"Rodrick Williams Jr.'s 10-month old, 2-foot-long savannah monitor named "Kill" gets the RB some strange looks when they go for walks together."
OT: Go See Les Miserables
5*s pan out, look at Mike Hart, Dumb and Dumber. 3* but number 1 in our hearts.
Please, please tell me that this isn't happening.
I'm a fan of musicals and Broadway (although I think Les Mis is incredibly overrated), but:
- Anything Michigan sports related
- Anything related to other Big Ten teams or upcoming opponents
- Stuff about the blog itself
- University of Michigan topics that don't relate to sports
- College sports in general
- Ann Arbor
- Drew Sharp, Ace Williams, Mike Valenti. Saying stupid and/or false things about Michigan in order to get Michigan fans upset is a tried and true way to phish for clicks. Let's not feed the trolls.
- Pro sports of any variety
- Everything else
It was labeled OT.
And it falls under "everything else"
Right...and it's marked OT as a part of "Everything else"...what am I missing?
What's the offtopic policy?
In the offseason, offtopic posts are tolerated. During football season they are discouraged and may be subject to removal depending on how alert the moderators are. What counts as on- and off- topic?
We have a game next week, and as much as I enjoy the topics about what the team is eating for lunch, I do enjoy these topics too.
He marked it as off topic, so I am cool with it.
Wings, I am really excited to see this movie, thanks for further cementing the fact that I must see it.
If you don't like the musical you probably won't like the movie. Seems simple but I think it fits this time.
Right now, we have 6 OTs on the "New" board: They are about a musical, the MLB, gamers, Beanie Wells, someone needing prayers, and the NBA. I'm not sure how "gamers" are any more on-topic than "musicals." Are you and others also on those threads, berating the OP?
It was labeled as off-topic. Brian, Seth, and all declared it offseason after Ohio State game. It may be of questionable interest, but it's not breaking any rules.
Also, from a practical matter, these last two days are probably the most forgiving window for these posts until at least April. With hardly anything of major interest* for the community going on in sports at the moment, the movie posts and PS3 posts and whatnot are a lot less likely to get taken off the board.
*Seriously, think about it. There has been one ranked college basketball game the past two days, one bowl game tonight, the Lions have one game left, no Red Wings and the Pistons don't seem to get a lot of coverage from the board. High school sports are on break and every M team that gets any threads is either out of season or on a break from games.
At. This moment we have 45 comments on W. Kentucky - CMU, because it's that bad out there.
We can blog. On making snow men if anyone wants to get out to the iagand make them.
(Speaking of snowmen, if I hadn't been watching it dvr'd the Dr. Who Christmas Special almost seemed topic worthy to me. That Jenna Louise-Coleman is a peach.)
Ricky Bobby would beg to differ.
It stars Wolverine going against the guy who has come to Michigan Stadium and hangs out with Wolverines.
I mean that in the nicest possible way, but I mean it.
it's that he lacks taste
Go see Django instead.
Didn't he say that he thinks violence in films and media has an influence?
I guess the article I saw on the Huff Post never mentioned whatever you are talking about.
Are you a Log Cabin Republican?
I'm not going to mention the word politics either.
"We cannot turn our back and say that violence in films or anything that we do doesn't have a sort of influence," Foxx said in an interview on Saturday. "It does."
But I digress.
Is he donating his paycheck for Django to the families of the victims? Was told by someone who saw it that this was QT's most violent film (in a good way). Hard to say violence in movies is bad, go see my movie so I get paid more for the next one. Nothing wrong with the view either way; just the consistency.
You can make an argument the other way. You're correct, but he may in fact be recognizing the fact of what he's saying only now. His movie was made months (or years) ago. If he comes out later and says he's not making movies like this anymore, it's really just a change of opinion on his part (but yes hypocritical in the moment if he's still promoting Django)
When I say argue the other way, most of Hollywood is anti-gun, while at the same time producing, directing, and starring in movies in which they do little besides wield many, many guns. Shooting and killing people, often to glamourized effect. Taking no side on either issue, this is blatant hypocrisy. If Foxx is recognizing this fact, he's only seeing what is increasingly obvious to others.
