If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The Return of the Blacklist: Has-beens Ed Asner, Martin Sheen want Oscar boycott for 'Zero Dark Thirty'   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 142
    More: Dumbass, Ed Asner, Zero Dark Thirty, Martin Sheen, David Clennon, Mark Boal, democratic principles, serial killing, apologists  
•       •       •

9765 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2013 at 4:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-19 04:33:55 PM
I found that article to be very well thought out and written.

/Skimmed it (TLDNR)
 
2013-01-19 04:34:33 PM
Why are Granny Goodness and Uncle Ben against it?
 
2013-01-19 04:35:09 PM
Just like I've been telling everyone: it's a great movie, I fail to see how it's Oscar worthy, compared to the others that are currently up for grabs.
/Currently, the best response is "Hollywood Politics."
 
2013-01-19 04:35:12 PM
Given that these same people gave Moore an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, this stupidity does not surprise me.
 
2013-01-19 04:36:34 PM
How about no Oscar for Zero Dark Thirty because it was a crappy and undeserving movie? That a good enough reason?
 
Slu
2013-01-19 04:38:13 PM
TL;DNR
 
2013-01-19 04:38:56 PM
Isn't a big part of making of great movie challenging the viewer? Sometimes art has take people out of their comfort zones and challenge their perceptions. If they don't understand this, they are as bad as conservatives that want to take us back to the 50s culturally.
 
2013-01-19 04:40:25 PM
It's easy to be an activist for denial.
 
2013-01-19 04:40:36 PM
Long story short, Martin Sheen and Ed Asner can act but aren't terribly bright? Fark keeping up with it's tradition of Not News.
 
2013-01-19 04:40:49 PM
I haven't seen it, but I thought the movie did an excellent job in combatting stereotypes about our men and women in uniform and how they conduct the business of ensuring our liberty. Freedom isn't free and I fail to see how keeping a couple of towelheads from getting thirsty is too large a price to pay. If this movie wins enough prizes at the Golden Globes awards then it should send a real message to Hollyweird that the rest of us are sick of their softheaded lies.
 
2013-01-19 04:41:34 PM
The boat they missed was bigger than the Titanic.

The movie doesn't endorse torture; it merely gives a realistic depiction of tort, er, enhanced interrogation techniques which were used by the CIA and other intelligence agencies but it does not claim that they led to any meaningful information on the identity of "the courier."

I wonder how Asner, Sheen, et al reacted to demands for boycotts of movies, plays, and programs they supported?
 
2013-01-19 04:42:31 PM
People who worry about which movie gets an Oscar need to find better things to worry about.
Like bellybutton lint, for instance...
 
2013-01-19 04:43:20 PM

Prey4reign: The boat they missed was bigger than the Titanic.

The movie doesn't endorse torture; it merely gives a realistic depiction of tort, er, enhanced interrogation techniques which were used by the CIA and other intelligence agencies but it does not claim that they led to any meaningful information on the identity of "the courier."

I wonder how Asner, Sheen, et al reacted to demands for boycotts of movies, plays, and programs they supported?


Plus, "boycotting" is really just free advertisement.
 
2013-01-19 04:45:02 PM
Ed Asner isn't dead?
 
2013-01-19 04:48:19 PM
The Zero Dark Thirty producers are making a big mistake by sending out waterboarding home kits along with the movie viewers. That's just not going to leave the right impression.
 
2013-01-19 04:51:07 PM
Why does America consider famous actors more legitimate political figures than, say, anyone not trained to evoke a fictional character?

Wait, I know the answer.
 
2013-01-19 04:51:35 PM
getungrounded.com
 
2013-01-19 04:52:31 PM
Asner would have everyone to the right of Lenin put against a wall and shot, if he could.
 
2013-01-19 04:52:51 PM
I don't know if it's a good movie or not, but I hate it for how many people seem to treat it as factual.
 
2013-01-19 04:55:18 PM
We got more dead Bin Laden in that movie than we got from the Obama administration.
 
2013-01-19 04:58:54 PM

WippitGuud: Ed Asner isn't dead?


You win.
 
2013-01-19 05:02:19 PM
Abe Vigoda never tells us what to watch.
 
2013-01-19 05:03:08 PM
Also,
like I'm going to take advice from the dick Charlie Sheen came out of.
 
2013-01-19 05:03:12 PM
If you didn't watch the movie, you might walk away with the idea that the torture might have been glorified or airbrushed to look more acceptable.

Far from it.

I watched the movie and those bits were incredibly uncomfortable to watch, even knowing that they were depictions and not actual torture.

The movie goes on to explain that not only did the torture fail to yield up any usable information, but that it was a combination of guile and compassionate treatment that actually turned up useful information from the tortured man.

Whether or not the movie deserves an Oscar is beyond me. I don't much care about the opinions of movie savants, either way. I do know that the movie was a meandering mess at times, but that they managed to make me care about people that did very bad things to people who may or may not have deserved it.

That deserves something. Condemnation or accolades. I can't decide which.
 
2013-01-19 05:04:15 PM

Mad_Radhu: Isn't a big part of making of great movie challenging the viewer? Sometimes art has take people out of their comfort zones and challenge their perceptions.


And people laugh when I tell them Two Girls One Cup is the 21st century's Citizen Kane.
 
2013-01-19 05:05:35 PM
"We expect actors as talented and esteemed as Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, and David Clennon"

Talented and esteemed? Sheen had one good movie, Apocalypse Now, what has Asner done in the last 20 years? JFK? As for Clennon, who the fark is that?
 
2013-01-19 05:06:18 PM
Betty White says who farkin cares?
 
2013-01-19 05:08:27 PM
mmmmm gunpatriot torture porn goes to the Oscars....

and Dumbericans wonder why people want to blow them up....
 
2013-01-19 05:08:40 PM
A fictional movie based upon a fictional story and people are angry about it not being true? What's next people getting upset when they find out Operation Repo isn't a true story?
 
2013-01-19 05:09:00 PM

ReapTheChaos: "We expect actors as talented and esteemed as Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, and David Clennon"

Talented and esteemed? Sheen had one good movie, Apocalypse Now, what has Asner done in the last 20 years? JFK? As for Clennon, who the fark is that?


Asner?

Little movie called "UP."
 
2013-01-19 05:09:09 PM

Lizardking: How about no Oscar for Zero Dark Thirty because it was a crappy and undeserving movie? That a good enough reason?


Wasn't good enough for that piece of shiat "The Hurt locker" so, probably not.
 
