Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
What movie are you looking forward to most in 2002?
Indianpendence Day 8%
Jews 41%
Communistic Tendencies 8%
Poultrygeist 4%
The Stang 0%
Ei8ht 25%
Apocalypse Tomorrow 8%
The White Stuff 4%
Pattoon 0%

Votes: 24

 Looking Forward: Cinema in 2002

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 19, 2002
 Comments:
Every time the ball drops in Times Square and we usher in yet another New Year, there are lots of things to look forward to. Pundits speculate about what the coming year will bring in the realms of politics, sports, science, and technology. But perhaps the most highly-anticipated events of the coming year are those that eminate from Tinseltown. Americans (and people all around the world) have always been captivated by the magic of the cinema, and we are understandably curious. Already, plenty of "best movies of 2001" lists have been released; the AFI Film Awards for 2001 were held on January 5th. We've had lots of looks back at the year behind us, but what's ahead for 2002?

Adequacy.org has a sneak preview.

cinema

More stories about Cinema
Review: Jurassic Park III
Review: Planet of the Apes
Rock Star: Headbanging Nights
Shrek: the greatest basest fairy tale never ever told
Monsters Incorporated: Film Review and Merchandise Buyer's Guide.
Not just harmless fun
America - Land of the free ? Or home of the DEPRAVED ?
Anakin Loses a Hand
The New Faust

More stories by
gbd

On the Establishment of a Palestinian State
The Evil of Harry Potter
Please Don't Kill Osama Bin Laden
Review: Saint Luke's Christmas Eve Candlelight Service
We Need Creationism In Our Schools
Full Frontal Rudity
America is Better than God
2002 promises to be a rich cinematic year with much to offer fans of all film genres. If you're looking for compelling dramas, dark film noir, big-budget special effects blockbusters, sappy romances, or side-splitting comedies, chances are that your favorite director has something cooking.

Here's a list of 2002's most eagerly-awaited films:

  • INDIANPENDENCE DAY - A compelling look at the Battle of Little Big Horn, told from the viewpoint of the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians that participated in it. History books typically portray this battle as the worst disaster in American military history, but Native American lore treats it as a decisive (but brief) show of Indian power. Director Roland Emmerich aptly commands his actors, and Wilford Brimley plays a convincing General Custer. Look for spectacular battle scenes that put "Gladiator", "Braveheart", and "Good Will Hunting" to shame; the film's special effects team will be stretching CG visual effects to their limits.

  • JEWS - Steven Spielberg directs this action thriller about a man-eating rabbi that is terrorizing innocent bathers on a New York resort island. The all-star cast includes Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and the late Robert Shaw. Scheider's character is a Unitarian minister that is initially terrified of Judiasm, but as the film progresses he manages to put his fears aside and prepare himself for a climactic final showdown to end the terror once and for all. Produced by Richard Zanuck and David Brown, this film promises to be one of the biggest money-makers of 2002.

  • COMMUNISTIC TENDENCIES - Harrison Ford once again assumes the role of Jack Ryan, Tom Clancy's cloak-and-dagger action hero. The film, directed by Phillip Noyce, is said to center around a suspenseful plot involving a possible defection by the Secretary of Defense to the Democratic party. As is typical, Ford's character gets too close to the truth and finds himself under a hailstorm of bullets from Democrat thugs; his wife and daughter are kidnapped by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and the film builds to an explosive conclusion.

  • POULTRYGEIST - Directed by Tobe Hooper (of "Aliens" fame), this sci-fi horror film promises to deliver loads of scares. The plot revolves around chicken farmer Freve Steeling and the turmoil that his family goes through when a malevolent demon kidnaps his youngest daughter and pulls her over to the "other side." Though it appears that the situation is hopeless, things get resolved when munchkin-like Zelda Rubenstein shows up, sacrifices a gross of chickens, and captures the evil poultry demon in a Holy Omelette, which results in little Carol Anne Steeling being delivered back to the Earthbound plane.

