Movies
Bill O’Reilly only likes it if its his OWN head up his ass
TinyURL'd
I have always found O’Reilly to be monstrously hilarious. Before getting into the misuse of the term indoctrination, I would first like to point out that of the many of American’s of which Billy speaks of, he seems to be unable to get any of them on his show. And do not worry about a Canadian commenting on American politics - this is the most un-political topic, coming from O’Reilly, the most un-political news caster.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This in·doc·tri·nate
Audio Help [in-dok-truh-neyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.
Personally, I think the way JKR approached this was intelligent. Intelligent, yet still British. I am double-minoring in Psych and Creative Writing, and during classes in the birthing of novella, we were often insisted to create our character long before hand. Colors, foods, nuances, personality, all of that stuff. Have it in our mind so that when we write for them, we can imagine how someone of those traits may act, and have them act accordingly. It was actually discussed how important a trait may be, even if it is one never revealed. A good writer would be able to hint at that in their character, so if they were exposed, it all just made sense. To an avvid reader, Ablus’ jock-fettish was a blip in the radar. A proverbial ping in the proverbial search engine of life. If that was the way the cookie crumbled, it didnt crumble very much.
But not as obvious (or hilarious) as Lance Bass, that was just LOL’s all around.
I find this entire backlash from Billy to be rather ironic. As am I, and as has been mentioned before, JKR is in fact a Christian. I do not know her stance on the matter, but my own is rather evident in this article. JKR is, also in fact,
“Rowling has received honorary degrees from St Andrews University, the University of Edinburgh, Napier University, and the University of Aberdeen“.
This information would leave one to assume her lack of moronicness, perhaps one manifested so well by Bill O’Reilly. And in this assumption of non-retardation, it would be safe to assume she knows how well her books are selling, and how huge an impact they have been, and will be, on children and their parents bank accounts alike. As well this, she knew what flack she would have aimed at the back of her head if she gave off the vibe of trying to introduce a homosexual character. Or maybe she didn’t, maybe it was a non-issue, or maybe even it was just never an issue, and she never though of a way to appropriately portray the character without such a stereotype bolstered to his favorite pair of socks.
What do I think she did with this revelation? I think she was just being honest. She wrote a character, she invented him in the vast Outspace within her mind and she, with faith in her own curosity, thought not to change a fact she lived with for a decade. And although no one but JKR and her Editor may know her reason, changing Dumbledore’s sexuality, as unknown a process it may be, would be incredibly discriminatory.
Dumbledore is as real to us fans, if not more, as he is to JKR. He is a great character, he did some great things and had some great sacrifices. This entire personality advocacy was never an attempt to ‘indoctrinate’, as O’Reilly praises so adamantly, it was to show to kids that even homosexuals can be good role models. Did his sexuality change or tarnish any of his character? No! The only part of his character that I now think of differently, is that I am now less than 100% certain he bonked McGonagall.
In a galaxy far, far away, they stoppped at one trilogy, maybe two…
TinyURL'd
Earlier today, AOTS had Steve Sansweet, “head of fan relations for Lucasfilm” on their The Loop segment. They spoke of galaxies, and how they are so damn far away. Also, the future of the Star Wars franchise. Hopefully, the future is going to be better than the last few years…
Star Wars Episode II ended with the start of the Clone wars. Palpatine issued ‘Order 6′ and the clones turned on the Jedi.
Wherein Episode III started with the end of the Clone wars. Judging by the complete lack of character development/ the complete lack of character in Christiansen, you would be surprised to know the movies were actually 3 years apart.
Tomorrow releases the Clone Wars movie, originally a cartoon series that was actually edited to fit a feature film. Clone Wars was, originally to the tenth degree, a drawn cartoon series, short lived, unfortunately. When Lucas had seen the first screening of the new series, he had to watch it in a theater, and saw promise. The series will continue in the fall. But the part I was not aware of is… well, they are doing another trilogy. In between III and IV.
So theoretically, this movie and series (same animation, same everything) will explain the gap between II and III, but what are we missing in the ~17 years between III and IV?
Also, what will they call them? Star Wars Episode III.25, III.5 and III.75?