2013-01-19 05:12:28 PM

Lizardking: How about no Oscar for Zero Dark Thirty because it was a crappy and undeserving movie? That a good enough reason?


Ding ding ding

Don't get why they oppose it. Awful things get put in movies all the time. This awful stuff might have actually happened  So it's unacceptable?

If they are opposed to torture, fine. Ban torture, not movie awards.
 
2013-01-19 05:18:31 PM

leadmetal: A fictional movie based upon a fictional story and people are angry about it not being true?


I hear the hate mail about Apollo 13 was epic.
 
2013-01-19 05:18:46 PM

OgreMagi: Given that these same people gave Moore an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, this stupidity does not surprise me.


You'd especially think that people in the business would spot the clearly faked scenes in what is supposed to be a documentary. The "showing Charlton Heston a picture of the dead girl and he just walks away" scene for example.
 
2013-01-19 05:18:58 PM
torture works well (just ask the french underground, the gulf war british special forces unit bravo two zero, or the FLN), but it is also completely incompatible with the values this nation claims to hold dear and erodes the foundation this country was built upon.
people who claim torture doesn't work lie to the american public because they themselves are the type that believe the ends justify the means, and are incapable of grasping that the vast majority of the american public is able to understand something can be very effective, but at the same time not even close to worth the cost.
 
2013-01-19 05:19:01 PM
I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.
 
2013-01-19 05:19:04 PM

WippitGuud: Ed Asner isn't dead?


He was gone but...

thinknice.com

...Ed Asner's back
 
2013-01-19 05:20:47 PM
I fail to see why this is oscar worthy when it's nothing more than a documentization of events.Where is the "creative genius" here? It doesn't take a mastermind director to make what was already a real life nailbiter into a thrilling story.
 
2013-01-19 05:22:11 PM

Mr.Man: I fail to see why this is oscar worthy when it's nothing more than a documentization of events.Where is the "creative genius" here? It doesn't take a mastermind director to make what was already a real life nailbiter into a thrilling story.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-19 05:24:18 PM

coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.


Capture, you say? Right after they put a bullet between the eyes.
 
2013-01-19 05:26:37 PM

relcec: torture works well (just ask the french underground, the gulf war british special forces unit bravo two zero, or the FLN), but it is also completely incompatible with the values this nation claims to hold dear and erodes the foundation this country was built upon.
people who claim torture doesn't work lie to the american public because they themselves are the type that believe the ends justify the means, and are incapable of grasping that the vast majority of the american public is able to understand something can be very effective, but at the same time not even close to worth the cost.


Wtf am I reading?
 
2013-01-19 05:26:58 PM

Prey4reign: coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.

Capture, you say? Right after they put a bullet between the eyes.


I'm not sure what those critics are referring to. In the movie, they only get information about the courier 'after' they discontinue using torture and use humane treatment and a bit of lying to get him to believe that he'd broken down and told them stuff due to sleep deprivation.
 
2013-01-19 05:27:28 PM
Honestly, I'd rather hear why from the people who want to boycott the movie, not the whiny farks who wrote this utterly pointless article.
 
2013-01-19 05:28:29 PM

Infernalist:
I'm not sure what those critics are referring to. In the movie, they only get information about the courier 'after' they discontinue using torture and use humane treatment and a bit of lying to get him to believe that he'd broken down and told them stuff due to sleep deprivation.


Sounds like a subtle "moral of the story" there. Torture didn't work. Being sane did
 
2013-01-19 05:29:50 PM

coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.


Well according to the nutballs I know torture probably DID lead to tons of great actionable info but it is all either off the books or super classified, and thus it is a lie to say torture is anything other than a go-to countermove to all 24-style situations (which are also allegedly happening all the time but we aren't told).
 
2013-01-19 05:30:08 PM
I haven't seen the movie but just by seeing where the political lines are forming up, I wonder if the opposition is more about a movie that casts a favorable light on our military. But then there would be obvious consequences if you just plainly stated "I'm a liberal and I don't like it because it makes our military look good."
 
2013-01-19 05:31:01 PM
Zero Dark Thirty probably won't snag Best Picture because Kathryn Bigelow didn't get a Best Director nod.

That's a PROBABLY, now. Generally, you don't win Best Picture if your movie didn't get a Best Director nomination, but it *has* happened (see Driving Miss Daisy).

Perhaps a better barometer is the Best Editing category. If your film doesn't get a Best Editing nomination, you don't win Best Picture. It's that simple. You don't have to *win* Best Editing, but without a nomination there, your odds look really, really bad. (And Zero Dark Thirty *does* have a Best Editing nomination).

All that to say this: I don't think it will win. Lincoln seems like the sure thing at this point, with Argo as a possible dark horse pick due to the snubbing of Affleck.
 
2013-01-19 05:31:14 PM

ReapTheChaos: "We expect actors as talented and esteemed as Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, and David Clennon"

Talented and esteemed? Sheen had one good movie, Apocalypse Now, what has Asner done in the last 20 years? JFK? As for Clennon, who the fark is that?


What has Ed Asner done in the last 20 years you ask?
"The boondocks" as Ed Wuncler III, among other things!

/Can't wait for season 4, baby!
//biatches love slashies!
 
2013-01-19 05:32:35 PM
I hope the Academy trolls the hell out of everyone and gives Best Picture to Django.

/imagine the outrage
 
2013-01-19 05:33:42 PM

KiwDaWabbit: I found that article to be very well thought out and written.

/Skimmed it (TLDNR)


Really? I found it to be ironic, cathartic and sublime as well as dense, dull and droll.

/just read the first and last sentence of each paragraph while drinking heavily
 
2013-01-19 05:34:30 PM

Chinchillazilla: I hope the Academy trolls the hell out of everyone and gives Best Picture to Django.

/imagine the outrage


If it had a Best Editing nod, I could see that happening, but the way it is now? Not so much.

These five movies got Best Editing nominations:

Argo
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty


Just going by history and the odds, one of those five will win Best Picture. Bank on it.
 
2013-01-19 05:34:42 PM

paygun: I wonder if the opposition is more about a movie that casts a favorable light on our military. But then there would be obvious consequences if you just plainly stated "I'm a liberal and I don't like it because it makes our military look good."


Those cartoon liberals in your head sound like terrible people!
 
2013-01-19 05:35:28 PM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Zero Dark Thirty probably won't snag Best Picture because Kathryn Bigelow didn't get a Best Director nod.

