Bless This Mess

[malestrithe]

Imagination is an important part of the thinking process! Theory: If x^2 is even x is even. What if x was odd? Then it'd =2k+1 => x^2 =2(2k^2+2k)+1 = odd, so it doesn't exist so x is even.

Theory: I like this film because of it's quality, not because I agree with the ideals.
What if the ideals were anti-christian? Then I'd probably object so how I agree with the ideals must affect my enjoyment of the film.

The only case where it doesn't apply is if you think there isn't the possibility of the other film existing and that's rarely true. Even then you'd basically be saying 'I like this because it agrees with my beliefs, luckily my beliefs are correct so the film is correct'

You do realize that you make anything appear logical by using a jumbled series of words?

It would be one thing if the premise of your argument's premise is accurate. It is a flawed premise to think that anyone of us can divorce themselves entirely from their life experiences. Your statement # 2 does not exist in the real world; we all bring our own life experiences to everything we do. If you grew up in a place that has no religious background, how can you possible understand how a religious person feels?

It would be one thing to ask me to write a story, analyze a movie for strengths and weaknesses, compare various iterations of Transformers ideals, or to ask my opinion on certain writers. All of those things take effort and imagination to pull off. All of those I can do and that is where I focus my creative energies.

Like I've said many times, when the reverse movie is available for me to look at and see, I'll make my judgement call then. I cannot take offense to something that does not exist. Until that moment, it is a waste of our time, energy and imaginative efforts to deal with that scenario.

 

[Beardly]

So, you like it because you agree with it?

Question: would you be similarly amused (or at least accepting) with a movie revolving around killing MSNBC hosts, NPR "reporters," Al Sharpton, fanatical atheists like Dan Savage, and everyone who wants to kill North Carolinans? What do you think the metascores for the two would be, all other things being equal - and is it even remotely acceptable if one side gets savaged when the other gets a free pass? I'm inclined to think not.

So, have you ever listened to NPR? I'm asking because it seems like anyone wants to hold something up as the liberal equivalent to Fox News they go to NPR without ever actually listening to it.

Eeeeyup. Although a more accurate counterpart would be MSNBC, as both seem determined to out-bias the other.

NPR is as follows: Democrat says something? "Let's bring him on and let him talk about it!" Republican says something? "But as Dina Temple-raston reports, that's not actually true. So we've brought on someone to discredit it."

I feel like you can't really compare that to Fox News's "Shout at anyone who I disagree with until their segment is over then pretend I won the argument" tactic.

Which is why my Fox comparison was with MSNBC. NPR was there mainly as a counterpart to "right-wing talk radio hosts" - again, not as strong, but what can I say? Republicans own talk radio.

The thing is, this movie isn't about bias in news but about people acting like assholes. The only left-wing figure I can think of that are on the same level as the right wing pundits is Bill Maher.

 

[omicron1]

So, you like it because you agree with it?

Question: would you be similarly amused (or at least accepting) with a movie revolving around killing MSNBC hosts, NPR "reporters," Al Sharpton, fanatical atheists like Dan Savage, and everyone who wants to kill North Carolinans? What do you think the metascores for the two would be, all other things being equal - and is it even remotely acceptable if one side gets savaged when the other gets a free pass? I'm inclined to think not.

So, have you ever listened to NPR? I'm asking because it seems like anyone wants to hold something up as the liberal equivalent to Fox News they go to NPR without ever actually listening to it.

Eeeeyup. Although a more accurate counterpart would be MSNBC, as both seem determined to out-bias the other.

NPR is as follows: Democrat says something? "Let's bring him on and let him talk about it!" Republican says something? "But as Dina Temple-raston reports, that's not actually true. So we've brought on someone to discredit it."

I feel like you can't really compare that to Fox News's "Shout at anyone who I disagree with until their segment is over then pretend I won the argument" tactic.

Which is why my Fox comparison was with MSNBC. NPR was there mainly as a counterpart to "right-wing talk radio hosts" - again, not as strong, but what can I say? Republicans own talk radio.

