gdp's Comments

Big Hollywood : Left and Right Unite Against Hollywood's Failed SOPA Overreach

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 04:08:42 +0000

The second word of SOPA is "Online". This has nothing to do with printing out your photos. Let's not start flinging poop on a crap bill just because no one will notice the change of smell.

Big Hollywood : Casey Anthony: The Burden of Proof in a 'Law and Order' World

Sat, 9 Jul 2011 08:07:40 +0000

Totally nailed it. I'm tired of everyone pointing to the fact that she didn't tell the police as evidence she killed the child. It could have been an accident - she wanted her child quiet and gave her too much chloroform. Or she could have been sick and she was just neglectful and let her die. Or Casey could have suffocated the child with a pillow... or... A hundred different possibilities... all with various levels of punishment that would be attached to the crime. But none of them were proven. The Legal System worked here as it should. Yes she "got off"... but don't pretend for one second Casey Anthony is going to live the "good life" anytime soon.

Big Hollywood : Interview: Has Morgan Spurlock Made a Doc Conservatives Might Appreciate?

Sun, 15 May 2011 17:39:26 +0000

I think Spurlock is making almost a meta-point for anyone that is against product placement in movies. He made this movie entirely on the monetary backs of advertisers... So therefore without ad money, the movie wouldn't exist. Carry it further - without ad money, the talk shows he goes on would not exist. Corporate advertising is the BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR to the arts in America - we wouldn't have the amount of free media we have today if it were funded in some way by ad money from large corporations. And then to be surprised that when ad folks have strings attached to that money?? C'mon Spurlock, maybe you and other "artists" have been living outside the real world. Wealthy patrons always have strings attached to their dough. Michaelangelo only wanted to sculpt, but the Pope commissioned the Sistine Chapel Ceiling to be painted. You gotta do want the money tells you to do. Nothing's changed. That said, I'm interested in seeing this. They show how the sausage is made - but that's not going to make me stop craving sausages.

Big Hollywood : Stephen Colbert to Michael Moore: You Got Some Coin, the Hat Doesn't Fool Anyone'

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:31:39 +0000

Me thinks Moore has taken up trolling to the mass media. He shows the classic behavior... don't think anything through and just throw out the same lines and see what lulz you can pull off.

Big Hollywood : Video: Comedian Explains Why You Can't Mock Obama

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:55:30 +0000

C'mon guys - are you so dense you can't spot such an obvious troll?

Big Hollywood : 'Battle: Los Angeles': A Day on the Set With the Writer, Director, and the United States Marines

Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:59:11 +0000

I watched your audition tape Tom, I totally see why you got the part. Excellent!

Big Hollywood : Tsunami Humor: Are We Becoming a Humor Intolerant Nation?

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:35:45 +0000

I think the sensitivity that people call for is not for the victims but for people that were unaffected and feel like they need to show some sort of emotion in order not to appear crass. If I lost someone, the last thing I would care about is some tweet from a comedian. But really it comes to intent. A joke to cheer up is different than a joke to tear down. Sometimes the distinction is not easy to determine, but it's important. And truth be told, I've been in situations where I was a tears only to be helped with a terrible joke.

Big Hollywood : Tsunami Humor: Are We Becoming a Humor Intolerant Nation?

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:25:35 +0000

Have you seen their game shows? Seriously, I can totally understand why Aflac had to cook Gottfried's goose... but outside of the business of it, I find nothing wrong with Gottfried's statements. I am half Asian and spent my early life on that side of the Pacific. I'm not going to make grand sweeping stereotypes about Asian cultures... but why not? We're already doing it. Asian culture is so much less obsessed with political correctness then the west is. And as far as bad taste in humor... the Asians have a good lead on the west.

Big Hollywood : 'Glee' Trashes & Stereotypes Conservatives, Wins GLAAD Award for Tolerance

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:02:28 +0000

Problem with that is this whole "courageous" moniker really is just trying to appeal to young adults who are in the midst of "rebelling" against their parents - there's nothing "courageous" about it. Going against the square traditionalist parents/teachers/authority figures is an easy way to look and act young in our youth obsessed culture. I really believe that a big majority of people that are passive viewers of these shows have never really confronted their own line of thinking beyond what pop culture presents them.

Big Hollywood : Tsunami Humor: Are We Becoming a Humor Intolerant Nation?

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:57:53 +0000

I love Gilbert Gottfried with a passion. When I read those tweets listed in the article, I LOLed... But Aflac is an insurance company and the reality is insurance companies have to deal with tragedies all the time. This is something they should have known when hiring Gottfried in the first place. This is Gottfried's way of dealing with the big incomprehensible tragedies in life - to cut them down in size and steal their power over us. In many ways, it's my way of dealing with things too. I think most normal functioning adult can identify the difference between bad taste jokes (and they work because of the bad taste) and hateful comments.

Big Hollywood : 'Funny or Die' Drops the Politics With Charlie Sheen Cooking Show and Achieves ... Funny

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:38:50 +0000

2011 started out as the year of the rabbit but it's becoming the year of the Tiger Blood. I think this might prove that Charlie is in on the joke himself - and if that's the case, well done. I'll go along for the ride Let's hope he can put the rest of his life back together.

