded that the overall message (beyond the surface) was far off the mark.

***SPOILERS***

The opening scene showed Brooks doing an on- scene report on South American guerillas, with the movie showing Brooks' (IIRC) behind-the-scenes manipulation of the frame (the frame and his voiceover focusing on the boots shipped to the guerillas, to add pathos to the segment). That story was not called out by the film as anything but good journalism. Meanwhile, what infuriated Brooks and Hunter (and which the film condemned) was Hurt's false tear in a segment (conjured up as a later-filmed reaction shot to the "heartrending" story Hurt's character was reporting on), despite the fact that everyone in the segment agreed that, while false, it was pretty much an accurate recreation of Hurt's true reaction.

PART ONE

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Oscars: Baron Cohen’... · 1 reply · +1 points

Wow. Seacrest vs. Sacha Baron Cohen.. Who do ya root for on that one?

14 years ago @ Big Government - 'Equal Justice Under t... · 0 replies · +3 points

I hope Mr. Wohl is correct that the SCOTUS will use this case (which would be egregious, were it not for the regular abuse of that term by and on behalf of AA) to overturn the constitutionality of AA. I fear, however, that the SCOTUS may use the case to overturn a popularly-approved Proposition, in clear violation of the concept of representative Republicanism, in favor of "social justice" and "The Greater Good." (I'm looking at YOU, Justice "5-4" Kennedy) That seems to be the trend lately...

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Comedy Cowards: ‘SNL... · 0 replies · +1 points

sometime in the last few months (if I had to guess, it'd be around when Obama's popularity numbers went upside down), the entertainment media finally jettisoned the last vestige of impartiality (mind, I'm not saying they ever really had much, but at least before 2008, they at least mostly made a play at pretending). I'm waiting for someone to demand the FEC declare their prime time lineup to be an in-kind contribution.

I can dream...

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Something Gays & Musli... · 0 replies · +1 points

3. So Minaj is a "schizo-aesthetic artist," is she? Igoring for the moment what the hell that means, it reminds me of a morality exercise I participated in in high school, the upshot of which is, no matter the cognitive ability or motive of a person who punches me in the nose, it doesn't make my nose hurt any less (I say this as a never-been-Catholic). Minaj's performance was so transparently anti-Catholic that even if she didn't recognize it, someone in the long list of reviewers of the performance should have done so. That no one either foresaw a problem with this, or didn't care, is itself an issue.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Something Gays & Musli... · 0 replies · +1 points

2. Tell you what: you hold on to the "position" that there was nothing political about Minaj's performance; me, I'll live in the real world for now. The evidence I hold on my side is: in the same week that the political realm practically exploded over the dispute between the O admin and the Catholic Church over the latter having to pay for contraceptive services, Minaj takes to the Grammies to perform a "fever dream" about overtly Catholic priests holding her prisoner and persecuting her, the first part of which is in a unique icon of Catholic practice (the Confessional). If it was just coincidence, it was one of the more amazing (and unbelieveable, in every sense of the word) coincidences in an industry that seems to fall back on the coincidence excuse on a nearly weekly basis.

14 years ago @ Big Hollywood - Something Gays & Musli... · 0 replies · +1 points

I have several comments to this, in no particular order:

1. No matter what Minaj's "appeal" may be (to whomever that may be), her presence on the Grammies is arguably broader for its incorporation into the Grammies production. Unless you sincerely believe that (a) the Grammies producrers told Minaj "hey, we love your work, so do what you want. We aren't even particularly interested in seeing it beforehand," Minaj's message was endorsed by a broader "speaker," namely the Grammies producers. I sincerely doubt THEY were hoping for laughs. I saw absolutely nothing to suggest that it was put on for comedy (nor, for that matter, do I honestly believe that the Grammies producers have a working comprehension of "humor," but I digress). Absent that, the only really "absurdist" commentary I can foresee is that of the Grammies producers, and it ain't the one I believe you think it is.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Redhawke

People I'm following

Redhawke