The thing is, this movie isn't about bias in news but about people acting like assholes. The only left-wing figure I can think of that are on the same level as the right wing pundits is Bill Maher.

It's rather interesting that you think right-wing pundits in general are on the level of Bill Maher. We have our own share of asses, but no more frequently than the left. Any impression you may have otherwise is more than likely the result of your own perspective.
Examples to the contrary: Dan Savage (not a pundit, but a public speaker; had a rather impressive angry meltdown at an anti-bullying talk), MSNBC host Tim Carney, who (just today/yesterday) cut off someone who was trying to defend Romney vs. the "bullying" escapade. There's plenty more where they came from; it's just not quite as obvious when you're ostensibly on the same side.

 

[riftermcriftington]

Structurally it sounds like a blend of Super and Falling Down Nd if it's even half of what those movies were I am totally down for the bloodbath and body count.

 

[Beardly]

So, you like it because you agree with it?

Question: would you be similarly amused (or at least accepting) with a movie revolving around killing MSNBC hosts, NPR "reporters," Al Sharpton, fanatical atheists like Dan Savage, and everyone who wants to kill North Carolinans? What do you think the metascores for the two would be, all other things being equal - and is it even remotely acceptable if one side gets savaged when the other gets a free pass? I'm inclined to think not.

So, have you ever listened to NPR? I'm asking because it seems like anyone wants to hold something up as the liberal equivalent to Fox News they go to NPR without ever actually listening to it.

Eeeeyup. Although a more accurate counterpart would be MSNBC, as both seem determined to out-bias the other.

NPR is as follows: Democrat says something? "Let's bring him on and let him talk about it!" Republican says something? "But as Dina Temple-raston reports, that's not actually true. So we've brought on someone to discredit it."

I feel like you can't really compare that to Fox News's "Shout at anyone who I disagree with until their segment is over then pretend I won the argument" tactic.

Which is why my Fox comparison was with MSNBC. NPR was there mainly as a counterpart to "right-wing talk radio hosts" - again, not as strong, but what can I say? Republicans own talk radio.

The thing is, this movie isn't about bias in news but about people acting like assholes. The only left-wing figure I can think of that are on the same level as the right wing pundits is Bill Maher.

It's rather interesting that you think right-wing pundits in general are on the level of Bill Maher. We have our own share of asses, but no more frequently than the left. Any impression you may have otherwise is more than likely the result of your own perspective.
Examples to the contrary: Dan Savage (not a pundit, but a public speaker; had a rather impressive angry meltdown at an anti-bullying talk), MSNBC host Tim Carney, who (just today/yesterday) cut off someone who was trying to defend Romney vs. the "bullying" escapade. There's plenty more where they came from; it's just not quite as obvious when you're ostensibly on the same side.

Again, I don't see how cutting Tim Carney's mike after he attempted to steer the conversation in a different direction(which I do disagree with) compares to Bill O'Reily or Sean Hannity shouting down someone with a different viewpoint.

 

[Nurb]

I normally love crazy stuff like this and play the GTA games, but this trailer left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

The guy says: "Why bother having a civilization when no one is interested in being civilized"

Then it shows a young girl shooting a group of protestors exercising thier right to free speech from a stolen car and gunning down assholes in a theater for talking since his fatal tumor will keep him from experiencing the consequences of murdering people because he doesn't like them.

I really do hope Bobcat is aiming for irony about this stuff because all of that just seems "Off".

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

So, you like it because you agree with it?

Question: would you be similarly amused (or at least accepting) with a movie revolving around killing MSNBC hosts, NPR "reporters," Al Sharpton, fanatical atheists like Dan Savage, and everyone who wants to kill North Carolinans? What do you think the metascores for the two would be, all other things being equal - and is it even remotely acceptable if one side gets savaged when the other gets a free pass? I'm inclined to think not.

So, have you ever listened to NPR? I'm asking because it seems like anyone wants to hold something up as the liberal equivalent to Fox News they go to NPR without ever actually listening to it.

Eeeeyup. Although a more accurate counterpart would be MSNBC, as both seem determined to out-bias the other.

