
Anyhoo, judging by this and the other pics on that site, me like!
Anyhoo, judging by this and the other pics on that site, me like!
Yes, you too can have a pantry filled with DHARMA Initiative products, just like the survivors of Oceanic Flight 815 on Lost!
There is a box of DHARMA Crisps...
And the always-popular DHARMA Cola...
So I guess we're finally ready for tonight's Lost season finale... what you think? :-)
Some will claim that for me to say that is not becoming a true Christian. If only Germany had been inundated with such insincere Christians in the years leading up to 1938.
The fact that I am probably in a government database somewhere as a "dissident" and a "troublemaker" for what I've posted here should be enough to make anyone pause.
Here's the story from Jerome Corsi at WorldNetDaily. This is certainly the first I'm hearing about this...
Bush makes power grabAll it takes is for President Bush to declare a "national emergency", and he goes from being The Decider to being The Dictator.Posted: May 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. EasternPresident Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.
That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
WND Exclusive Commentary Bush makes power grab
Posted: May 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator.
That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
When the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."
Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency...
Think it can't happen here?
Is anyone willing to bet good money with me that it won't?
-Naomi, the woman who parachuted onto the Island, works for a company that Penny hired to look for Desmond. She's told the Flight 815 survivors that the ship her helicopter launched from is about 80 kilometers away.Tonight's Lost, titled "Through the Looking Glass", is the long-awaited Season 3 finale: the one that's said to be the "game-changer" episode that alters everything we've come to know about this story.- Ben and the Others are planning an attack on the 815ers' camp in an attempt to kidnap Sun... along with any other women who could possibly become pregnant.
- Cooper is dead.
- Ben took Locke to see Jacob, and Jacob spoke two words to Locke.
- Juliet has turned traitor against Ben and told Jack about the pending attack.
- Jack has enlisted Danielle's help in order to, as Jack puts it, "blow 'em (the Others) all to Hell."
- Alex sent Karl rushing to the camp to warn them that the Others are coming right now!
- Sayid is working on contacting Naomi's ship via radio... if the Others' jamming can be deactivated.
- Jack is about to lead most of the camp away from the beach and toward the radio tower (which hasn't been seen yet) ...
- ... while Sayid, Jin, Bernard and possibly a few others will wait for the Others to arrive so they can set off the explosives.
- The last time anyone saw Locke, he had taken a bullet to the gut from Ben's gun and he was lying in a pit filled with the skeletons of the DHARMA Initiative people.
- Charlie has decided that he won't run away from his fate any longer, and knowing that he will probably not live to tell the tale, has entered the Looking Glass station ...
- ... where without warning, two well-armed women have stopped him from pushing the button that will end the jamming.
- Desmond is unconscious.
- Claire is worried.
- Aaron is crying.
- Sawyer is angry.
- Kate is horny.
- Hurley is hungry.
- Nikki and Paulo are still dead.
- Mikhail still needs some Q-Tips and is probably going to get his butt kicked again.
I know that reportedly humongous spoilers have been leaked onto the 'net during the past two weeks or so. Whatever those are, I know absolutely nothing about them. When I first heard about the leaks, I gave up every Lost website that I know of cold-turkey. My wife and I have invested way too much time in this show leading up to this episode to have the surprises ruined for us. So whatever is going to happen, I won't know anything until tonight. We are going to discover this together, the way it's supposed to be discovered.
How much do I love this show? I'm thinking of printing up some DHARMA food labels to put on snack boxes and soft drink bottles for tonight's episode... and I've never done anything that crazy for a TV show before.
Enjoy "Through the Looking Glass", friends, 'cuz this will be the last Lost until at least January 2008!
As always, look for my reaction following the show.
EDIT 8:20 a.m. EST: I've heard that tonight's Lost is supposed to be one of the most outrageous season finales ever.
Here it is, the classic final moments of the 1985 season finale of Dynasty...
Let's see how tonight's Lost stacks up against that!
Now, as for what we finally saw on television last night...
Where this show is weak is that it, like most other "reality television" series, already seems to be built around combativeness among the contestants. In that regard I have to wonder how much of a "talent" competition this really is. I do believe that where my own entry failed was the 45-second intro: I definitely wanted to show where I'm coming from and talk about what inspired me to make a movie about Schrodinger's Cat and a little about the hurdles to overcome in making a film on such a tight deadline. Unfortunately, I now see that I should have spent all that time talking about "me me me"... and I'm not that kind of person very much. If I got to be on the show, I absolutely wanted to take Reidsville with me... but to realistically have a shot at the show, it had to just be "me" going. So if I enter again next time, my intro video has to completely reflect my personality (maybe I should have used some clips from my school board commercials...?).
