Friday, July 24, 2009
Really. Fuck Is Wrong With These People?
It was clear Mr. Liddy was starting to fade out, when he lost on Fear Factor a few years ago. That much of the Republican Party is accompanying him into desperate dementia is just sad, though funny to watch.
Chris Matthews Almost Killed G. Gordon Liddy On Live Television Tonight
And of course, this...
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Born Identity | ||||
| ||||
I normally like Lou Dobbs, who's not a Republican, but every now and then he earns the long standing reputation third party types have, as being slightly loony.
Labels: bullshit, C O N Spiracy, Fucking Idiots, funny-ass shit, politics, The President Is A Bad Muthafucka, youtube and other video
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Beware!!! Fake Imax Screens.
About a month ago, my brother text'd these words to me as he walked into a supposed Imax theatre on 42 Street (NYC) to see Watchmen; "I think I would have been better off at broadway... Screen is not large here... Damn damn damn damn"
The Broadway theatre he mentions is the AMC Loews Lincoln Square (located at 1998 Broadway), where I've seen all my Imax films, thus far. That's a fricking movie screen right there. I may go to the Long Island one this week for Star Trek. Mostly out of convenience, but partly to see how it stacks up.
Made a mental note not to ever go to 42nd street for an Imax movie, but didn't realize there was a larger trend emerging.
From Aziz Ansari:
HOWEVER, we get in the theatre and its just a slightly bigger than normal screen and NOT the usual standard huge 72 ft IMAX screen. I was very upset and apparently this problem is happening all over at Regal and AMC theatres. Here’s a graphic representation of what’s happening at these “FAKE IMAX” screens:
If you don’t want the whole long story, I did some research online and found this article that explains it. Basically IMAX is whoring out their brand name and trying to trick people. These new “IMAX” theatres are really just nice digital screens with good sound, but they ARE NOT IMAX, in that they don’t have the huge 72 ft gigantic screen which people would expect. However, they still charge $5 more for tickets as they would for the regular IMAX.
More here.
Funny thing. The graphic uses the Lincoln Square and 42nd street Imax screens for comparison, giving me a li'l bit more insight into my brother's disappointment.
As seen on Ain't It Cool News
The Broadway theatre he mentions is the AMC Loews Lincoln Square (located at 1998 Broadway), where I've seen all my Imax films, thus far. That's a fricking movie screen right there. I may go to the Long Island one this week for Star Trek. Mostly out of convenience, but partly to see how it stacks up.
Made a mental note not to ever go to 42nd street for an Imax movie, but didn't realize there was a larger trend emerging.
From Aziz Ansari:
REBLOG THE FUCK OUT OF THIS. WARNING: AMC theaters are running FAKE IMAX's and charging $5 extra for a slightly bigger screen. Boycott IMAX, AMC, and Regal. Don't let them fool you.
I went with a friend of mine to see Star Trek: The IMAX Experience at the AMC Theatre in Burbank today. I drove out of my way to see the film on the large IMAX screen and paid an extra $5 for the ticket, which felt worth it at the time.HOWEVER, we get in the theatre and its just a slightly bigger than normal screen and NOT the usual standard huge 72 ft IMAX screen. I was very upset and apparently this problem is happening all over at Regal and AMC theatres. Here’s a graphic representation of what’s happening at these “FAKE IMAX” screens:
If you don’t want the whole long story, I did some research online and found this article that explains it. Basically IMAX is whoring out their brand name and trying to trick people. These new “IMAX” theatres are really just nice digital screens with good sound, but they ARE NOT IMAX, in that they don’t have the huge 72 ft gigantic screen which people would expect. However, they still charge $5 more for tickets as they would for the regular IMAX.
More here.
Funny thing. The graphic uses the Lincoln Square and 42nd street Imax screens for comparison, giving me a li'l bit more insight into my brother's disappointment.
As seen on Ain't It Cool News
Labels: bullshit, C O N Spiracy, DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER, movies
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Why Do I Hate Shia LeBeouf?
I do not know, but I do find it difficult to watch him in almost anything. I did see Transformers. Wasn't bad. Wasn't great. I remember finding him just a wee bit annoying, but the movie had other problems. I watched about fifteen minutes of Eagle-Eye before I had to turn that shit off. I remember he was somewhat annoying and that it seemed awfully early for anyone to be remaking Enemy Of The State. That's it. Didn't see him in anything else that I can recall*. Lebeouf was in an Indiana Jones movie, and I decided to pass on it. Didn't even want to download it for free.
He's not the worst actor in the world. He might even be pretty good. Hard to judge from the material he's given, but... It feels like there's something insidious,... conspiratorial, about his presence in Hollywood. I know it makes no sense, but that's how I feel.
I've felt this before. Back in the eighties (I think), about a kid named Patrick Dempsey. He's okay now (liked him in Enchanted), but back then I was a bit suspicious.
I bring it up 'cuz Oliver Stone's decided to do a sequel to Wall Street (maybe a year or so too late) with Shia LeBeouf in the cast and it's funny reading the comments.