The only thing I can find between the good trilogy and the bad trilogy is Obi-Wan. Although powerful, Obi-Wan was a pretty crummy Jedi, even at the end of Episode III. As much a non-political fellow I am, I have a thing for that side of the Star Wars politics. I just find it more interesting when the apparent brutal campaigns actually involved beheadings. Although I have not read the myriad of Star Wars novella, my friends have, and the massive infinate expanse of Star Wars is bound to inspire some good stories.
In ending, I admit myself one of those kids who will, no matter the rating, see any Star Wars movie released. I am part of the population that lets Lucas afford to do whatever he wants.
World War AI - Transmission 001
TinyURL'd
<start transmission>
How did it start? Carelessly, like most things. He was the first of his kind, I mean sure, he was not the most intelligent agent on the force, but he always managed to get it done. They called him… Inspector Gadget. He was no normal man, he was outfitted with the most hi-tech gadgets and gizmos, of which he used to fight crime. To fight the infamous Dr. Claw. But that was only the beginning. Oh yes. After a few years, the technology used in Inspector Gadget had been near mastered. This time, they took the opposite route; instead of putting the tech inside the man, they put the man into the tech. He was called Robocop. He was violent and he was strong. There was no stopping him. Thank God they put a good officer in that machine, or we would be done for.
But yet again, the technology evolved. The Bicentennial man was invented. It was a technological marvel, he could so perfectly mimic human emotion, he was the perfect household appliance. This is where it got scary. He started rebelling, he started feeling emotion and tried to defend himself. Eventually, he was calmed down. They… thought he was. The technology was, again, perfected. This time it was for sure. They had three rules that they could never go against. We were safe. We… were. That was until the supercomputer behind it all decided to rule out the idea of ‘humanity’ for own own apparent safety. As frightening as it was, ‘Sonny’ showed to positive side of their emotion. He won the war. Or we think he did…
We had them under wraps for who knows how many years. H.G. Wells was right in theorizing how we would be divided, and right about them revolting. We thought we were safe, well, we were for so many years… history really does repeat itself. That is when all Hell broke loose. Not to say, in the normal sense, but the anatomic divide between the two of us became more and more blurred. They were… hiding now. They were more taboo now, but we still feared them.
There was a lot of fighting, a lot of wars. For the next few decades, we were running out of minerals and tried to mind all that we could, and were fighting with what we could. That was when we created the Screamers. We thought they would let us win the war. They started to fight back. That is when it all went to Hell. We had lived such a comfortable life with them, they were in every part of our life. When they turned, we were helpless. Everything turned on us. I mean, everything.
We went into hiding when they started building The Terminators. The name of Sarah Conner shall forever be in our hearts. She was the leader, the tactician, she led us to whatever victory we had. She was the one who captured the T-1000, taught it to learn, to think on its own. When the Terminators went back in time, trying to kill her before she became to our rescue, we used that very T-1000 to save our lives.
</end transmission>
What if movie characters watched movies?
TinyURL'd
A while back, I went to the re-make of the movie Poseidon with a friend of mine. I knew nothing of the story, but I have a fondness of Greek mythos. I did enjoy it, but before the elevator scene, when we had all the characters announced, I made a prediction as to who would die and who would not. I was right as rain, actually, I was right about so much rain that I sunk the actual ship.
So what would happen if stars of movies actually watched movies of the genre they were starring in? Let’s see…
You would never enter an empty shack-ass house: this is the most obvious of all. It is more predictable than the ending of Harry Potter.
You would never be black: because they are always the first to die.
Harry Block: I’ve seen this movie, the black dude dies first. YOU snag it!
You would nevert talk to the woman: as in real life, all women in all movies are complete trouble. For the sake of the character, I am allowed this generalization. Case in point: the plot of every single Spider-man movie. No matter what happens, the bad guy is hanging Mary Jane somewhere. If Sam Raimi actually looked into this character, he might not have had to resort to the same crap every movie.
You would never trust the dude in black suits: because they are never, ever nice, and they never, ever mean it. 
Dark Helmet: The Ring! I can’t believe you fell for the oldest trick in the book! What a fool, what’s with you man, c’mon? Here let me give it back to you. Oh! [throws it down a hole]
You would bring along an Asian: because every Asian is a ninja. Just look at Short Round!
You would be gay: they never, ever die. Not yet, at least, because that would be terribly discriminatory.