Anyway, I think that the intro videos were what sold most - if not all - of the contestants we saw last night. This being "reality" television, a suitable environment for lots of cutthroat action needs to be created. So a lot of different personality types have been assembled for this show. The talent factor seems to be a distant second, just judging by some of the presentations that were made during "The Pitch" round. In case you missed it, the 50 semi-finalists were randomly given one of five "log lines" and from that, each contestant had to create a pitch for a movie. They had 24 hours to come up with one. I was coming up with ideas like crazy in just a few minutes - the mouse and the priest were two that I really had some fun notions for - and those seemed to be a lot better than what we saw on this show last night. I mean, it shouldn't be that hard, within 24 hours, to come up with a killer idea from just a scrap of suggestion. And I don't want to "name names" here but some of them were just ridiculous. There was one presentation in particular that was particularly painful to watch... and that's all I'm going to say.
Some people have noted since the show ran last night that all of the "older" contestants were eliminated after the first round. Frankly, this bothers me. I hope that happened on the merit of their pitch alone. All the same: a film-maker isn't really coming into his or her own until, I believe anyway, their mid to late thirties. The 36 that are left seem to be well below that. Thirty to forty years is long enough for a film-maker to not only learn the basics of the craft and run with it, but also to accumulate knowledge and ideas from which to draw creativity. And there shouldn't be an "upper limit" to a film-maker's age, either. Heck, if it's going to sell tickets, I don't care if the film-maker is 8, 28, or 80 years old.
It was only after the pitches and the first eliminations were made that I thought On The Lot really got interesting. The 36 that were left were allowed to split up into groups of 3 - teaming up with whoever they chose to be with - and given the theme of "out of time"... from which they have 24 hours to make a 2 and a half minute film. Again, it seems like the contestants were chosen for how much combativeness could be generated because no matter which combo of contestants that we saw, it's pretty clear that there's going to be some ill feelings one way or another. How often is it that three directors are forced together to make one movie, anyway? Yeah I know, there's the issue of time availability, but in real life this just does not happen on a routine basis. Last night's premiere ended with two teams of film-makers finding that they've chosen the same section of railroad yard to shoot a scene, with each group demanding the other get out of camera shot. What happens next? Tune in Thursday night...
I hope that the highlight of this show is going to be film-making, and the talents of the individuals involved, instead of whatever theatrics can be engineered on the part of the producers. I'm not really that big a fan of reality shows like Survivor (Rudy and Rupert are the only contestants from that show that I can think of... so that should tell ya how up-to-speed I am on that lil' Mark Burnett series) but I want to be interested in On The Lot because it is about film-making. If the show makes that its centerpiece, then I think that I can be a faithful viewer for the rest of the summer. If not, then this is going to get real old, real fast... and the sense that I'm getting from a lot of other people this morning is that they're feeling the same thing, too. We've seen "reality" television already. We know what to expect. It's like Hollywood in general: we've seen the same bloody stuff so many times that we know it by heart and we're positively bored bonkers with it. On The Lot is an opportunity to give not just prime-time TV but the film industry something it's sorely lacking: fresh new blood and ideas...
...if that's what the producers at Fox want.
It's their choice, but not really.
Here are the 50 semi-finalists that came out of a field of over 12,000 entrants. I will not be one of those on the show tonight, although my entry Schrodinger's Bedroom seems to have been enjoyed by quite a lot of people (it had over ten thousand views before a website snafu required it to be re-uploaded, you can also watch it here on YouTube). Even so, I'm going to be watching this with a lot of interest over this coming summer. And who knows: I might already have an idea or two for an entry for next year's show :-)
Oh yeah, and Keanu Reeves as Dr. Manhattan.
Ummmmm... saywhu...??
If you've never read Watchmen, the image on the right is what Dr. Manhattan looks like. So if you can imagine Keanu Reeves as a bald, blue, naked, God-like being...
...which I can't...
On the other hand, I think Reeves did an outstanding job handling the material of the Matrix movies, and Watchmen is on that same level of "thinking man's" entertainment that those films were. Reeves as Dr. Manhattan might make a lot more people stand up and take notice at this project... if it can manage to stay faithful to the book (which is gonna be hard, but after seeing 300 I think that if anyone can pull the impossible off with Watchmen, it'll be Zack Snyder).
