Desipio Message Board

I dragged my fiancee-she's-canadian-you-wouldn't-know-her-we-met-at-niagara-falls to see this on Saturday.  She's never read the source material and despite her unexplainable attraction to me she's got smarts, so I figured she'd be a good gage for how the material translates.

She thought it was "okay."  She said it wasn't the best comic book movie ever, and there wasn't enough occuring on-screen to justify an IMAX experience.  She had expected it to be more visually stunning in the same way that Sin City/300 were, and while the intro part of the movie was in fact totally kick-ass, that sort of thematic art wasn't maintained throughout the course of the movie.

Regarding the intro/recap, she says that if she hadn't read about it in a magazine before we went to see it, then she may not have really understood what they were trying to do with it.

Overall it was a very good movie which was high on the brutal, body-jolting action but lacking a little in the laughs.  I haven't heard how it did over the weekend but it probably would've needed to make 50 million+ to have any shot of breaking even.  The Toronto IMAX theaters were sold out by Friday night, but the regular cinema we went to on Saturday was a little more empty than I would have preferred. 

One other thing -- interestingly, this was the first movie I've seen where they worked really hard to enforce the "nobody under 18" rule.  A lot of kids were carded and denied when trying to get into the theater, even after they'd purchased their tickets.

I wonder if that means that Pennsylvania will get to have bong shops again, too.

Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 05:59:10 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 26, 2009, 04:18:21 PM

Quote from: flannj on February 26, 2009, 03:51:33 PM
I can name others

Pics or it didn't happen.

That guy Fucker standing behind Yeti.
Pictured' and Oleg'd

Same'd.

Quote from: Fork on February 25, 2009, 02:37:17 PM

Quote from: dbal on February 25, 2009, 11:01:35 AM
Oh god, why?

QuoteSharp-eyed BCB reader Beaushek noticed this last night and posted this FanShot, but I wanted to take this space this morning to officially announce that SBN and Yahoo! Sports have partnered to put posts from SBN blogs on team pages at Yahoo.

You can see it this morning at Yahoo's Cubs page -- there is a box with BCB front-page posts prominently featured right below Yahoo's own news headlines.

Has he bragged about this yet? Pretty fast company there.

No way, man.  Some of those blogs are about as savory as a shit sandwich. 

Quote from: Jon on February 25, 2009, 01:05:17 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 01:02:48 PM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 01:01:01 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:56:39 PM
It's mostly that I'm opposed to any law which restricts the Constitution...

And... You lost me.

Huh?

...socialism?

I don't get this conversation at all.

Bewbies?

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 01:01:01 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:56:39 PM
It's mostly that I'm opposed to any law which restricts the Constitution...

And... You lost me.

Huh?

...socialism?

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:38:35 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:24:47 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:18:40 PM
But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.  And what is unfunny is that a shocking number of dopes actually think that way.  Or do you think we should get in the business of passing laws because people can't be trusted enough to make good judgments on their own?

First of all, passing laws isn't a business. I know this because only businesses can create jobs, and the government doesn't create jobs, therefore the government and it's law-passing is not a business.

Second off, congratulations on your cute video game comparison, but I think there's a bit more laptop science behind the assertion that "secondhand smoke is bad for your health" than the assertion that "kids who play violent video games grow up to be Weebs or something else awful." Call me crazy but it's a bit of a reach to imply that someone who supports the smoking ban for health reasons, also supports the government regulating all sorts of other shit.

I'll take it a step further to say that it's a more complicated situation than my green-font post implied.  It's mostly that I'm opposed to any law which restricts the Constitution, and any law which tells me what I can't do on radio, TV, or in video games is restrictive.  However, I actually do think that an inherent jorb of the government is to protect its citizens from threats foreign and domestic.  Large, profit-driven corporations that would cut our throats if it was profitable enough should be seen as a domestic threat.  I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to make a profit, but if a corner you cut jeopardizes the health of your workers and neighbors, then fuck you and your business.  

Tobacco companies for decades have tried to deceive the populace in order to sell more ciagrettes.  I support penalizing them for that.  Personally I've never smoked a cigarette in my life and I don't miss that the restaurants in NY are, by law, smoke free.  But I support exceptions to the rule, and that's what NY has done.  If a bar, restaurant, or business can prove that the loss of smoking has damaged their business, then they have the chance to receive an exemption.  Makes sense to me.  

Regardless of all that, it becomes a slippery slope issue.  It's not ok to smoke in establishments.  Well, I go for walks with my kids at night and I don't want to walk by a group of idiots smoking outside a bar.  So let's ban smoking in public -- make smokers keep their habits at home.  At that point, are we honestly sure that nobody would ever try to ban smoking at home?  Hasn't that already been talked about?  Aw, fuck it.  I really only care that my precious first ammendment not be toyed with and I'll gun down anybody who tries.