And not feel watching it in movies or video games or whatever contributes to it. One could stand behind their views and not be hypocritical about it. Likewise someone could be pro right to arm and feel violence is movies is bad for people. It's not your politics...just backing how you feel. He may have come to this realization. He can't unmake the movie. But he got a really big check for it. If he feels it's blood money now there are all sorts of charities or advocacy groups that could use the money.
It seems inherently hypocritcal to me. If one believes art has the power to inspire, doesn't it also have the power to corrupt? If the finale to Beethoven's 9th is an anthem of Universal Brotherhood, isn't the compelling evil of Hannibal Lecter or Dexter and invitation to examine one's darker side?
It doesn't seem logical to assume only the good things affect behavior. If a movie, song, or painting has ever pumped someone up, or inspired one to do wonderful or charitable things, it follows that those same things can depress or lead to harmful/hurtful behaviors.
Then I can see the hypocrisy in it. One can also believe a movie doesn't really make people better or worse people; or distinguish popcorn entertainment from art. I don't see that as hypocritical. Then it's simply a matter of whether one agrees if they are right or wrong; they can have consistent if erroneous beliefs.
Knowing how much of a dick bag Foxx normally is, I doubt a cent will go to anywhere but Jamie Foxx.
Sort of funny story. Last night I bought a ticket for Django, and mistakenly stood in the line for Les Mis for about 10 minutes before I realized it was the wrong line. Thank Jesus I asked somebody if I was in the correct line, because that would have been an unwelcome surprise once I walked in the theater.
My wife and kids saw it last night, but I opted out and stuck with Netflix at home. The chick flick potential for Les Miserables kept me away and my wife came away unimpressed with the movie anyway.
pics or gtfo
les miz is in no way a chick flick. Yeah sure its a musical so there is singing but the in the play version at least has some of the most beautiful music I've ever heard. Also if you ever read the novel by victor hugo you would understand this is nowhere near a chick flick, it touches on the struggle of poverty, what people will sacrifice for their children, the struggle to reform after committing a crime and the obstacles faced by ex-felons, the desire to overthrow oppression and more. Seriously you may not want to see the movie but don't not see it because it is a chick flick. Also read the novel by victor hugo, he is a hell of writer and a lot of the things discussed in the novel closely mirror many problems still in society today.
and think it has anything to do with history suggests that you will never know anything about anything, ever.
The teacher in me is weeping after reading your post.
Are you a student or a teacher, just curious? Based on your "students don't attend games in time" rant, I thought you were a student.
Recent grad. I teach secondary physics, biology, and math at a district in Wayne county.
i.e. the Victor Hugo novel, not the idiotic musical? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Yep. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you don't preface your argument with idiotic. Nobody is claiming Hugo's novelization is complely factual.
is much more educated than you and is weeping after reading your post and thinking that you might expose your innocent students to the concept that les miserables is a good representation of culture or history.
I think it does a good job of illustrating the lack of hope and oppurtunity faced by those in poverty and who are oppressed which is accurate of the time and could be useful to articulate that but obviously it is not a factual account of history.
So it is dick measuring contest you want. I could whip out my list of publications in PNAS from my research career or my several degrees. However, what good will that do. Thanks for actually reading my earlier post where I said Les Mis is NOT factual at all.
Took my wife to the broadway show many years ago. It's in contention for the longest three hours of my life. It just wouldn't end. Painful.
June 1832. 1789 this was not.
A fan of revolutions? Both the French and Russian revolutions saw some of the worst human rights violations in history. Yes, there were some terrific ideals EXPRESSED(such as thr Declaration of the Rights of Man) but few were acted upon. The mere fact tha the French would rebel THREE more times(1832, 1848, and 1871) ought to tell you how ineffective that revolution ultimately was. Then you must consider that these revolutions gave birth to authoritarian regimes equaled by few others in history.
1832 was a crucial time in history? Huh? You did have the creation of Belgium, and the Nullification Crisis in the US, but this period is nowhere near as important as 1776, 1789, 1848, and 1871.( I suppose you can include The Chartist Movement in England in the years between 1838 and 1848 as well. )
That won't creep her out.
Her pix + with this corresponding online bio *really* won't creep her out.
Can a mod erase this poor girl's quasi bio here? It's creepy and rcmbtarded.
Are you sure you're 23?