  • THE STANG - "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" co-stars Robert Redford and Paul Newman pair up once again in a film directed by George Roy Hill. Redford and Newman play a couple of low-grade con men who are out to cheat a reclusive billionaire out of his candy-apple red 1964-1/2 Ford Mustang convertible. "The Stang" promises to deliver all of the exciting poker-playing antics of "Rounders" combined with all of the exciting car chase scenes of "Citizen Kane."

  • EI8HT - David Fincher directs Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman in the gut-wrenching sequel to the crime thriller "Se7en." When a woman named Jan is found murdered, Freeman's character (Detective Somerset) is suspicious. But when another woman named Marsha is discovered dead, Somerset is convinced: there is a madman out to kill people who share the names of the eight members of the Brady Bunch. It's up to Pitt and Freeman to track the psychopath down and stop him before he finishes his gruesome masterpiece.

  • APOCALYPSE TOMORROW - While we're on the subject of sequels, we would be remiss not to mention Francis Ford Copolla's highly-anticipated followup to his 1979 masterpiece "Apocalypse Now." The original film starred Martin Sheen as Captain Willard, who was on a mission to kill a murderous and mutinous Colonel Kurtz (played by Marlon Brando) in Vietnam. The sequel takes place during the Gulf War, and Sheen and Brando reprise their original roles. Kurtz, who is inexplicably still alive, now wears a hockey mask and wields a machette; he slices and dices his way through countless nubile and sex-starved Iraqi teens before Willard is finally able to hit him with a sledgehammer, run over him with an ammo truck, electrocute him in a bathtub with a curling iron, and shoot him 29 times. Fans of the series will be delighted to learn that production for "Apocalypse Next Year" will commence in June 2002 in Afghanistan.

  • THE WHITE STUFF - Philip Kaufman's epic three-and-a-half hour-long tour de force follows the career of seven white supremacists who start off as obscure, small-time activists and end up winning the hearts and minds of Americans as the Original Seven founding members of the Ku Klux Klan. Hailed by film critic Jeff Craig as "this generation's 'Birth of a Nation'", the film is already expected to be a huge contender at the 2003 Academy Awards. The film stars Ed Harris, Scott Glenn, Dennis Quaid, Fred Ward, Sam Shepard, Lance Henriksen, and many other recognizable Caucasian actors.

  • PATTOON - There's no question that war movies are among the most compelling pieces of entertainment that Hollywood has ever produced; Franklin Schaffner's "Patton" and Oliver Stone's "Platoon" are two shining examples of combat masterpieces. However, there's also no question that Americans are becoming increasingly busy, and most simply do not have the time to sit down and watch two movies that are each three hours long. For this reason, director Alan Smithee has undertaken an ambitious project; starting with the original screenplays and storyboards for both of the movies, Smithee plans to take the two films and create a final product that combines the strengths of both with none of their weaknesses. George C. Scott plays a controversial and multi-dimensional general who commands the Second Armored Division on a bizarre odyssey from the deserts of Northern Africa to the jungles of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Ultimately, Scott's character flaws prove to be his undoing; he curses at a soldier with a self-inflicted wound and ends up being killed by his own men. This will be an excellent opportunity to allow busy Americans to enjoy both of these classic films without being forced to sit still for six (!) total hours.

I think that you'll agree that there is a lot to look forward to in cinema for 2002. 2001 was on the whole a rather drab year, "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter" notwithstanding. This year promises to be much spicier, and that is a Good Thing (TM). Adequacy.org will, as always, keep you informed as to the latest releases and review them as appropriate. Happy moviegoing!

       
Tweet

Another one for you (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 03:02:14 AM PST
Battle Of The 51st State. Following the sucess of U571 where a British raid on U boat to capture an Enigma machine was rewritten into an American only operation, the screen writers have another shot of rewriting history...