And now that I think of it, Reeves seems like an excellent choice to play Jon Osterman, before he becomes Manhattan (read the book if you want to know what happens that turns him nigh-omnipotent). But this is still gonna have to be handled delicately: we should not have people pointing at the screen and laughing at bald blue naked Keanu Reeves, right?
Now, anyone wanna take a stab at who is gonna play Rorschach?
Y'know, Carter really was the most inept and ineffective president America has had in the past 50 years. His entire presidency could well be summed-up by the word "malaise".
But even more than Carter, the worst was easily Lyndon B. Johnson: a man who's damage to this country has still yet to be fully calculated. Where Johnson trumped Carter was having the most corrupt presidency up 'til his time. Say what you will of Carter: I've never thought that he did have anything but the best of intentions at heart, however much he bungled those intentions. Barry Goldwater was right: Carter should have kept his head down once he was out of office, and he would have gone down in the history books as one of the better ones. Too bad Carter didn't listen. But there was never anything redeemable about Lyndon Johnson's term: the man bloated government and firmly put the military-industrial complex in a position to exploit the taxpayers to its hearts content... to say nothing of the quagmire that was Vietnam.
That's how I've long seen it: Lyndon Johnson as the worst in American history, followed by Carter... who I was reluctant to peg as a bad one but I really had no choice.
Then along comes George W. Bush.
I don't know if America will ever recover from the damage that this very evil man has inflicted upon her. Carter and Johnson (and Clinton for that matter) combined could not have been as detrimental to this country as Bush II has been.
Let's look at the accomplishments of The Great Decider...
- Biggest growth of government in American historyI decided to end there, if for no other reason than because I would be up all night adding to this list and still wouldn't have anything nearly a comprehensive a list as it could be.- Most spending in American history
- Almost thirty-five hundred American soldiers and other service personnel and countless thousands of civilians dead in the most meaningless, ill-conceived conflict the United States has ever engaged in (this figure only counts those mortally wounded in Iraq, not those who were injured and died elsewhere)
- The PATRIOT Act
- Destruction of Habeas Corpus
- Nominating Harriet Miers for Supreme Court
- No Child Left Behind
- Cutting pay and supplies to American military personnel
- Rampant cronyism that puts the Ulysses Grant administration to shame
- Most secretive administration in American history (EVERYTHING can be made a "classified top secret" on Bush's watch)
- Active suppression of dissidents and others who disagree with him
- "Free-speech zones"
- "No-bid" contracts given to companies like Halliburton... which clearly constitute a "conflict of interest" considering their connections to Vice President Cheney and others
- Presided over loss of most American jobs since the Great Depression
- The New Freedoms Initiative, which mandates mental health screening and possible medication - against parents wishes - for every schoolchild in America (I say again: I will shoot the bastard that tries to medicate my child against my will)
- Lying about the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq... and still trying to cover up that lie
- Domestic spying on Americans without warrants
- F***ING-UP THE BORDERS BY ALLOWING MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS TO STAMPEDE INTO AMERICA
- "Signing statements" intended to circumvent Congress and the Constitution
- The Department of Homeland Security (that one sounded Nazi from the start)
- Giving communist China a greater foothold on the American economy than ever before (and now we're paying for it: see the recent mess with poisoned pet food)
George W. Bush is the worst President in American history... and no thin veneer of feigned Christianity is going to make it any better.
Yes, by all means let's condemn Carter for meandering mess he spun America into during his four years in office. But if we are going to be fair about it, we'd darn well better be able to face up to the fact that the current president has been far, far worse.
I never thought I'd live to see the day that somebody would outdo Carter and Johnson... and even Clinton. But, there ya go. Heck, I've heard from too many people that compared to George W. Bush, Bill Clinton was a saint. Go figure...
These are the folks for whom it's not enough to watch "Star Wars" -- they need to live it. So they make costumes, dress up as Lucas characters and join worldwide groups like the 501st Legion (they impersonate most "Star Wars" bad guys) and the Rebel Legion (the good guys).Let's see: I've made a Star Wars fan film, based my first political ad on Star Wars, have a movie-quality Jedi costume and I'm a member of the Rebel Legion... yup, when it comes to the religion of Star Wars I'm definitely of the speaking-in-tongues variety :-)
This movie is so lousy that I'm not even going to waste the time to give it a full review, like I usually do whenever writing about a movie here. I don't want to spend another moment of my life meditating upon it. But, I feel like there's a moral obligation to warn you, Constant Reader, about it... so for sake of that alone I'm going to give you my bare minimum thoughts about it.