That's a PROBABLY, now. Generally, you don't win Best Picture if your movie didn't get a Best Director nomination, but it *has* happened (see Driving Miss Daisy).

Perhaps a better barometer is the Best Editing category. If your film doesn't get a Best Editing nomination, you don't win Best Picture. It's that simple. You don't have to *win* Best Editing, but without a nomination there, your odds look really, really bad. (And Zero Dark Thirty *does* have a Best Editing nomination).

All that to say this: I don't think it will win. Lincoln seems like the sure thing at this point, with Argo as a possible dark horse pick due to the snubbing of Affleck.


No chance for Les Miz?
 
2013-01-19 05:36:10 PM

Prey4reign: coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.

Capture, you say? Right after they put a bullet between the eyes.


Right. Duh. Obviously I meant killed and dragged out his body.
 
2013-01-19 05:37:04 PM
Why does anyone give these people any credence at all? They are morons, most with the mentality of a soap dish,
Stand on this line and say these words with feeling. This doesn't make them Gods or any smarter then the next guy. And those big shows that screams "Look at me, I'm an attention whore" so give me a trophy suck.
 
2013-01-19 05:38:11 PM

coco ebert: No chance for Les Miz?


Without nominations for Best Director and Best Editing (or Adapted Screenplay, even), it looks very unlikely. I could be wrong, but just going by Oscar history, I wouldn't count on it.

I think that Best Supporting Actress for Anne Hathaway (and maybe a technical award here or there) will be the film's consolation prize.
 
2013-01-19 05:38:49 PM

Hagenhatesyouall: Lizardking: How about no Oscar for Zero Dark Thirty because it was a crappy and undeserving movie? That a good enough reason?

Wasn't good enough for that piece of shiat "The Hurt locker" so, probably not.


Eh, I liked both flicks.

I thought of both of them as allegories of persistence in the face of adversity, rather than documentaries of real events.
 
2013-01-19 05:39:00 PM

cig-mkr: They are morons, most with the mentality of a soap dish,


Because having a history of anti-war activism under your belt makes you have the "mentality of a soap dish."

I had no idea.
 
2013-01-19 05:39:03 PM
Jack Black was robbed for "Bernie"

/haven't seen "Zero Dark Thirty". Seen enough drama on the news
 
2013-01-19 05:39:35 PM

Infernalist: Prey4reign: coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.

Capture, you say? Right after they put a bullet between the eyes.

I'm not sure what those critics are referring to. In the movie, they only get information about the courier 'after' they discontinue using torture and use humane treatment and a bit of lying to get him to believe that he'd broken down and told them stuff due to sleep deprivation.


Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, but here are two takes on it: Link, Link
 
2013-01-19 05:39:51 PM

paygun: I haven't seen the movie but just by seeing where the political lines are forming up, I wonder if the opposition is more about a movie that casts a favorable light on our military. But then there would be obvious consequences if you just plainly stated "I'm a liberal and I don't like it because it makes our military look good."


Um assloads of movies are favorable to the military and are popular among both libs and cons alike.
 
2013-01-19 05:40:47 PM

jaytkay: Those cartoon liberals in your head sound like terrible people!


Those liberals want to live in a world where the military isn't needed. As far as ideals go, that's a pretty noble one in my book. Unfortunately reality gets in the way. I think where they go wrong is the assumption that if you have a military, it has to be used for terrible things.
 
2013-01-19 05:41:55 PM

WippitGuud: Mr.Man: I fail to see why this is oscar worthy when it's nothing more than a documentization of events.Where is the "creative genius" here? It doesn't take a mastermind director to make what was already a real life nailbiter into a thrilling story.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 505x287]


Well done and point taken.(tip of hat in respect)
 
2013-01-19 05:42:33 PM

paygun: jaytkay: Those cartoon liberals in your head sound like terrible people!

Those liberals want to live in a world where the military isn't needed. As far as ideals go, that's a pretty noble one in my book. Unfortunately reality gets in the way. I think where they go wrong is the assumption that if you have a military, it has to be used for terrible things.


No one makes that assumption.

Stop creating strawmen.
 
2013-01-19 05:45:27 PM

Smackledorfer: No one makes that assumption.

Stop creating strawmen.


It very well could be the current assault weapon "these guns are created as tools of war" bullshiat that colors my opinion. I welcome that attitude about the military being applied to inanimate metal objects as well.
 
2013-01-19 05:48:39 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: No one makes that assumption.

Stop creating strawmen.

It very well could be the current assault weapon "these guns are created as tools of war" bullshiat that colors my opinion. I welcome that attitude about the military being applied to inanimate metal objects as well.


So you don't believe we should have a progressive and sensible gun regulation program in this country. How surprising.
 
2013-01-19 05:49:35 PM

willfullyobscure: Freedom isn't free


Indeed.   Freedom costs a buck o' five.
 
2013-01-19 05:49:37 PM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: coco ebert: No chance for Les Miz?

Without nominations for Best Director and Best Editing (or Adapted Screenplay, even), it looks very unlikely. I could be wrong, but just going by Oscar history, I wouldn't count on it.

I think that Best Supporting Actress for Anne Hathaway (and maybe a technical award here or there) will be the film's consolation prize.


Ah, I see. I didn't really look at the nominations too carefully. That makes sense then. There are so many good movies this year- in another year it probably would have garnered more nominations.
 
2013-01-19 05:54:35 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: No one makes that assumption.

Stop creating strawmen.

It very well could be the current assault weapon "these guns are created as tools of war" bullshiat that colors my opinion. I welcome that attitude about the military being applied to inanimate metal objects as well.


'No strawmen aloud? I'll just change the subject to make some other bullshiat up' -paygun
 
2013-01-19 05:56:01 PM

whidbey: So you don't believe we should have a progressive and sensible gun regulation program in this country. How surprising.


Actually I do. We just disagree on what progressive and sensible means.
 
2013-01-19 05:57:09 PM

Smackledorfer: 'No strawmen aloud? I'll just change the subject to make some other bullshiat up' -paygun


I wrote it, I didn't speak it. But maybe you read aloud.
 
2013-01-19 05:57:35 PM
We, as a nation, need to have a conversation about when any enhanced interrogation should be done on anyone anywhere and why. And most importantly how, when, why we should use chemical interrogation.
Torture may work but it is corrosive to the soul of a nation.
 
2013-01-19 05:59:02 PM

coco ebert: Ah, I see. I didn't really look at the nominations too carefully. That makes sense then. There are so many good movies this year- in another year it probably would have garnered more nominations.