It's 1940 and the Luftwaffe is bombing the UK. Stirred by FDR's speech 'We shall fight them on beaches, we shall never surrender etc...', a rebellious Hank Wankstaff (Tom Cruise) joins a Mustang squadron based in Middle Wallop known as the 'Top Gunners'. Single handley he fight off the whole of Luftwaffe whilst persuing a local Ukian country wench (Penelope Cruz). Comic relief is provided by his best friend, a cockney stereotype (Dick Van Dyke).


or another one (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 03:58:15 PM PST
or howabout another instance of rwriting history. Since none of the Americans that I talked to seem to acknoledge the fact that Canada burned the whitehouse to the ground. "The War of 1812", after killing helpless communist Canadians the American infantry descended on Toronto and burned the parliment buildings to the ground. hehe


Erm (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 04:15:01 PM PST
So we Brits have done a major 'U571' work of historical revisionism as we claim that glorious military moment as our own.

I think it was a joint credit, don't you?


but (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 06:29:53 PM PST
The americans had absolutely nothing to do with capturing the first one. That was the one that was depicted in the movie



 
That was a shameful act ... (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 06:38:40 PM PST
Since none of the Americans that I talked to seem to acknoledge the fact that Canada burned the whitehouse to the ground.

of aggression perpetrated by Kanada. How imperialistic to invade a country and set flame to its national monuments! Most poeple in the US, contrary to what you have found, will NEVER forgive that treachery! And here we have you vaunting about it!!


ha! (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 05:28:11 PM PST
What! You rguys can't finish what you started. In 1812 you felt that you wanted to "Liberate" the people of Canada by invading us. Well as it turns out we were quite happy as we were. When you decided to come over here we got kinda pissed because you invaded our country and all so we go and burn down the whitehouse. I don't give a shit whether you forgive canada or not. We don't want to be forgiven. We are quite proud of kicking your ass.


 
Proof that America is slipping downhill (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by jer on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 07:58:55 AM PST
We've come a very long way in the past 80 years. Technological revolutions, modern-day marvels that our grandparents couldn't even begin to imagine, and yet what do we have to show for it?

A decayed society based upon loose morals and lousy judgment.

It's time to place the blame where it belongs: popular media. It seems as though each week, several new motion-pictures, or "movies" as they're called in some circles, are released. Each feature big-name stars, lots of special effects; and of course, the things which pander to our most base emotions: gravitations sex and wanton violence. A noted researcher, M. Jane Honeycott, a professor at UC Berkley, published a study in 1999 which states "our children are exposed to, on average, 5 minutes of wanton violence per movie, and 2.5 minutes of gratuitous sexual contact."

As parents, we cannot be expected to devote all our time in watching our children's every move and managing every aspect of their lives; so we must turn to the solution which will benefit America as a whole -- a return to the simplistic values which made America so great in the 1940's and 1950's. Movies such as Mary Poppins, The Wizard of Oz, and Sleeping Beauty should be sterling examples of what constitutes American movies. Whenever I hear of movies like "American Beauty", and "Lord of the Rings", I cannot help but think of sex and violence-fests -- given to us by a Hollywood community hell-bent on corrupting our children, and even ourselves.

We are Americans. We must return to the righteous Christian society we once were. If we don't, all these technological marvels will mean nothing when they're buried under thousands of works of smut and violence.

Thank you.


Absolutely! (none / 0) (#16)
by Sexy Gallis on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 02:37:11 PM PST
Every day of my life, I sit here eating these wonderfully fried concoctions, so aptly named "potato chips." I absolutely adore them.

Every day of my life, I also witness the decline of the great U.S. of A. as we know it. First the Canadians whupping our collective asses in the War of 1812 and a downward spiral since then that's as obvious as a nipple on a horse's ass.

But you already knew that, so let me digress into an unfortunate incident involving my sweet teen cousin and the Belzebub bled-needling, Famous Players.

Now I don't usually like to swear, since that just ain't right - but in this case, forgive me. The affair is just too close to my heart.