Big Hollywood : Off With the Heads of Hollywood's Misguided 'Royalty Genre'

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:03:16 +0000

And Sea World is in San Diego ;)

Big Hollywood : Redford's Eco-Hypocrisy Exposed in Short Film 'Hypocrite'

Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:23:27 +0000

That's the name of the piece!! Tons of reasonably priced royalty free recordings available (maybe $40-80), they need not resort to this synthy sounding thing

Big Hollywood : Redford's Eco-Hypocrisy Exposed in Short Film 'Hypocrite'

Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:22:13 +0000

I personally think any environmentalist that extreme is a hypocrite. If carbon was such a toxic pollutant, they should just take a leap off a bridge and help fertilizer our oceans. But man... that "Trailer" was a piece of crap. I'm a self employed filmmaker, but even the average viewer has see it for what it is. Cheesy muzak (royalty free versions of that piece by orchestras have to be available)... and I kept waiting them to do something with that fog at the bottom of the screen...

Big Hollywood : Today's Open Thread

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:50:46 +0000

And the fact is we can't become people who only support those who agree with us politically 100%. If we do, we become just like those we fight against.

Big Hollywood : A Biblical Tutorial for Bill Maher

Mon, 31 Jan 2011 05:06:55 +0000

I derive my premises based on my observations. It's obvious you're not even reading what I write anymore or trying to understand what I'm typing because I'm addressing your points one by one. And then the points your bring up lack any evidence behind them - just sort of fanciful fact wishing. My premises may be false, but they fit my observations - and more importantly - they lead to verifiable predictions. I've already tried to explain multiverses and how it has nothing to do with your hypothesis. I don't mean to be rude but if you knew the history of the theory of multiverses or even some of its ideas you'd get that. I think you mean multiple planets and galaxies. And that we have pretty good evidence for. And I'll go back to my lotto winner analogy - despite the astronomical odds against winning the jackpot - someone does. Any highly improbable event will occur eventually. And the other end of the train of though is... if the our planet didn't have the right specs - we wouldn't be here to discuss the merits of the probability. Probability of the past is useless - once you roll snake eyes, it's probability in the past is 1:1 - it happened for sure. There's no use in discussing the probability of rolling that combination in the past - only in how often it will occur again. As far as needing a designer - here's where I (where I find my belief lies) and the creationists disagree. Creationists want to put the designer much further down the road of life. That creatures where designed as end products. I believe the designer designed the system (the physical world with it's laws and the inevitable system we call evolution) that led to us. For a God that could create this system that leads to my conscious through an infinitely long series of events - however seemingly improbable - that to me is an awe inspiring evidence of an all-knowing God.

Big Hollywood : A Biblical Tutorial for Bill Maher

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:34:16 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know enough about quantum mechanics but the way they tell it to the layman, it sounds like the fingerprints of God. Just saying I don't think there's a contradiction to accept science believe in God.

Big Hollywood : A Biblical Tutorial for Bill Maher

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:30:29 +0000

Yep http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilforma...

Big Hollywood : A Biblical Tutorial for Bill Maher

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:26:07 +0000

How is a protein which is a conglomeration of amino acids less sophisticated than a Sherman Tank? You mentioned the experiment in which inorganic material from primordial earth was mixed and a "lightning spark" added. The result of that experiment was the creation of basic amino acids - the building blocks of proteins and life. From there you get self replicating RNA molecules which eventually leads to DNA and more advanced life. And this argument of mathematical improbability? Unless the Earth is 6000 years old, this is patently ridiculous. To go back to the shaking model concept: You don't just have one person shaking that box. The mixing of amino acids is going on in every single gallon of sea water in every single ocean on the surface of the earth. That's billions of tries every year. And then it happens on every single planet with water in the universe. Those are some serious zeros. So despite being improbable, it can still happen and given enough time - it will happen. It's like saying winning the lotto is highly improbable, but there are still lotto winners. And like I wrote before, we wouldn't be discussing if it didn't happen... so its a non-argument. And now with multiverses. It is a scientific theory to try to explain some of the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Some times when a quantum particle is expected to be in one place, will end up in another place. The theory (which is one of several competing theory) states that when a quantum event occurs where there are two possible outcomes, the universe splits into two with two possible outcomes. Making the leap from multiverse to protein creation does not really make sense. A lot of the assumptions you are making about these sciences come from a really weak grounding in basic sciences. Those creationist "science" sites aren't helping as they throw out whatever doesn't fit their world view. I would highly suggest picking up some material on the history of science so you can understand how we got to where we are now - It is a long journey that even the church itself has been an active participant

Big Hollywood : A Biblical Tutorial for Bill Maher

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:57:00 +0000

The model shaking analogy doesn't work because of two primary reasons. First of all the Sherman tank is a "final design" and evolution does not have a final "goal" (if you want to argue that God does, that's fine, but evolution does not). Evolution does not say, "I'm going to make a human now" and then neatly change the species to become human. Instead, life exists the best it can - and copes with the environment. There are some branches along the way that don't make and others that do extremely well. Secondly, that Sherman Tank model doesn't work because Tanks is not capable of self replication or reproduction (if they were that'd be totally awesome!). Reproduction IS the mechanism of change - not randomness. But... and I'll play through your thought experiment once... let's say the model of the Sherman Tank was really a pair of dice. And to create that tank, it would be equivalent of rolling a die to get a six, not just once, but 100 times in a row. The chances of rolling a six is 1/6, 2 sixes is 1/36, and so on till you get 1/6^100 or 1/6.53318624 × 10^77 (6 with seventy seven zeros after it). But now you have an infinite amount of tries. Well with infinite tries, anything that can happen, will eventually happen. It's a mathematically certainty. And lets say that tank is a human being. We can stand back and marvel at how statistically improbable it was to get here, but the fact of the matter is IT DID happen already. And if it DIDN'T happen, then we wouldn't be here to marvel at the statistical improbability. So probability has nothing to do with it. It happened and here we are. Perhaps now would be a good time to quote Einstein (even though he was wrong), "God does not play dice." Einstein was wrong... but maybe those dice are loaded.