The big factors here were two out-of-nowhere picks that most folks didn't see coming: namely, Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild.

A lot of people - myself included - weren't counting on nominations for the directors of those films. People were expecting Tom Hooper, Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, and Ben Affleck, just to name the most likely candidates.

But yeah, like you said, it's a good crop of nominees, and had it been another year, Les Mis might have stood more of a legitimate shot.

Still, good to see Hugh Jackman in the running this year.
 
2013-01-19 06:00:19 PM

whidbey: paygun: Smackledorfer: No one makes that assumption.

Stop creating strawmen.

It very well could be the current assault weapon "these guns are created as tools of war" bullshiat that colors my opinion. I welcome that attitude about the military being applied to inanimate metal objects as well.

So you don't believe we should have a progressive and sensible gun regulation program in this country. How surprising.


He also apparently thinks that ar-15s are created primarily as tools for farming or something.

Guns are for killing shiat, period. Sometimes it is a good thing, sometimes not, and sometimes they are used not to kill but to practice at killing. The 2nd amendment only allows guns because they are required for a militia which is a good thing. But you know what militias do? They kill stuff.

I am against gun banning but let's not pretend guns have any purpose other than their ability to kill (and before any readers point to tranquilizer guns or something: you know what I mean) and what gaining that capability does for the owner of a gun.

/gun owner
 
2013-01-19 06:01:04 PM

Frogfoot: We, as a nation, need to have a conversation about when any enhanced interrogation should be done on anyone anywhere and why.


It would be a short conversation if I get my say. We simply shouldn't do it. I think we should first take a step back and finally accept that the idea of a limited war is a failure.
 
2013-01-19 06:01:25 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: 'No strawmen aloud? I'll just change the subject to make some other bullshiat up' -paygun

I wrote it, I didn't speak it. But maybe you read aloud.


Oo a typo. I'm busted now
Your arguments get lamer by the minute.
 
2013-01-19 06:04:43 PM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: coco ebert: Ah, I see. I didn't really look at the nominations too carefully. That makes sense then. There are so many good movies this year- in another year it probably would have garnered more nominations.

The big factors here were two out-of-nowhere picks that most folks didn't see coming: namely, Amour and Beasts of the Southern Wild.

A lot of people - myself included - weren't counting on nominations for the directors of those films. People were expecting Tom Hooper, Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, and Ben Affleck, just to name the most likely candidates.

But yeah, like you said, it's a good crop of nominees, and had it been another year, Les Mis might have stood more of a legitimate shot.

Still, good to see Hugh Jackman in the running this year.


A friend of mine in the know about these things thinks that Haneke will win best director. I would be surprised that they don't throw some love to Spielberg, though.
 
2013-01-19 06:05:09 PM

Smackledorfer: He also apparently thinks that ar-15s are created primarily as tools for farming or something.


There are few guns that I own that were designed for killing people and that's why I own them. That's the reality of self defense.
 
2013-01-19 06:06:06 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: He also apparently thinks that ar-15s are created primarily as tools for farming or something.

There are few guns that I own that were designed for killing people and that's why I own them. That's the reality of self defense.


What are the other guns "designed for?"

LOL
 
2013-01-19 06:08:55 PM

whidbey: cig-mkr: They are morons, most with the mentality of a soap dish,

Because having a history of anti-war activism under your belt makes you have the "mentality of a soap dish."

I had no idea.


Yeah, it was really smart to go to Vietnam and have pictures taken.
 
2013-01-19 06:11:32 PM

whidbey: What are the other guns "designed for?"


I have a single shot muzzleloader that would make a pretty damn sad defensive weapon and an even worse offensive weapon since it's about 4 feet long.

If you're going down this road where you say that guns designed for killing people are better for that use, I agree. Like I said before, that's why I own them. I have a fire extinguisher in my house too, but that doesn't mean I'm looking forward to my house burning down.
 
2013-01-19 06:11:50 PM

cig-mkr: whidbey: cig-mkr: They are morons, most with the mentality of a soap dish,

Because having a history of anti-war activism under your belt makes you have the "mentality of a soap dish."

I had no idea.

Yeah, it was really smart to go to Vietnam and have pictures taken.


As opposed to the stellar intelligence of staying home and making copious apologies for one of the worst military failures in history.
 
2013-01-19 06:16:18 PM

coco ebert: A friend of mine in the know about these things thinks that Haneke will win best director. I would be surprised that they don't throw some love to Spielberg, though.


!

That's a bold pick, and possibly not impossible, either. It has four other big nominations, including Screenplay, Actress, Picture, and Foreign Language Film. If any category has the potential for an upset win, it's Best Director, as we've seen that Best Picture/Director splits aren't entirely uncommon.

Normally, the Directors Guild of America Award is a really good predictor for this contest, but only two DGA nominees (Spielberg and Lee) got Oscar nominations, so this one *could* be a tricky one to call.

The Best Director Golden Globe going to a non-Oscar-nominated Ben Affleck doesn't exactly help clarify matters, either.
 
2013-01-19 06:25:07 PM
But Ed Asner has no problem acting in a movie that endorses every crackpot JFK conspiracy theory without presenting a shred of evidence, including that LBJ was behind it?
 
2013-01-19 06:30:07 PM

whidbey: cig-mkr: whidbey: cig-mkr: They are morons, most with the mentality of a soap dish,

Because having a history of anti-war activism under your belt makes you have the "mentality of a soap dish."

I had no idea.

Yeah, it was really smart to go to Vietnam and have pictures taken.

As opposed to the stellar intelligence of staying home and making copious apologies for one of the worst military failures in history.


So you are saying that some "star" should go to Afghanistan and get up with the Taliban folks for a photo op?
I'm sure that would end the conflict to everyone's satisfaction.
 
2013-01-19 06:37:55 PM

KiwDaWabbit: Plus, "boycotting" is really just free advertisement.


Tell that to Smith and Wesson. When "free advertisement" leads to a 40% drop in sales, it probably isn't worth the price.
 
2013-01-19 06:44:25 PM
The problem people have with this movie is that it is a glorified propaganda film about shady interrogation methods under the guise of a 'true story'. This open letter to Bigelow by Naom Wolf says it better than I could.

Link
 
2013-01-19 06:47:27 PM

WippitGuud:
I hear the hate mail about Apollo 13 was epic.


At least Apollo 13 was based on true story with verifiable story elements.
 
2013-01-19 06:50:19 PM
Act of Valor will get the Oscar instead.
 