Late last Tuesday, my pouting teen cousin (oh she is indeed a beauty) went to see Lord of the Rings with 2 of her sweet teen friends. As the raven haired beauty walked to the counter to purchase tickets, she was turned away by Famous Players staff, because the sick sick movie was rated AA!

In any case, she dutifully tried to bribe the staff member, but only received the comment "Get lost, bitch."

She was forced to wait outside in the freezing cold, and it was there that the Famous Players multimedia chain outlet shone upon the world and displayed its true colours.

A group of thug gangsta G-boys suddenly swarmed the children, oh the poor children, and stole their money, and left them alone only after they had finished their groping! I WILL FUCKING KILL THREM!!!

WHY did this unfortunate incident happen? Because of the evils of AA ratings and sick bestiality inducing movies like Lord of the Rings.


well (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 04:06:22 PM PST
wow you are the first american i have talked to, to to admit that we burned the whitehouse down. Congradulations, you have partially dissolbev my feelings against americans. However i am forced to disagree with you. The reason that your cousin was turned away to go see lord of the rings is because it is rated AA. This is to prevent your cousins young (and impressionable) mind from witnessing and imitating the violence seen here. Lord of the Rings was a great movie, it was a near exact replica of the book (with a few minor parts changed such as the whole area around bree). The book did, however have alot of violence in it. If the people who made the movie were to cut out this violence it would detract from the overall movie going experiance. I am not saying this because I enjoy the violence in that movie however if it were to be cut the movie would only vaugley resemble the book as in so many movies that were books first.


Lord of the Rings is NOT TRUE to the BOOK! (none / 0) (#22)
by Sexy Gallis on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 06:02:34 PM PST
As 77-year-old Christopher Tolkien knows, the movie is shit. He should know, he is the eldest child of J.R.R. Tolkien and oversaw the Tolkien empire for many years.

You admit that you haven't even read the book, so what absolves you of that need if you are to compare the book with the movie?

Children...

Tolkien is a well-known purveyor of bestiality in any case.


Blatent appeal to authority. (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 04:42:50 PM PST
So the movie is shit because Christoper Tolkien says so eh? Having both seen the movie and read the trilogy three times over the past 8 years, I reckon that the film is as close to the book as Hollywood could ever manage to get. They skipped out significant parts to be sure, such as Tom Bombadil, lots of Elrond/Gladriel and a large chunk of the dialogue (like the tension between Legalos & Glimli, which is only hinted at in a few lines towards the end of the movie). They also made the ending go on a bit into "Return of the King", probably just so it would be a "happy ending". Despite those flaws, the movie isnt bad. It serves well as a companion to the book and definatly brings it all to life, so to speak.

Oh, and I read his post very closely, but nowhere did I see him admit to never having read the book. Care to point that out for me?

--
Nick
Hurm, headache...


Important points in this Era of Degenerates (none / 0) (#38)
by Sexy Gallis on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 10:15:31 AM PST
>It serves well as a companion to the book and definatly brings it all to life, so to speak.

1) It IS NOT NEWS that movies based on books usually bear only a faint
resemblance to those books. No one over the age of five should be
surprised when this happens.

2) It IS NOT NEWS when a movie gets things wrong. Factual stuff which
I've been told movies _always_ get wrong includes: airplane interiors and
exteriors never belong to the same model. Birdsongs are inappropriate
(desert birds in rain forests, for example). Plants bloom and are in
other stages of growth inappropriate for the season


>So the movie is shit because Christoper Tolkien says so eh?

Children can be so mean at times, as you'll gladly admit. No, the movie is shit because it induces young children to mob and abuse others.



 
I disagree (none / 0) (#17)
by budlite on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 03:37:14 PM PST
American Beauty - rated 18 here inthe UK. Small chance of any kids seeing it.

Lord of the Rings: PG - the parent decides whether the child is allowed to watch it.

