I don't know what else they did in the 90s other than in living color and Don't Be A Menace... but Don't be A Menace was a great comedy at the time. I haven't seen it in years to compare how it lasted, but I could see that being an "Ivory Tower" qualification.

I thought Marlon Wayans was fantastic in Requiem for a Dream, although that was 2000 and clearly not a comedy. I am continuously disappointed when I see him spit out these bland spoof films when I thought he had dramatic potential.

Isn't this pretty common for Tarantino movies though? There always seems to be a great divide, or at least somewhat mixed reviews when his movies come out. Some people praise him, and other people trash him. I mean there was even the shouting match on FSR that addressed that.

I try not to listen to any reviews of his work for that reason, and just judge him on what he spits out. Sometimes its enjoyable (in my opinion his early work) and sometimes I think it's terrible (death proof). I'll catch this in theaters, more than likely.

Number 1 makes me think of Beerfest, and how Broken Lizard directly parodies it.

I guess its not common knowledge outside of the post-production team and the "(pirate) scene" that most of pre-release, pre-dvd rips are done by someone working on the movie. If someone in that scene just saw me call it the pirate scene they would be very upset. There's a whole bunch of politics involved, but you're absolutely correct. And there's nothing new about this part of it either, it dates back to the easy duplication of VHS tapes (and I'm sure betamax as well). The only difference is that now instead of someone in the "scene" giving the video to a friend, it ends up on the internet, and while it's a way bigger field of audience, the people that are likely to find a good workprint / prerelease / screener online are a slim percentage of the movie going audience.

As for barcoding the dvd, it would be pointless. the protection would last all of a week before someone cracked it for someone they know blah blah blah, and it would be null and void. It happened with the prerelease cds of a bunch of different bands over the years. Like you said, spending the money on protecting things like that would drive up overall costs, and potentially be detrimental to sales in the long run. The video game industry learned that the hard way.

edit: chud also won't load for me, i'm guessing the heavy traffic from digg's front page is causing that

The actual effect of piracy on the movie/music industry is undetermined, despite what the MPAA/RIAA will have you believe. Both agencies will have you believe that every download = a loss in sale. In a lot of cases, the people pirating the movie never would have gone and seen it in theater/rented etc. and as such it's impossible to accurately gauge the monetary effect of piracy. Especially considering the study done here in Canada, that said pirates were actually MORE likely (by like 2%) to buy CDs over non-pirates.

As for the pirated version, I'm not going to say I'm not curious to watch it. This is totally the kind of movie where for me, if I did, uh, pirate it, and it turned out to be good, then I would go see it in the theater. Its an action movie, made to be huge and explody on the big screen. If it's shit, I'd rather watch it at home, turn it off when I'm sick of it, and never feel like I wasted the money seeing it / supporting hollywood's idea that movies like that are good. Regardless of your ethical issues with piracy, the continued success of "shit" movies (*cough* paul blartt *cough* the spirit *cough*) will continue the production of them, even if the critic world slams those movies.

Just look at the Meet The Spartans line of films if you don't see credible evidence for that.

For myself, I have pirate. A lot of what I pirate, I then go and see in theatre or go and buy the dvd. On top of that, a lot of movies I have pirated I had never heard of before (case in point, Ryan Reynolds' The Nines, which I waited patiently to buy the day it came out on dvd). Its a mixed bag, with pros and cons, and to simply say that any real movie lover knows it isn't cool is arrogant, Cole. But I don't really want to get off into a whole piracy rant which I seem to have done.

I may watch this. If it makes me want to kill a small orphanage due to character changes, I won't see it in the theatre. If it's good, I will see it in theatre. That being said, if it's a working print and is missing a ton of effects, then no, I won't let it change my opinion. And of course, this is all assuming that I find the time to download it in the next weeks and actually watch it. So don't demonize me just yet.

I think the reason that blogs are so popular is because of the interaction between the audience and the author. We can have in-depth conversations, however joke filled, about the subject. But like you said, that does raise the issue of "us" deciding what is newsworthy, which can lead to the rumour-monging. It can also lead to incredibly frustrating weeks where all that is seeming newsworthy is a video of christian bale getting angry at the workplace.

The blogging world is a mixture of "legitimate" journalism and the office watercooler. I use legitimate in quotation marks because since journalism is an industry, you get bullshit in print media too. You get slights and twists, ignoring that journalism is supposed to be the Fifth Estate.

Print/Radio/TV media looks down at the blogging world because it's new (as Fure said, they have a history of doing this) and because it threatens their livelihood. These are also, sometimes, people who have degrees in journalism or communications, and are uncomfortable with the blogger the same way they'd be uncomfortable with a new anchor/reporter/journalist who has no background and is suddenly in the limelight. Let the ol' crones complain all they want. Keep voicing your opinions, keep the humour coming, and keep interesting news coming and you'll keep me coming back.

Yeah you've got good points, and they could definitely make it work fairly easily, especially with a post-credit clip. Even something simple, like uh, "Deadpool" was part of clone batch based off Wade wilson and everyone else, and the final clip is Reynolds running by Xavier or something the like that. I guess it is good that they have the luxury to work with a fairly open universe where ridiculous is the norm

I don't know about this, Fure. The movie sounds like it would be good, but only if it wasn't an X-men movie. The basic plot structure, intrigue, etc sounds very interesting, but the basic skull fucking of Deadpool sort of tears it apart. I still don't see what the point of turning a 'beloved' character into... whatever this weapon xi is supposed to be, was. They could have easily introduced Wade, had the conflict arise, a fight and wade screwing off, and then Weapon XI just being someone else.

I am going to keep hoping that that's the case, and that 'deadpool' is simply the code name the project uses for Weapon XI.

Hopefully that "10 minutes" is more of a "he's in the movie for the first 1/4, then disappears due to the accident(s), and then is back for the last 1/4", and isn't just Reynolds showing up, cracking 5 lines and then leaving.

Ok, so ToplessRobot has some more info (again)

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/03/the_deadpool_...

Uh, big ass Spoiler Warning. More speculation but this time there's a "guy" on the inside, trying to clear up the mess. I don't know. Anyway, you were warned:

"• Ryan Reynolds shows up for 10 minutes in the beginning of the film. He's part of Stryker's team, and his mutant ability is mostly being a badass with swords, cutting bullets and the like. He is called Wade Wilson during this period.
• Stryker's big plan (or one of 'em) is to make Weapon XI, a mutant with a shit-ton of mutant powers.
• Stryker uses Wilson's body as the mutant power receptacle, and because of the scarring (I'm not sure whether that's from a previous fight, or as a result of all the mutant powers getting packed into him), Weapon XI is played by Scott Adkins. Weapon XI appears for about ten minutes near the film's end, and has the claws seen above (a la Wolverine), Cyclops' optic blast, Wraith's teleportation ability, and Wolverine's healing factor, too. Also, his mouth is indeed sewn shut.
• Just like Weapon X is given the name "Wolverine," Weapon XI is given the name "Deadpool.""