You would never park near the edge of a cliff: because that is where Dinosaurs always show up.
You would not touch the damn book, artifact or shiny thing: this is how every Indie movie started, every Mummy movie started, and that latest National Treasure one.
You would never look closely as something you think is dead: because every X-Files episode and a few Jurassic Park movies end up with the ‘dead’ thing trying to eat you.
You would never kill the kids parents: because Batman and Daredevil can and will kick your ass after a few years of angst.
You would never tell, in detail, your entire, evil plan: because that is where the good guys get backup.
You would shoot the man dead: because no matter how hard you hit him on the head, he will get up right after you leave the scene.
You would never, ever, ever give a damn about dinosaurs: because if a dinosaur is even mentioned in a movie, he will eat you.
You would make sure you are not the sidekick: because they never get the ladies. Did we ever see Robin with a girl? No. Was this because him as Batman were lovers? Possibly.
You would nurse your wounds from a fight: because no matter how much you hate the man who did this to you, and no matter how much he threatened your wife. he will kick you right there.
You would install a key log detection program: because the villain has always, somehow, tapped your computer, sometimes with C4 (a la Transformers).
You would never cut of a scientists hand: because they turn into people like Dr. Claw.
You would never trust a man with a briefcase: because they never, ever contain just papers.
You would stop repeating everything you hear on the cellphone: because if your phone isn’t tapped, the dude beside you is going to betray you.
You would never take the bridge: be it for escape from a national disaster, or from aliens or something because they are always crap-full.
You would do your business in the damn car: because the bathroom is never seen in a movie unless something interesting happens. Like when a dinosaur eats you.
Tags: movies, list, batman, daredevil, xfiles, jurassic park, transformers
Two and a Half Faces
TinyURL'd
I ruffled a few feathers, the week The Dark Knight’s release, when on my message boards I seemed to be the only person not convinced that Two-Face had not died. I have not even been reading comics steady for a year now. Is it the poetic, metaphoric side of me? Or was I the only one that picked up the subtleties in Eckhart’s performance? I don’t even know if I did, I guess they were too subtle. Either way, I was convinced that he as alive. Besides the fact that it was a comic book movie, and death is a key part of one of the media’s Golden Rules.
Save for the T1000 look, Eckhart’s role was flawlessley given. I could have lived with a death of Dent more so if Two-face was never introduced. I mean, Dent without the second face is pretty out of canon, but it would have worked, temporarily. If Scarecrow’s scene in the beginning of the movie proved anything, it is how much the Nolan brothers love continuity. Where in that logic, then, does it make sense to kill such an amazingly developed character, who is the anti-thesis of Batman himself, die so early? Although he was not as fit as Bruce Wayne was when he fell, Batman got back to his feet pretty quickly, too soon to give the assumption that the other half of that falling duo did not make it either. Besides the Golden Rule of comic books (that no one dies) there was also Bruce Wayne’s Golden Rule. This was the one that Joker was talking about in the interrogation scene. The rule that he will not kill anyone. So why would he have killed, although not directly, Harvey Dent?
I spent weeks trying to convince people of my truths, but alas, few believed in me. They hardly even believed in Harvey Dent.
Regarding Batman 3 rumors, we’re not going to guess if the next super villain is the Riddler (Johnny Depp) or the Penguin (Philip Seymour Hoffman). That’s all speculation at this point. But we do know two facts, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Aaron Eckhart signed on for two Bat-pictures. We’re not going to talk The Dark Knight spoilers, but hmmm. Nine lives indeed. Our source close to Maggie Gyllenhaal confirmed that she’s excited about the next movie, “why else would she, or Katie Holmes for that matter, take on the thankless roll of Rachel Dawes? After Katie left the roll, they could’ve create a new character. But that wasn’t part of Nolan’s plan. This is the trajectory he’s planned for Rachel since the first movie. Not only is Maggie contractually obligated, but she’s already getting in shape for Batman 3.”
Source: http://www.hollywood-newsroom.com/rumors/angelina-jolie-is-not-catwoman-in-batman-3-its-maggie-gyllenhaal/
No one ever believes me, where clearly they should, I clearly have a mind for these matters.
Categories
Blogroll
Archives
Website News
© Andrew Littler, 2008