Odd how you seemed to pick out examples of films aimed more at mature audiences rather than kids films in a post arguing the case to reduce the amount of sex and violence in kids films.

Exposure to sex isn't something you can completely protect from. I'm pretty sure most kids have woken up in the night feeling ill or having had a bad dream, wanting their parents, and have inadvertantly walked in on their parents engaged in sexual activities. I'd be hard pushed to name one person who hasn't been exposed to violence at school, either dishing it out, being on the receiving end or just observing. I've been in all those situations (although the only times I've been violent myself was in retaliation and self defence). We've got to teach kids the way life works somehow, and if it's not through movies and other poular culture, then how else can we?


The problem is self-evident (none / 0) (#21)
by jer on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 04:16:45 PM PST
Odd how you seemed to pick out examples of films aimed more at mature audiences rather than kids films in a post arguing the case to reduce the amount of sex and violence in kids films.

Of course. The majority of films released in the 90's and in the 2000's are adult films. The majority of film goers? Children and young teenagers.

Concidence? Hardly. The devil-worshipers in Hollywood know they're pandering to our children with their smut and violence.

We've got to teach kids the way life works somehow, and if it's not through movies and other poular culture, then how else can we?

As a responsible parent, I will sit down with my youngest child on his 20th birthday, just as I have with my previous two children, and explain to him how love and sex play a role in adult lives. Until then, he is too young to know of such things. The long-term solution, however, isn't to educate our children how human sexuality works; it's to create a world where they're prevented from being exposed to such factors until us, as their parents, choose to educate them in the matter.


no (none / 0) (#26)
by budlite on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 07:25:10 AM PST
--
As a responsible parent, I will sit down with my youngest child on his 20th birthday, just as I have with my previous two children, and explain to him how love and sex play a role in adult lives. Until then, he is too young to know of such things. The long-term solution, however, isn't to educate our children how human sexuality works; it's to create a world where they're prevented from being exposed to such factors until us, as their parents, choose to educate them in the matter.
--

Now, you know that's never going to happen. What with sex education in schools, and the ease with which it is possible to procure materials dealing with sex they'll know the ins and outs way before they reach age 20.

Myself, I'm 19, I learned virtually all I know about sex through popular media a good few years ago (although education about sex in school and a few words from my parents played a part too) and I think I could safely say that I'm responsible with that knowledge, in that you shouldn't believe all you see in the movies and that sex isn't just a "matter-of-fact" thing. I'm not the sort of person who's going to sleep with anyone I can find just for the hell of it - I want to make sure my first time is with someone I love and trust, which I think will make the experience all the more pleasurable.


sorry to hear it. (none / 0) (#27)
by nathan on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 07:54:20 AM PST
I learned virtually all I know about sex through popular media...

We all have our problems.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

yep (none / 0) (#28)
by budlite on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 08:13:57 AM PST
We all do. I just don't see that as one of my problems. Why should it be, reading books on the subject (targeted at 13-16 year-olds), being taught in school, seeing videos (in school on the subject), reading up on the internet?


sex, popular media (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by nathan on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 10:33:28 AM PST
By learning about sex through mediated rather than direct experience, you have surrendered the priceless opportunity of forming your ideas about sex from your own character. You have sold yourself out to amoral, aresponsible artifical peer-group standards contrived out of a witches' brew of superstition, pandering, and misguiding liberalist "morality." Do you honestly not see a problem with blindly adopting the standards provided to you by, not even society, but (commercial) popular media?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

yeah well (none / 0) (#30)
by budlite on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 01:09:43 PM PST
Whatever you may think, I'm capable of forming my own judgments of what I see and hear, I'm not simply taking it all in and believing every word of it, because I know better than that.

Perhaps generalising on popular media was a mistake on my part, all I was trying to say is that I didn't learn everything about sex from my parents.

Anyway, learning about sex through sexual contact isn't something that's easy to do when such contact occurs infrequently at most with me.


pardon me... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by nathan on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 04:08:10 PM PST
For quoting you again.