The first third of the movie isn't pretty bad. There were some rather funny bits to it, even. But it's not long into Shrek's search for Arthur that this movie becomes tedious and lame and completely inert of the wit that made Shrek and Shrek 2 so good. Whatever magic made the first two movies work, is not here.
Something that I couldn't help noticing: the theater was packed with young children. Shrek the Third was too boring for them too. Whereas the first two Shrek movies I saw kids glued to their seats, this time most of them were fidgeting and antsy and obviously not interested. Rarely did they laugh. The grown-ups certainly didn't laugh much.
I am discerning a pattern here: a movie becomes a huge blockbuster, which demands a sequel. And the producers of the original still have some creative juice to tap into. At that point the motive is all about building on what was established in the first. Then the sequel makes even more money. And then it's no longer about the spirit of the film. The producers make the transition from artists to artisans... and mass-media artisans at that. That's why with rare exception, the third movie in a film series usually sucks to no end: because there's no more interest in making it about the movie.
I remember about two years ago hearing that DreamWorks had plans to make a third and fourth installment to the Shrek series. They should stop now. I know that Shrek the Third will undoubtedly make at least $200 million at the box office, but even so: it should be unconscionable to press forward with another entry.
I really don't like having to say this about Shrek the Third. The first two movies were so wonderful, especially the first (there's a really funny story about when we saw that one in the theater that I might share here if anyone asks for it). I was hoping for so much more with this third movie. But I hate to say this: I was more disappointed with Shrek the Third than I was with X-Men: The Last Stand last year. And that's saying something.
That's all I'm going to say about Shrek the Third. I didn't like it one bit. It definitely won't get any space on my DVD shelf. I never want to see it again. At least not until we have children of our own and they beg to watch it and then I'll have to sit through it with them.
They'll probably hate it too.
I had no idea this was coming. Honest, folks. It was a crazy coincidence...
...'cuz this past day or so the publicity gang for The Dark Knight has been doing something very, very crafty. Yesterday another website turned up at ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com. When that page loaded, this is what you got:
And after a few seconds, that graphic started "peeling away" pixel by pixel, like so:
The page has fill-in forms where you enter your e-mail address and have to also manually enter-in a code that's on the screen. I did that, and received this e-mail from ""tragicpast@ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com" a few moments later:
I always say, you never know what a man is truly made of until you peel the skin off his face one piece at a time. Here is your chance to help:
http://www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com/submitpixel_flash.aspx?
uid=f5b45fc9470a45bd8152dcf37822fdb5X=1
Y=445
It hasn't been completely uncovered yet, but Moriarty at Ain't It Cool News has apparently come into possession of the complete image, or a good simulacrum of it anyway. What's it look like? Here it is:
So... is this really Heath Ledger as how he'll look like as the Joker in The Dark Knight?
If it is... man, I'm really split on this. It's totally not like anything I was expecting. I didn't think it would be like Jack Nicholson's Joker from Tim Burton's 1989 Batman. "Less prosthetics" was my belief, but still the traditional Joker "smile" for the most part. What I was most expecting was for Ledger's Joker to look like Conrad Veidt's appearance in 1928's The Man Who Laughs (right), which was the biggest thing that influenced Bob Kane's original design for the Joker. Look at that pic on the right, and tell me that wouldn't work for a modern audience in a serious film treatment of Batman. That certainly looks realistic enough. Heck, it looks no more out-of-place in a real-life setting than Phil Spector's hair usually has during his murder trial lately.
So that's what I was subconsciously thinking we would see. And not a lesioned clone of the Crow.
But then I remember that when the first pics of Willem DaFoe's Green Goblin came out during Spider-Man's production, and I thought that there was no way that would fly either. And then the actual movie comes out and I totally bought into that Green Goblin, and it made me realize that if they had gone with the traditional comic book look for Goblin then it wouldn't have been as convincing. And that comic books and movies really are two quite different mediums to tell the same story: a wise artist is going to have to take that into account. And then I remember the very, very first appearance of the Joker in Batman #1 in 1940:
Looks pretty darned close. It's enough to make me hold off judgment from completely dissing it at this point. I do kinda like it... it's just not "Joker" like I've always been used to. Which I think is going to be the problem for most people.