NPR is as follows: Democrat says something? "Let's bring him on and let him talk about it!" Republican says something? "But as Dina Temple-raston reports, that's not actually true. So we've brought on someone to discredit it."

I feel like you can't really compare that to Fox News's "Shout at anyone who I disagree with until their segment is over then pretend I won the argument" tactic.

Which is why my Fox comparison was with MSNBC. NPR was there mainly as a counterpart to "right-wing talk radio hosts" - again, not as strong, but what can I say? Republicans own talk radio.

The thing is, this movie isn't about bias in news but about people acting like assholes. The only left-wing figure I can think of that are on the same level as the right wing pundits is Bill Maher.

It's rather interesting that you think right-wing pundits in general are on the level of Bill Maher. We have our own share of asses, but no more frequently than the left. Any impression you may have otherwise is more than likely the result of your own perspective.
Examples to the contrary: Dan Savage (not a pundit, but a public speaker; had a rather impressive angry meltdown at an anti-bullying talk), MSNBC host Tim Carney, who (just today/yesterday) cut off someone who was trying to defend Romney vs. the "bullying" escapade. There's plenty more where they came from; it's just not quite as obvious when you're ostensibly on the same side.

Again, I don't see how cutting Tim Carney's mike after he attempted to steer the conversation in a different direction(which I do disagree with) compares to Bill O'Reily or Sean Hannity shouting down someone with a different viewpoint.

Or the fact that FOX news can legally lie about what they report. Kinda hard to compete with that really.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

I normally love crazy stuff like this and play the GTA games, but this trailer left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

The guy says: "Why bother having a civilization when no one is interested in being civilized"

Then it shows a young girl shooting a group of protestors exercising thier right to free speech from a stolen car and gunning down assholes in a theater for talking since his fatal tumor will keep him from experiencing the consequences of murdering people because he doesn't like them.

I really do hope Bobcat is aiming for irony about this stuff because all of that just seems "Off".

Considering those protestors are a parody of the Westboro Baptist Church, I see no reason to get upset.

 

[Nurb]

I normally love crazy stuff like this and play the GTA games, but this trailer left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

The guy says: "Why bother having a civilization when no one is interested in being civilized"

Then it shows a young girl shooting a group of protestors exercising thier right to free speech from a stolen car and gunning down assholes in a theater for talking since his fatal tumor will keep him from experiencing the consequences of murdering people because he doesn't like them.

I really do hope Bobcat is aiming for irony about this stuff because all of that just seems "Off".

Considering those protestors are a parody of the Westboro Baptist Church, I see no reason to get upset.

Killing people for being offensive and stupid is a bad thing.

 

[AvsJoe]

William Hung came on the [Jimmy] Kimmel show when I was directing it, and [workers] were telling me 'Hung is such a pain in the ass, he's f***ing difficult!' I'm all 'What?' I was fascinated by that, there were things William Hung would or wouldn't do, it made me go 'Wow, everybody's corrupt.'

This just blows me away. Hung is incredibly bad but in on the joke so I assumed that he was a decent guy like other similar celebrities. I'm genuinely shocked.

 

[malestrithe]

God Bless America is the second best movie I've seen all year, Avengers being the first.
And yeah the thing is preachy as hell with its message, but its a message that NEEDS to be given in our "modern" world.

That is sad knowing you think the message is as important as the best comic book movie of all time.

 

[BrotherRool]

Imagination is an important part of the thinking process! Theory: If x^2 is even x is even. What if x was odd? Then it'd =2k+1 => x^2 =2(2k^2+2k)+1 = odd, so it doesn't exist so x is even.

Theory: I like this film because of it's quality, not because I agree with the ideals.
What if the ideals were anti-christian? Then I'd probably object so how I agree with the ideals must affect my enjoyment of the film.

The only case where it doesn't apply is if you think there isn't the possibility of the other film existing and that's rarely true. Even then you'd basically be saying 'I like this because it agrees with my beliefs, luckily my beliefs are correct so the film is correct'

You do realize that you make anything appear logical by using a jumbled series of words?