I learned virtually all I know about sex through popular media.


So, if you didn't learn it through experience, how do you know it's right? Of course, the part about 'slot A' and 'tab B,' as it were, may be right as far as it goes, but that says nothing about waking up alone and feeling betrayed; about looking into your lover's eyes at some innocent moment and feeling your world focus painfully in a sudden rush you are powerless to stop; about tangled sheets and spicy skin; about hands buried in hair and teeth in your shoulder; about an innocent conversation that turns cutting in a moment; about loving each other but being unable to stop hurting one another. You learn nothing about love, vulnerability, loss, shared humanity; the immortality of an ordinary, ephemeral moment that you'll remember for the rest of your life.

In other words, if you don't know these things, you don't know sex or what accompanies it. Popular media is a horrible place to learn about anything. It doesn't even pretend to care about anything except crude, feeble stimulation of our worst, most boringly ordinary selves. Popular 'eroticism' is T & A. Frankly I'd be happier if you'd grown up on something at least authentically perverted; Anais Nin, maybe, or The Story of O. At least those books try to address real feelings that people could conceivably feel.

There's a reason that sex is so important to people. It is a very important part of life. It's not important that you learn about it now, or even ever; great men have come and gone without it. What's important is that, if you learn about it, you should learn for real, rather than accepting popular stupidities and prejudices into an intimate corner of your life.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

But.... (none / 0) (#36)
by budlite on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 08:39:54 AM PST
I never said it was important when people learned about sex. I was trying to make the point that however hard you try to shield them, your kids are going to find out some way or another, and it seems to me that 20 is a pretty late age.

And trust me, I know how it feels to love someone, I was just extremely unfortunate in that that love wasn't returned, and that screwed me up big time for a while.


sorry, I missed this. (none / 0) (#44)
by nathan on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 08:00:17 PM PST
however hard you try to shield them, your kids are going to find out some way or another

They probably will. That doesn't mean it's OK. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't care.

Realism as a 'defense' for the indefensible just means that the system condemns itself.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Hey... (none / 0) (#37)
by hauntedattics on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 10:10:43 AM PST
Don't make me cry at work again, buddy.



 
easy does it, easy... (none / 0) (#39)
by derek3000 on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 11:36:41 AM PST
Nathan, surely you aren't saying that we must have purely empirical experience of something to form our own ideas about it, right? Be careful, that's a slippery slope.<p>


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

of course not. (none / 0) (#40)
by nathan on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 02:29:26 PM PST
You can have ideas about sex without ever having any experience with it. They just won't be ideas having anything to do with experiencing it - which is fine, so long as you're not concerned with its personal, subjective effects. You don't need to have sex to form good opinions about policy, reproductive health, the proper education of the young, or other public activities in general. You do need to have sex (actually, you need to be in love and having sex, strictly) to make the claim, as did the poster to whom I'm responding, that you know anything about the emotional reality of being in love and having sex. No-one else can tell you, nor can any evidence show you, what it will mean for you as an individual.

See the difference? We don't need empirical evidence to know anything about anything public. We do need experience (not just empirical evidence) to know about things that are personal and subjective. If you want a tighter formulation, I'd say that the number of variables is so large, their relationships so poorly known, and the stimulus so nonlinear in response, that only absurdly precise and copious empirical evidence could tell us about the most private parts of our own experience. Scientific studies can and do show us things about the psychology of the human organism, but penetrating any deeper than, to the level of personal thoughts and feelings, is dicey at best.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

chr*st. (none / 0) (#41)
by derek3000 on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 05:51:43 PM PST
It's responses like yours, Nathan, that make me feel stupid.

I'm being completely serious. My parents tell me I'm smart all the time, and when I was in school I went to ATP, yadda yadda. And maybe there's potential there. Every once in a while I surprise myself. But I know that I can be much more intelligent--I won a writing contest my senior year in high school. My story got the highest award for writing that PA gave. But I can't even write anything good anymore. See? This whole post is awkward. Really. And...(maybe I'm going too far now).