2013-01-19 06:54:08 PM

ParagonComplex: The problem people have with this movie is that it is a glorified propaganda film about shady interrogation methods under the guise of a 'true story'. This open letter to Bigelow by Naom Wolf says it better than I could.


Interesting read. I wonder about the assumption that since the film shows that torture led to the killing of Bin Laden, that it is advocating torture.

I also wonder how many people read this:

Americans, too, will wake up and see through Zero Dark Thirty's apologia for the regime's standard lies that this brutality is somehow necessary.

and realize that she's talking about Obama.
 
2013-01-19 06:57:57 PM
Mad_Radhu: Isn't a big part of making of great movie challenging the viewer? Sometimes art has take people out of their comfort zones and challenge their perceptions. If they don't understand this, they are as bad as conservatives that want to take us back to the 50s culturally.

When an 'artist' carefully and consciously sprinkles fiction among a bunch of truth, at what point does that 'art' become propaganda?
 
2013-01-19 06:59:51 PM
Something to be said for standing up for your convictions - I'm okay with this.
 
2013-01-19 07:07:28 PM

leadmetal: WippitGuud:
I hear the hate mail about Apollo 13 was epic.

At least Apollo 13 was based on true story with verifiable story elements.


Maybe. But why film a movie about some guys filming another movie?
 
2013-01-19 07:18:24 PM

cig-mkr: whidbey: cig-mkr: whidbey: cig-mkr: They are morons, most with the mentality of a soap dish,

Because having a history of anti-war activism under your belt makes you have the "mentality of a soap dish."

I had no idea.

Yeah, it was really smart to go to Vietnam and have pictures taken.

As opposed to the stellar intelligence of staying home and making copious apologies for one of the worst military failures in history.

So you are saying that some "star" should go to Afghanistan and get up with the Taliban folks for a photo op?
I'm sure that would end the conflict to everyone's satisfaction.


Because the Taliban is exactly the same thing as the North Vietnamese because some Republican said so.
 
2013-01-19 07:19:47 PM
Subby may not be clear on what a Hollywood blacklist was.

Hint: it involved Congress and the FBI.

But those libby lib has-been actors are *so mean.*
 
2013-01-19 07:23:57 PM

Kibbler: Subby may not be clear on what a Hollywood blacklist was.

Hint: it involved Congress and the FBI.

But those libby lib has-been actors are *so mean stupid.*

 
2013-01-19 07:32:12 PM

willfullyobscure: I haven't seen it, but I thought the movie did an excellent job in combatting stereotypes about our men and women in uniform and how they conduct the business of ensuring our liberty. Freedom isn't free and I fail to see how keeping a couple of towelheads from getting thirsty is too large a price to pay. If this movie wins enough prizes at the Golden Globes awards then it should send a real message to Hollyweird that the rest of us are sick of their softheaded lies.


profile.ak.fbcdn.net
You might want to tone it down juuuuuuust a little there, sport.
 
2013-01-19 07:32:44 PM

paygun: I haven't seen the movie but just by seeing where the political lines are forming up, I wonder if the opposition is more about a movie that casts a favorable light on our military. But then there would be obvious consequences if you just plainly stated "I'm a liberal and I don't like it because it makes our military look good."


That's pretty much my take on it as well.
 
2013-01-19 07:42:39 PM
I was more shocked to learn Sheen and especially Asner were even still alive!
.
Asner's 1,000 years old by now (well, he looked it in that show he acted on as a newspaper editor or whatever), and Sheen shouldve keeled over in embarrassment over his loser of a son (whether he still CALLS him 'son', I dunno...).
 
2013-01-19 07:42:40 PM

ko_kyi: Asner would have everyone to the right of Lenin put against a wall and shot, if he could.


this.

remember this is the same jackass who is an advocate for cop killer mumia abu-jamal.

asner needs to just go back to fading away in abscurity.
 
2013-01-19 07:49:16 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: He also apparently thinks that ar-15s are created primarily as tools for farming or something.

There are few guns that I own that were designed for killing people and that's why I own them. That's the reality of self defense.


You sure you aren't thinking of shields or armor, and not firearms? I can't think of a single gun that isn't designed around killing.

Or are you just pretending you wouldn't shoot to kill so ot stops being legal?

Or are you loading them with snapcaps?
 
2013-01-19 07:53:44 PM

paygun: whidbey: What are the other guns "designed for?"

I have a single shot muzzleloader that would make a pretty damn sad defensive weapon and an even worse offensive weapon since it's about 4 feet long.

If you're going down this road where you say that guns designed for killing people are better for that use, I agree. Like I said before, that's why I own them. I have a fire extinguisher in my house too, but that doesn't mean I'm looking forward to my house burning down.


Funny, my uncle uses his muzzleloader to kill deer. Sounds like an item designed for killing to me.

Look you can kill a guy with a maglite and obviously that isn't the purpose of the light. But just because you can do non-killing activities with a pistol or rifle doesn't mean launching a projectile into something's flesh isn't the primary purpose of a farking gun, defensively or otherwise.
 
2013-01-19 07:55:12 PM
I honestly do not get where those reviews are coming from. Are they watching the same movie?

I remember the scene plainly.

SPOILERS HERE: After the torture had failed to do anything more than have their subject babbling nonsense in hopes of saying 'something' that would make it all stop, to the point of being delirious and out of his head, one of the agents stumbles upon a simple solution.

Pretend like the guy broke down while delirious and gave up all his info. They reasoned that he'd not find out the truth anytime soon, so why not pretend like he gave up the info, tell him that he broke and gave up his compatriots and hey, here's some food and clothes and sit down, take a load off, here's some tea.

And the guy, not realizing that he's being played, thinking that he's already betrayed his companions, cooperates and gives up usable info regarding the courier.

The scene, the entire beginning of the movie, going into the middle, basically screams "Torture is bad on them, bad on us and doesn't give us anything useful. It was a bad idea and it didn't work."

And for them to take 'that' and twist it around and make it out to be the 'opposite' of what the movie portrays...I just don't get it.
 
2013-01-19 07:57:03 PM
Well, I haven't yet seen ZDT, so I can't speak to the film yet.

But APPARENTLY, the torture scenes show very clearly that TORTURE DID NOT WORK. And the actionable intelligence was obtained by careful questioning of the source afterwards. So it SOUNDS LIKE these pro-boycott activists are trying to blame the movie for something that they didn't see or else thought they saw but which they were too busy being indignant about to actually understand.