*Quick check of IMDB sez that I also saw him in:
Surfs Up - which was fuckin' great, and I thought he was fuckin' great. Didn't know it was him until the closing credits. Up until that point I kept wondering how they got Bruce Willis to sound so young. Saw this only a couple of months ago (if that long) on Netflix/XBox 360.
Constantine - Liked the movie. Don't remember seeing him in it.
I, Robot - Ditto.
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle - Hated it (first one was good, though). Don't remember seeing him in it. As with I, Robot and and Constantine, I saw this before I knew who the fuck he was.
This may indicate that I'm responding less to the actor himself than to the presentation of a media figure?
Hrrm.
He's not the worst actor in the world. He might even be pretty good. Hard to judge from the material he's given, but... It feels like there's something insidious,... conspiratorial, about his presence in Hollywood. I know it makes no sense, but that's how I feel.
I've felt this before. Back in the eighties (I think), about a kid named Patrick Dempsey. He's okay now (liked him in Enchanted), but back then I was a bit suspicious.
I bring it up 'cuz Oliver Stone's decided to do a sequel to Wall Street (maybe a year or so too late) with Shia LeBeouf in the cast and it's funny reading the comments.
*Quick check of IMDB sez that I also saw him in:
Surfs Up - which was fuckin' great, and I thought he was fuckin' great. Didn't know it was him until the closing credits. Up until that point I kept wondering how they got Bruce Willis to sound so young. Saw this only a couple of months ago (if that long) on Netflix/XBox 360.
Constantine - Liked the movie. Don't remember seeing him in it.
I, Robot - Ditto.
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle - Hated it (first one was good, though). Don't remember seeing him in it. As with I, Robot and and Constantine, I saw this before I knew who the fuck he was.
This may indicate that I'm responding less to the actor himself than to the presentation of a media figure?
Hrrm.
Labels: C O N Spiracy, I know I shouldn't even care about this shit, movies
Friday, April 17, 2009
So why does Time Warner Cable care so much about bandwidth caps?
One reasonable theory making the rounds is that bandwidth itself is a red herring, and the real concern is cannibalization. As more broadband customers shift video viewing to the web, cable companies fear a steep drop in TV revenues. Bandwidth caps may not make sense as a cost-saving move for Roadrunner, but they might look tempting to cable executives hoping to save cable TV.
"The conspiracy theorists are saying its because they want to keep their customers captive to their video services," says Vince Vittore, a principal analyst at The Yankee Group. "I tend to fall towards the side that they are trying to keep people captive."
From Wired.
Labels: C O N Spiracy, downloads, ripoffs, technology, Truth, tv, youtube and other video
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Runnin' Outta Altoids
I haven't seen the new Altoids tins in stores lately, but I take it it's just a matter of time before everyone depletes their old stock, including the manufacturer and distributors. What I've been finding lately, is that tins of peppermints will include wintergreen, spearmint, and sometimes cinnamon flavors, though not colored*. Somehow these always end up being the last ones I grab outta the can. If there's peppermint in those last handfulls, it's difficult for me to say as my taste buds are temporarily knocked out of whack by the fake Altoids in my mouth.
I'll buy a few more tins this week to see if this is a consistent trend. It may indicate that more classic tins exist than classic Altoids to fill them. As mentioned in a previous entry, less peppermint is being used in the new Altoids cans, and I don't like it. May be time to switch to St. Claire's.
*edit: I'm pretty sure my recollection failed me, here. What I remembered at the time as being cinnamon, was surely licorice, and I also doubt that they would go to the expense of not coloring the spearmint flavored Altoids just to fill up a tin. The inclusion of spearmint and licorice was likely a quality control issue. I haven't come across any more "tainted" Altoids tins since first writing this entry. I hope that will continue at least until there are no more classic Altoids left.
Also, the Wikipedia entry for Altoids, keeps changing (well, it's Wikipedia). A week or so ago, it included the recipe change (or has Callard & Bowser changed their minds?) and something about them opening a factory in the States. Those bits were already gone when I wrote this entry, and now the Wikipedia page seems even shorter. (september 10th, 2006)
I'll buy a few more tins this week to see if this is a consistent trend. It may indicate that more classic tins exist than classic Altoids to fill them. As mentioned in a previous entry, less peppermint is being used in the new Altoids cans, and I don't like it. May be time to switch to St. Claire's.
*edit: I'm pretty sure my recollection failed me, here. What I remembered at the time as being cinnamon, was surely licorice, and I also doubt that they would go to the expense of not coloring the spearmint flavored Altoids just to fill up a tin. The inclusion of spearmint and licorice was likely a quality control issue. I haven't come across any more "tainted" Altoids tins since first writing this entry. I hope that will continue at least until there are no more classic Altoids left.
Also, the Wikipedia entry for Altoids, keeps changing (well, it's Wikipedia). A week or so ago, it included the recipe change (or has Callard & Bowser changed their minds?) and something about them opening a factory in the States. Those bits were already gone when I wrote this entry, and now the Wikipedia page seems even shorter. (september 10th, 2006)
Labels: Altoids, C O N Spiracy, candy, peppermints
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