How do I get myself out of this rut? The only books I read are technical ones. And I never finish them. What do I do? For one fucking minute, be my Obi Wan. Seriously.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

note: (none / 0) (#42)
by nathan on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 11:08:10 AM PST
email sent.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

whoops. (none / 0) (#43)
by derek3000 on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 01:25:16 PM PST
i sent you an email--my display email is fake.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Your criticism of American media is suggestive (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 20th, 2002 at 06:59:03 PM PST
of latent anti-Semitism. I suggest you go back under the rock you crawled from, Nazi.



 
"Jews" is anti-semitic (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Richard C Suquer on Mon Jan 21st, 2002 at 03:03:29 PM PST
I am deeply concerned about the anti-semitic contents of the movie "Jews." I am taking a petition around campus, demanded that this movie either be cancelled or modified to reflect the centuries of oppression which the Jewish people have suffered. So far our petition has 150 signatures, but this will turn into thousands once my article for the school newspaper gets published.

Here are my suggested changes to "Jews":
  • Rather than a crazed rabbi under the influence of mind-altering substances, he should instead be a gentle-natured elderly rabbi who often has flashbacks to the WW2 death camp he was imprisoned in. When he has one of these terrible flashbacks he runs around the beaches of New York practicing cannibalism.
  • At the end of the movie, rather than being defeated by the minister in hand-to-hand combat, the rabbi falls to the ground and begs for forgiveness. The rabbi then tells the minister his story of being a victim of the holocaust.
  • The minister, touched by this display, volunteers to murder bathers and give their still-warm bodies to the rabbi to eat.
These changes would make the movie an exciting tale while at the same time giving a good moral lesson to movie-goers.

I also have some qualms about "The White Stuff." While it is true that at the end of the movie the seven KKK leaders go to prison, there are many parts in the movie that seem to glorify the white-supremicist lifestyle. This should be avoided at all costs. I have sent Philip Kaufman a letter listing my concerns with the movie, and I urge others to do the same.

--
Revolution from Below! GPL the Constitution!

 
Films shelved! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 06:16:56 AM PST
I'd say that a good two thirds of those films will be shelved in favour of more "market-applicable" titles at this time of Global Sorrow and need to raise the public's collective mood after the terrible events of some nearly 16 weeks ago (I know my children are still sobbing! If they stop I scold them for not showing Patriotic(tm) emotions and compel them to sob for Our Lost Heroes(tm) with a short sharp shock of All-American discipline).

Industry insiders have obtained a sneak preview of major studio films coming in the summer months, here's a sneak preview:
  • ENDURING OPERATION VIETNAM: Nun-raping, baby eating slanty-eyes are given a thorough seeing-to by Our American Heroes, can they kill foreign scum before they reach the Twin Towers of Soi Hanoi? (Don't worry too much, the answer is yes!) Can Sgt T Cruise find true love in the battlefield with sexy, sassy Private "D Barrymore"? (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0277434??)
  • OPERATION ENDURING CHEROKEE: A crippled black child with a special ability can only be protected from Towel-Headed Scum by Our American Heroes. Can they psychically intercept enemy messages - and convert them from that damned right-to-left ungodly scrawl - in time to save the Twin Towers of Itloka Swalla? Can Corporal N Cage sustain his responsibilities as a modern single father? (http://us.imdb.com/Plot?0245562??)
  • KIDS FEATURE! 1 DALMATION IN AMERICA: Charming kids film in which young puppy "Tony" visits the United States and meets the president by chance! Tony settles in to his new role as Whitehouse lapdog with remarkable ease, fetching, rolling over and curbing individual liberties on President George's every whim. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse/story/0,11017,592192,00.html??)


[vortex at caffeine dot org dot uk ]


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.