I could be wrong, because I haven't seen the movie yet. Like most of the people posting here, it would seem. And apparently a lot of the critics as well, since it's beginning to sound like many of them just read their press kit and never sat through the whole movie.
 
2013-01-19 07:57:56 PM
What would Bartlett do?
 
2013-01-19 07:58:28 PM
I'm a liberal who loved the movie. I don't think it endorsed torture. In fact, I would say it makes the case that enhanced interrogation was a waste of time.

Now The Dark Knight, there's a movie that actually endorsed torture (in addition to extraordinary rendition and warrentless wiretapping).
 
2013-01-19 08:03:05 PM

Smackledorfer: paygun: whidbey: What are the other guns "designed for?"

I have a single shot muzzleloader that would make a pretty damn sad defensive weapon and an even worse offensive weapon since it's about 4 feet long.

If you're going down this road where you say that guns designed for killing people are better for that use, I agree. Like I said before, that's why I own them. I have a fire extinguisher in my house too, but that doesn't mean I'm looking forward to my house burning down.

Funny, my uncle uses his muzzleloader to kill deer. Sounds like an item designed for killing to me.

Look you can kill a guy with a maglite and obviously that isn't the purpose of the light. But just because you can do non-killing activities with a pistol or rifle doesn't mean launching a projectile into something's flesh isn't the primary purpose of a farking gun, defensively or otherwise.


I guess it would make you feel better if I just keep repeating that I do own guns that were designed for killing people, and I own them for the purpose of killing people?

Again, that's the reality of self defense. If I could reliably stop a threat with harsh language I wouldn't need a gun.

Just let me know how many times you'd like me to say it and I'll copy and paste.
 
2013-01-19 08:03:39 PM

ciberido: willfullyobscure: I haven't seen it, but I thought the movie did an excellent job in combatting stereotypes about our men and women in uniform and how they conduct the business of ensuring our liberty. Freedom isn't free and I fail to see how keeping a couple of towelheads from getting thirsty is too large a price to pay. If this movie wins enough prizes at the Golden Globes awards then it should send a real message to Hollyweird that the rest of us are sick of their softheaded lies.

[profile.ak.fbcdn.net image 160x160]
You might want to tone it down juuuuuuust a little there, sport.


I thought mispelling "combating" was a nice touch.
 
2013-01-19 08:10:01 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: paygun: whidbey: What are the other guns "designed for?"

I have a single shot muzzleloader that would make a pretty damn sad defensive weapon and an even worse offensive weapon since it's about 4 feet long.

If you're going down this road where you say that guns designed for killing people are better for that use, I agree. Like I said before, that's why I own them. I have a fire extinguisher in my house too, but that doesn't mean I'm looking forward to my house burning down.

Funny, my uncle uses his muzzleloader to kill deer. Sounds like an item designed for killing to me.

Look you can kill a guy with a maglite and obviously that isn't the purpose of the light. But just because you can do non-killing activities with a pistol or rifle doesn't mean launching a projectile into something's flesh isn't the primary purpose of a farking gun, defensively or otherwise.

I guess it would make you feel better if I just keep repeating that I do own guns that were designed for killing people, and I own them for the purpose of killing people?

Again, that's the reality of self defense. If I could reliably stop a threat with harsh language I wouldn't need a gun.

Just let me know how many times you'd like me to say it and I'll copy and paste.


You said earlier that guns weren't designed to kill. If ilI misread that or you want to walk it back that's fine.
 
2013-01-19 08:15:15 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: He also apparently thinks that ar-15s are created primarily as tools for farming or something.

There are few guns that I own that were designed for killing people and that's why I own them. That's the reality of self defense.


So if few of your guns are designed for killing, what is the purpose of the design of your other guns?

If it is also killing, then why did you bring guns into this discussion as an excuse to blame the liberals in your imagination for their dislike of ZD30?

Maybe the real problem is you are dragging the discussion all over the damn place while deliberately leaving open escaoes away from the more stupid shiat you type and imply.

You've gone from strawmen to subject change to shifting the goalposts of your new subject. Ridiculous.
 
2013-01-19 08:16:42 PM

Smackledorfer: You said earlier that guns weren't designed to kill. If ilI misread that or you want to walk it back that's fine.


If that's what I said then you would be able to quote me saying it. I do believe that there are some guns that aren't designed for killing. There are lots of them not designed for killing people.

I've never heard any reason why it matters if some guns are designed for killing or not. The argument seems to say that people should pick unsuitable tools for self defense. I'd say it's more likely though that people who make that argument don't think about self defense when they make it.
 
2013-01-19 08:21:27 PM

Smackledorfer: paygun: Smackledorfer: He also apparently thinks that ar-15s are created primarily as tools for farming or something.

There are few guns that I own that were designed for killing people and that's why I own them. That's the reality of self defense.

So if few of your guns are designed for killing, what is the purpose of the design of your other guns?

If it is also killing, then why did you bring guns into this discussion as an excuse to blame the liberals in your imagination for their dislike of ZD30?

Maybe the real problem is you are dragging the discussion all over the damn place while deliberately leaving open escaoes away from the more stupid shiat you type and imply.

You've gone from strawmen to subject change to shifting the goalposts of your new subject. Ridiculous.


You quoted yourself starting down this road of "guns are designed for killing" and I replied. Don't post about things you don't want to talk about.
 
2013-01-19 08:26:34 PM

Gyrfalcon: Well, I haven't yet seen ZDT, so I can't speak to the film yet.

But APPARENTLY, the torture scenes show very clearly that TORTURE DID NOT WORK. And the actionable intelligence was obtained by careful questioning of the source afterwards.


Same here and that's what I've garnered as well.

... the actors are confusing me
 
2013-01-19 08:30:04 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer: You said earlier that guns weren't designed to kill. If ilI misread that or you want to walk it back that's fine.

If that's what I said then you would be able to quote me saying it. I do believe that there are some guns that aren't designed for killing. There are lots of them not designed for killing people.

I've never heard any reason why it matters if some guns are designed for killing or not. The argument seems to say that people should pick unsuitable tools for self defense. I'd say it's more likely though that people who make that argument don't think about self defense when they make it.


There I just quoted you saying guns aren't designed for killing:
"I do believe that there are some guns that aren't designed for killing"
For someone so adamant that they aren't saying that, why did you just say it here?

Now guns are designed for something other than killing, and what are they designed for?
This should be an easy question to answer.