But if they give him shocking dark green hair and yellow teeth and a purple-enough suit... along with a homicidal sense of humor... then I'll accept this Joker wholeheartedly. The 'tude is everything!
1. The plot of this movie centers on Christian missionaries.Violent as it is though, it does seem like it's going to be a good entry in the Rambo series. I'd had doubts for the last several months about whether this was going to work or not. Now, I'm more optimistic. Looks almost like it's a throwback to how the character originally was in First Blood, and that's a good thing.2. The footage (in Quicktime format) will only be up for about two days or so. If you want to watch it, do so now.
3. This is EXTREMELY violent! In fact I think it's safe to say that there is more bloodshed in this one 3-minute clip from John Rambo than there was in the previous Rambo movies... all put together! Not kidding folks: if you want to watch this, be prepared for some unholy nasty things to enter your gray matter through your forward peepers.
Well, this past week saw quite a few good bits of material coming out of The Dark Knight's production, and I'm already feeling positive that this movie is going to work, too. The first to make note of is that Eric Roberts and Nestor Carbonell have joined the cast. Roberts - lately seen on NBC's Heroes and the brother of Julia Roberts (although he will always first and foremost in my mind be known as playing the Master in the 1996 Doctor Who TV movie... am I a geek or what?) will be playing Gotham crime lord Boss Maroni. If you know much about DC's Batman comics, then you already know how this is significant. Carbonell is going to be the mayor of Gotham City... which is good. But Carbonell is already going to be in a new series on CBS this coming fall and more important in my mind, he's the guy playing the mysterious and seemingly forever-young Richard Alpert on Lost. Hope he'll have no problem doing all of those things, especially Lost: the last few weeks have catapulted Richard to the forefront of the mythology. But this is terrific casting for The Dark Knight and I think he'll be great in it.
Then there's this graphic that appeared on The Dark Knight's official website yesterday...
That's Aaron Eckhart playing Harvey Dent. I'm already liking this Dent over how he's previously been portrayed (by Billy Dee Williams in 1989's Batman and Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever). This Harvey Dent exudes confidence and a lust for justice. He's also handsome in the way that Dent needs to be handsome... which he should be, 'cuz it'll make his eventual transformation into Two-Face that much more tragic to behold.
So far, so good. Now if only a really good picture of Heath Ledger as the Joker could turn up somewhere...
Even if you don't hold to that story, I think it can be universally accepted that there are some lines that aren't meant to be crossed.
Except now comes word that Great Britain is now going to allow human-animal cross-breeding.
I don't know where to even begin to talk about how this is an insanely bad idea.
Moral issues aside, this just opens up the Pandora's Box of Lord only knows what kind of diseases that could come to afflict man. You know, things that are supposed to be restricted to species not our own. There is serious speculation that some of the prion-form contagions were unintended consequences of genetic experimentation. Is playing with this kind of "science" really worth that risk?
I have to wonder if there is going to be anything left on this Earth that's purely natural in another hundred years, what with how mega-corporations are playing with biology. They're already well on the way to making sure that farmers can only plant the corn and other crops that they have engineered.
Bad stuff coming from this, no doubt about it. It's just a question of who is going to be most responsible for sending the fire next time: God, or man's own folly.
I totally missed the opportunity to talk with them on the air about it, but it looks like National Public Radio did a segment about funny political ads and mine was discussed.
So let's see, the current tally is that my commercial has been reported on by: The New York Times, the News & Record in Greensboro, the News and Observer in Raleigh, The Charlotte Observer, quite a few television stations including some on cable, and now National Public Radio.
Not too bad :-)
And here's the original link to the Quicktime version on Yahoo!
The more I watch this trailer, the more stoked I'm getting to see this movie. I keep thinking about how much I started looking forward to Independence Day after that now-legendary commercial during the 1996 Super Bowl. Transformers is going to be that kind of outrageous good fun too, I hope.
Something also that I first realized with the movie's teaser, and this trailer reinforces the notion for me, that I hadn't thought of ever since the Transformers hit the scene in 1984: the Transformers are not "robots". They are living alien organisms from a world far removed from Earth. They just happen to be living organisms that are composed of metal and not carbon molecules. And that gives them some mechanical attributes and abilities, but otherwise these are things with a spark of conscience. The Transformers, at their best, are characters with souls. And it looks like this movie is going to tap into that (I hope so anyway).