Find Me On:
I have secured @ShitZooeySays and welcome submissions.
This movie is going in the top of my list.
Topher “graces” the back page of the newest Maxim, explaining (in comedic, likely ghost-written fashion) how he’d spend his last day on earth. I have two copies. They will go to the highest bidder.
WTF is this show? Is this real? Or did reality just get punk’d? Back to my cave.
I do work for Goldman Sachs, and I’m long on Stephen Baldwin. (wink) In a volatile but bullish market like this, you really want to diversify your Baldwin portfolio. Those of you with a higher tolerance for risk can put your money in Stephen’s ministries (shoebox under his bed), expecting a pretty hefty return when he’s restored — like perhaps, I don’ t know, eternal salvation? If you’re looking for a dependable but slow growth Baldwin, stick with Alec; if you’re ready to risk everlasting paradise, always bet on Stephen.
Yahoo Money signing off.
The real question is WHEN is the hot dog thinking.
ARGH! “Satire” and “parody” are two different words! Signifying different concepts!
Can we find some common ground here on the question of whether Kick-Ass (I’ll stick with the comic, having not watched the movie) actually “subverts” anything? Changing the motivation for vigilante violence doesn’t seem to really subvert the central allure of many superhero stories, which is precisely that violence. Just because your main characters wear costumes doesn’t automatically make the movie any more subversive than, say, Death Wish or any of the Dirty Harry movies.
Apologies for needing some clarification on terms like “subversive” and “satire.” I keep reading how Lady Gaga is a “subversive satire of subversiveness,” which has ruined all of those words for me.
Is it really a “satire” of comic books? I’ve not seen the movie yet, but the comic book source material doesn’t strike me as particularly satirical. They seem rather like Mark Milar doing what he’s always done: grotesque hyper-violence and naughty language. (He does other things, granted, but between this and Wanted…) Anyway, satirizing comic books by turning their typical violence up to 11 seems a pretty lazy way to make a….point?
I now accept your hurled tomatoes.
I see what you did there.
Cogent and true, PoliticallyNeutralDog. Writing more clearly I would have said something like: the many-worlds interpretation originated in quantum theory, so, since it pre-dates string theory, QT gets dibs. Of course, science has yet to explain how there can be different colored phones.
The multi-verse interpretation came out of quantum theory, not string theory, amirite? Hi, this is the Popular Science forum, also too?
This comment is even better if you read it as “What, your business cards aren’t made out k-nives?”
You could, if you wanted, check your eyes at the door, given where we’re going.