It would be one thing if the premise of your argument's premise is accurate. It is a flawed premise to think that anyone of us can divorce themselves entirely from their life experiences. Your statement # 2 does not exist in the real world; we all bring our own life experiences to everything we do. If you grew up in a place that has no religious background, how can you possible understand how a religious person feels?

It would be one thing to ask me to write a story, analyze a movie for strengths and weaknesses, compare various iterations of Transformers ideals, or to ask my opinion on certain writers. All of those things take effort and imagination to pull off. All of those I can do and that is where I focus my creative energies.

Like I've said many times, when the reverse movie is available for me to look at and see, I'll make my judgement call then. I cannot take offense to something that does not exist. Until that moment, it is a waste of our time, energy and imaginative efforts to deal with that scenario.

But you're not expected to get angry at it? The whole point is it demonstrates to a reasonable degree of accuracy how you actually film about the film exists in the now and then.

I know it's not perfect but no maths would be made (well not much of it proof by contrapositive is one of the fundamental proofs) and no books would be written or films were created if people didn't have the capacity to in some degree think about things that don't exist.

And it is perfectly logical. That would be exactly what you do to conduct a scientific experiment for anything. Like contrapositive is a thing and the opposite of 'Like this film not based on it's agreeable ideals' is 'Dislike this film based on its disagreeable ideals'

I mean there is almost nothing you can do if you unable to any extent to contemplate imaginary things. And this one is perfectly easy because the whole point is you don't even leave you personal experience, everyone has had experience of things and media disagreeing with their viewpoint and you just insert that viewpoint and if your feelings are still 'the acting was really good' then well done.

 

[Moeez]

I did love the movie. I can agree it was too preachy, but for me I loved the writing so much (the Diablo Cody joke is so sharp!), the rants, and the acting was so compelling that I didn't mind those rants stopped the movie dead in its tracks. It's a great black comedy, there are so many hilarious scenes with great timing like when he does kill the "Super Sweet 16" (this isn't a spoiler, it's in the trailer) he initially wants to do it with putting a flaming cloth in the fuel tank door and is doing the "cool guys don't look at explosions" walk but then realises the cloth fell off. The baby scene in the opening is so absurdly amazing. A scene where they kill off people who text and talk in the cinema. As a comedy, I enjoyed it a lot.

As a film with a message, the statements that stuck with me was about we don't have real conversations anymore but instead regurgitate what happened on TV or games last night to our friends:

"I mean, nobody talks about anything anymore. They just regurgitate everything they see on TV, or hear on the radio, or watch on the web. When was the last time you had a real conversation with someone without somebody texting, or looking at a screen or monitor over your head. You know, conversation about something that wasn't celebrities, gossip, sports, or pop politics. Something important, something personal."

If you take it seriously, it is messy, like how Roxy thinks she's oh so edgy while in fact she's just another stereotype of a young character who curses much like with Kick Ass or Super. It loses steam by the end, where the jokes and rants aren't as acerbic. The rants are just there not to further the plot but to go over again Frank's philosophies and pretty much what MovieBob wrote.

I was able to enjoy the movie despite it not being a great film. I can't wait for the other black comedies this year, like KILLER JOE, and EXCISION. Thanks for the interview, Bob and Bob!

 

[Kargathia]

It's rather interesting that you think right-wing pundits in general are on the level of Bill Maher. We have our own share of asses, but no more frequently than the left. Any impression you may have otherwise is more than likely the result of your own perspective.
Examples to the contrary: Dan Savage (not a pundit, but a public speaker; had a rather impressive angry meltdown at an anti-bullying talk), MSNBC host Tim Carney, who (just today/yesterday) cut off someone who was trying to defend Romney vs. the "bullying" escapade. There's plenty more where they came from; it's just not quite as obvious when you're ostensibly on the same side.

I don't doubt for a moment the douchebags are divided equally between left and right. The ones on the right just have more of that urge to shove it loudly and proudly in our faces - which explains the perception of them being more prevalent.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

I love the fight between who is worse for news, America is the worst for news /debate

 

[Amaror]

I'm confused, why does wikipedia state that this movie came out in 2011?
edit: Got it, the english wikipedia page states it right.