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 12:36:01 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:27:54 PM

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:24:47 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:18:40 PM
But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.

I believe Kim du Toit* did.

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/printv/41/

*I like to think this is pronounced "doo twat"

I'd be surprised if that phrase is even that recent, but ::shrugs::  

Quote from: BH on February 25, 2009, 12:30:54 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:27:54 PM
Or do you think we should get in the business of passing laws because people can't be trusted enough to make good judgments on their own?

Depends.

Is this an adult diaper joke?

Quote from: RV on February 25, 2009, 12:24:47 PM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 12:18:40 PM
But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Who are you, Mike North? Also, your sarcasm is, not surprisingly, unfunny.

Please, Mike North didn't coin that phrase.  And what is unfunny is that a shocking number of dopes actually think that way.  Or do you think we should get in the business of passing laws because people can't be trusted enough to make good judgments on their own?

But Yeti, people don't have the ability to make that kind of decision on their own!  From the TV shows they watch, to the radio stations they listen to, to the massive loans they choose to take, to the kinds of food that they choose to eat and the places they eat them in, people have shown us that they are incapable of deciding.  They must be inherently protected!  Why, what if a parent allows their child to play an extremely violent video game, and that kid grows up to be an extremely violent adult?  Clearly we must stop this from happening!  And the only possible option available is to remove the dangerous product from being consumed by a helpless public!  So ban smoking, ban violent video games, ban suggestive tv and radio, and while we're at it let's ban all religions but Christianity and all references of the church from Christmas itself! 

Or in short, let the Pussification of America continue!

Quote from: ChuckD on February 25, 2009, 11:05:31 AM

Quote from: Slakee on February 25, 2009, 10:56:10 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Tank on February 25, 2009, 10:22:08 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Are we to assume you support municipal smoking bans, then, Republican?

You know, as long as the legislation is specific and unambiguous?

That would be a negative, but hell as long as the ACLU and the government is out there to protect "MY" rights, then if I don't want to be subjected to the smell (which is much stronger and smells worse than cigs), then don't they have the *duty* to protect "MY" rights. I mean, I'm an American godammit. They need to make sure I'm not getting my right to clean air infringed on... and while they're at it, I don't want people or symbols fucking offending me.

You're really good at changing your voice from sarcastic to serious in the same argument to make sure that nobody understand what the fuck you're talking about.

And how. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think (hope) a subjective "bad smell" argument is enough to make a case. Maybe I'll sue that Chinese restaurant for smelling up the downtown.

And then what?  We ban the Deep South?

Quote from: Eli on February 25, 2009, 10:52:21 AM

Quote from: Canadouche on February 25, 2009, 10:47:19 AM
Well, we drink our beers at home or in the bars.  We'd smoke our weed at home or in the cafes - like Amsterdam. 

In Canada?

Everywhere!

Quote from: Eli on February 25, 2009, 10:52:21 AM

QuoteUp next, hookers in windows!

Sounds awfully degrading to those women.

You're right.  Maybe they can set up a Bunny Ranch chain instead?

Quote from: IrishYeti on February 25, 2009, 10:15:36 AM
How about this: Where are they going to smoke it? The main reason I don't deal with that shit is because, personally, I think it stinks. Anytime any friends of mine are smoking around me, and I catch wind of it, it truly makes me want to gag. I know there are certain others out there who may love the smell of it, but I, for one, cannot take it. Should I just assume that it's going to be like smoking cigarettes? You can only smoke outside of public buildings? I know I still wouldn't enjoy walking down a street and it smell horribly of marijuana.

Then here's my other angle, when I managed at Steak N Shake (even a fuckwad like me can handle a night shift when I was 18-20) I knew who did and didn't do it. I also knew that on their breaks they'd go out and toke it up. Afterwards, they were less motivated employees in general. So can we expect that businesses will ban the usage during breaks and such? And if so, couldn't the employees claim the business is taking away a right that they have by law? I would expect that some provisions must be in place to prevent that.

Personally, I wouldn't mind pot being legal. I can see the concerns of slippery slopes but I would think the benefits might outweigh the costs. If the legalization turned out to cause more harm, then it may have to be revisited. I just hope that IF lawmakers go down this route they consider many of the different options, and make sure that there is not really too much ambiguity in any piece of legislation. Make it specific and cover many different things to hopefully alleviate many of the possible problems.

Well, we drink our beers at home or in the bars.  We'd smoke our weed at home or in the cafes - like Amsterdam.  Up next, hookers in windows!

I live in a country where it's fairly hard to buy weed ... because those who use it tend to grow their own supply.