Your muzzle loader's primary design purpose? Killing.
Any pistols you own? Killing.
Any rifles? Killing.

Unless you think we are talking about tazers, cap guns, bubble guns, lazer tag, rubber band guns etc, your guns are ALL designed with killing in mind.

It doesn't farking matter if you are killing to eat, killing to defend yourself, or killing for fun.It doesn't matter if it is a syaye of the art sniper rifle or an antique weapon from the American revolution. Projectile weapons are for killing. They all have a likelihood of lethal results when used.

I have repeatedly been specific that killing in self defense is still killing. Why are you now typing things like "the argument seems to say that people should pick unsuitable tools for self-defense..
"
Whose argument? Not mine. I thought we covered strawmanning already?

If I'm just being trolled at this point +1 to you I guess.
 
2013-01-19 08:39:03 PM

Smackledorfer:
There I just quoted you saying guns aren't designed for killing:
"I do believe that there are some guns that aren't designed for killing"
For someone so adamant that they aren't saying that, why did you just say it here?

Now guns are designed for something other than killing, and what are they designed for?
This should be an easy question to answer.


It is. You've heard of the Olympics, right? They have shooting sports events in the Olympics with very specialized guns that would be a really shiatty choice for even a defensive weapon. And I certainly wouldn't volunteer to stand in front of one of those guns not designed for killing while someone fires it. But remember, we're talking about design, suitability. Because that matters for some reason.

But anyway, you started down this road of guns being designed for killing and never gave any reason why that matters. If it would make you feel better I could apologize for agreeing with you when you said guns like the AR-15 weren't made for farming.
 
2013-01-19 08:41:55 PM

willfullyobscure: ciberido: willfullyobscure: I haven't seen it, but I thought the movie did an excellent job in combatting stereotypes about our men and women in uniform and how they conduct the business of ensuring our liberty. Freedom isn't free and I fail to see how keeping a couple of towelheads from getting thirsty is too large a price to pay. If this movie wins enough prizes at the Golden Globes awards then it should send a real message to Hollyweird that the rest of us are sick of their softheaded lies.

[profile.ak.fbcdn.net image 160x160]
You might want to tone it down juuuuuuust a little there, sport.

I thought mispelling "combating" was a nice touch.


Poe's Law gets me every time.
 
2013-01-19 08:44:53 PM

paygun: Smackledorfer:
There I just quoted you saying guns aren't designed for killing:
"I do believe that there are some guns that aren't designed for killing"
For someone so adamant that they aren't saying that, why did you just say it here?

Now guns are designed for something other than killing, and what are they designed for?
This should be an easy question to answer.


It is. You've heard of the Olympics, right? They have shooting sports events in the Olympics with very specialized guns that would be a really shiatty choice for even a defensive weapon. And I certainly wouldn't volunteer to stand in front of one of those guns not designed for killing while someone fires it. But remember, we're talking about design, suitability. Because that matters for some reason.

But anyway, you started down this road of guns being designed for killing and never gave any reason why that matters. If it would make you feel better I could apologize for agreeing with you when you said guns like the AR-15 weren't made for farming.


Which guns in the olympics? Starter pistols falls under the capguns etc. exception I pointed out. Target shooting? No those guns are still designed for killing.

As for who brought up guns, that was your cover excuse for the strawman introduction of the imaginary liberals and why the hate zd30. So that would be you.

And why did you say you felt that way about zd30? Because you were upset and influenced by what said imaginary liberals thought about guns. Strawmen, non-sequiters, moving goalposts..
You don't have a shred of honesty in your entire body.
 
2013-01-19 08:45:22 PM
I didn't see the movie or read the article but I'll just say this.

........
 
2013-01-19 08:48:52 PM

Chinchillazilla: I hope the Academy trolls the hell out of everyone and gives Best Picture to Django.

/imagine the outrage


Just finished watching it today. Now THAT is a movie that takes people out of their comfort zones.
 
2013-01-19 08:51:47 PM

Smackledorfer:

Target shooting? No those guns are still designed for killing.

You don't have a shred of honesty in your entire body.


Yeah I think we're done here.
 
2013-01-19 08:52:14 PM

Prey4reign: The boat they missed was bigger than the Titanic.

The movie doesn't endorse torture; it merely gives a realistic depiction of tort, er, enhanced interrogation techniques which were used by the CIA and other intelligence agencies but it does not claim that they led to any meaningful information on the identity of "the courier."

I wonder how Asner, Sheen, et al reacted to demands for boycotts of movies, plays, and programs they supported?


static.prtst.net
 
2013-01-19 08:53:07 PM
David Clennon did have one chilling line in Thirtysomething. It's not on IMDb, but as best as I can recall it was along the lines of "We sell images, Michael, nothing more. I thought you knew that."
 
2013-01-19 09:08:31 PM

WippitGuud: Ed Asner isn't dead?


I saw Ed Asner on one of the crime shows not too long ago. He looks like he's about 90, but he was good as an evil guy. I got a kick out of it since I used to watch the Mary Tyler Moore show, and he was a lovable curmudgeon on that.

/I was young. Shut up.
 
2013-01-19 09:10:22 PM
wow, what a bunch of sad motherfarkers.

of course the USA tortured prisoners, it was a big deal IN REAL LIFE.


good time to get indignant about it though, over a fake movie.
 
2013-01-19 09:55:54 PM

Valiente: Why does America consider famous actors more legitimate political figures than, say, anyone not trained to evoke a fictional character?

Wait, I know the answer.


Everybody knows here in Merica celbs have all the answers .
 
2013-01-19 11:08:26 PM

WippitGuud: leadmetal: A fictional movie based upon a fictional story and people are angry about it not being true?

I hear the hate mail about Apollo 13 was epic.


Oh, yeah. There's a scene where Tom Hanks is driving a red car, but in reality it was a blue car. That's right, the movie changed the color of the car. War criminals, the lot of them.
 
2013-01-19 11:09:09 PM

mrEdude: wow, what a bunch of sad motherfarkers.

of course the USA tortured prisoners, it was a big deal IN REAL LIFE.


good time to get indignant about it though, over a fake movie.


That's been my thought ever since the outrage began over ZDT: "Where were you guys six years ago when the real story about this broke???"
 
2013-01-19 11:12:55 PM
Go be old somewhere else, Ed Asshat.
 
2013-01-19 11:16:04 PM

coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.


It doesn't.

SPOILERS

The main hunt is for a guy known only as Abu Achmed. His name keeps popping up in interrogations, but none of the guys tortured know (or give up) anything concrete on this guy, other than that he's a trusted courier for OBL.

They do get some information out of a guy they've been torturing, but through guile, not torture. There was an attack on a Western hotel in Saudi Arabia, and they trick him into thinking that they actually rounded up the terror cell, based on information he gave up. The guy is so sleep deprived that he believes he snitched, so he agrees to give up everything else, figuring he's already got a snitch label.

They get closer by bribing a Kuwaiti prince with a new Lamborghini, then have their tech boys trace Abu Achmed's mom's cell phone number they get from the prince.

Then they find an old file from the Jordanian intelligence service that has been sitting in a safe for 8 years, that was part of the flood of information from various foreign intelligence agencies offering to help the USA against Al Qaida. It was lost in the rush.

Note: This is how the film portrayed how they tracked down Abu Achmed, who led them right to OBL's front door. I have no idea how accurate any of this is. Torture is portrayed in the film as incredibly inefficient, often taking years to get these guys to cough up even the slightest lead, while guile and bribes have relatively instantaneous results, and have much more valuable leads.
 
2013-01-19 11:28:12 PM

willfullyobscure: I haven't seen it, but I thought the movie did an excellent job in combatting stereotypes about our men and women in uniform and how they conduct the business of ensuring our liberty. Freedom isn't free and I fail to see how keeping a couple of towelheads from getting thirsty is too large a price to pay. If this movie wins enough prizes at the Golden Globes awards then it should send a real message to Hollyweird that the rest of us are sick of their softheaded lies.


Our liberty and freedom hasn't been challenged since the War of 1812. Well, at least not challenged by any foreign power. Glorifying the military is just repackaged Nazi propaganda.
 
2013-01-19 11:33:21 PM

Prey4reign: coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.

Capture, you say? Right after they

claim to put a bullet between the eyes even tho he's probably been dead for 11 years.

FTFY
 
2013-01-19 11:35:47 PM

Sgt Otter: coco ebert: I haven't seen ZDT yet but I have read critics state that while technically a wonderful movie, it depicts the capture of OBL as occurring because of info given up because of torture. If so, that's a problematic depiction since other journalistic sources indicate the capture largely didn't occur because of torture.

It doesn't.

SPOILERS

Then they find an old file from the Jordanian intelligence service that has been sitting in a safe for 8 years, that was part of the flood of information from various foreign intelligence agencies offering to help the USA against Al Qaida. It was lost in the rush.


See, THIS is the scene that all of these "it's pro-torture!" people keep forgetting about. Maya thinks the guy is dead...years? Months? I don't really remember. But the trail goes cold, and she doesn't start to put the pieces together again until that random worker digs up the old file. The person who was tortured played a part in the investigation, yes, but that information did not even come close to actually locating Bin Laden.
 
2013-01-19 11:47:33 PM

edmo: Lizardking: How about no Oscar for Zero Dark Thirty because it was a crappy and undeserving movie? That a good enough reason?

Ding ding ding

Don't get why they oppose it. Awful things get put in movies all the time. This awful stuff might have actually happened  So it's unacceptable?

If they are opposed to torture, fine. Ban torture, not movie awards.


For the record I am not opposed to torture, I think its a useful tool when used correctly.
 
2013-01-19 11:51:46 PM

PunGent: Hagenhatesyouall: Lizardking: How about no Oscar for Zero Dark Thirty because it was a crappy and undeserving movie? That a good enough reason?

Wasn't good enough for that piece of shiat "The Hurt locker" so, probably not.

Eh, I liked both flicks.

I thought of both of them as allegories of persistence in the face of adversity, rather than documentaries of real events.


I liked The Hurt Locker, I thought it was a pretty good movie. So far I havent liked one of the big nominees yet, I havent seen Lincoln or Life of Pi yet though
 
2013-01-20 12:56:21 AM

paygun: Just let me know how many times you'd like me to say it and I'll copy and paste.


I should report you for threadjacking.
 
2013-01-20 02:19:11 AM

mafiageek1980: ReapTheChaos: "We expect actors as talented and esteemed as Martin Sheen, Ed Asner, and David Clennon"

Talented and esteemed? Sheen had one good movie, Apocalypse Now, what has Asner done in the last 20 years? JFK? As for Clennon, who the fark is that?

What has Ed Asner done in the last 20 years you ask?
"The boondocks" as Ed Wuncler III, among other things!

/Can't wait for season 4, baby!
//biatches love slashies!


Really, only one other Farker watches Boondocks?

I haven't seen the movie. I'd heard it depicted the torture as productive. Until I can reconcile this article with that by actually watching a pirated copy of it, I'll reserve judgement.
 
2013-01-20 10:18:07 AM
I for one found it quite enjoyable and accurate.
 
2013-01-20 02:08:51 PM
The shrug that everybody gives when they find out they can no longer torture detainees is priceless (they're watching Obama on the tv).  It's like, "oh well, maybe we should start using effective intelligence techniques."
 
2013-01-20 06:43:40 PM

OgreMagi: Given that these same people gave Moore an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, this stupidity does not surprise me.


Your opinion of Bowling for Columbine wouldn't be politically motivated by any chance would it?
 
2013-01-20 07:01:00 PM

SpdrJay: People who worry about which movie gets an Oscar need to find better things to worry about.
Like bellybutton lint, for instance...


In 2002, Dr Karl was honoured with the prestigious Ig Nobel prize awarded by Harvard University in the USA for his ground-breaking research into Belly Button Lint and why it is almost always blue.

Link
 
2013-01-20 07:02:31 PM

kg2095: OgreMagi: Given that these same people gave Moore an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, this stupidity does not surprise me.

Your opinion of Bowling for Columbine wouldn't be politically motivated by any chance would it?


My opinion is based on the simple thing, a documentary should have some basis in fact.
 
2013-01-21 07:23:22 AM

Lizardking: PunGent: Hagenhatesyouall: Lizardking: How about no Oscar for Zero Dark Thirty because it was a crappy and undeserving movie? That a good enough reason?

Wasn't good enough for that piece of shiat "The Hurt locker" so, probably not.

Eh, I liked both flicks.

I thought of both of them as allegories of persistence in the face of adversity, rather than documentaries of real events.

I liked The Hurt Locker, I thought it was a pretty good movie. So far I havent liked one of the big nominees yet, I havent seen Lincoln or Life of Pi yet though


Ya, those two are on my Netflix list.
 
Displayed 142 of 142 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report