Completely reasonable response. There's only so many times you can see outrage and hostility over non-issues. It seems like Gawker's modus operandi is making headlines or posts that spark people to get angry because then they're more likely to keep coming back to argue in the comments. It's tiring.
The responses in this thread just confirm how much of a stick up their ass Gawker commenters have. Was this "joke" in poor taste? Yeah. Did it warrant Seth, who makes a living writing shit about famous people, deserving of being fired? I'm going to go with no.
I stopped reading Gawker awhile ago because of it's troll bait headlines and uptight PC commenters (Byron Crawford brought me here.) Look at these people, so outraged! One person said, "Will Gawker be planning the next KKK rally?" Always notching up that drama to the highest degree! It's a celebrity gossip site, a bottom feeding one at that (anyone remember them posting the picture of a dying Steve Jobs, or the story about dating the magic card player?). It's not the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Get over yourselves.
Seth isn't a comedian, but he's also not a journalist either. Stop taking this site and yourselves so seriously, especially in defence of someone who talks like an idiot and has a song called "N**** in Paris". Do yourselves a favour and never watch Louis C.K. or Lisa Lampanelli, you'll be screaming in outrage for days.
This is my final comment here, so if the censorship patrol wants to forward this comment to the chopping block, go right the fuck ahead.
I'm a huge fan of the books (as you can see by my username and avatar) and when reading them (before knowing about the Swedish films) I always pictured an adaptation playing out like the movie Zodiac with a journalistic approach and several long shots with a lengthy run time.
I was very happy to hear Mr. Fincher would be at the helm of this movie. In my opinion, nobody else can do these books justice but him. Two of the Swedish movies were made for television and it shows in their budget. There's also a lot of poor acting, editing and scripting throughout the series (though Noomi Rapace is fantastic as Salander.) As a huge fan of the source material I found them to be severely lacking. It's really frustrating to see this new version picked on when the "originals" took many liberties and glossed over large portions of the books.
This was a really good review and I'm looking forward to seeing it as soon as possible. From the 8 minute preview I saw, it looks like Fincher's shot the movie frame for frame how I pictured it.
I've seen the photos and the trailer and still don't like Hathaway's casting as Catwoman. Christopher Nolan is great at casting men in the Bat movies but his female picks (Katie Holmes, Maggie Gyllenhaal) have been the weak points of the series. Anne Hathaway is a good actress, but her voice and her wide eyes/big mouth are too noticeable to make you forget you're watching her play someone (sort of like Steve Buscemi). She's not the type of actress who's capable of embodying the role like Bale, Ledger, Oldman, or, for non-Bat roles, Rooney Mara as Lisbeth Salander. She's great in Rachel Getting Married, but she's Anne Hathaway the drug addict, not "Bale is Dicky. Bale is Bateman etc."
To be honest, I can't think of any other actress that'd be great for the part though. Eva Green? An unknown maybe?
After seeing the prologue the movie is shaping up really nicely, but this has a "Topher Grace as Venom" feel to it for me.
I didn't want to read all of the prologue due to spoilers so I apologize of this was already said, but didn't Christopher Nolan acknowledge the sound issues with Bane's voice? I remember reading that he was working on improving it for the final mix since the movie is still in production and months away.
I'm starting to get a feeling that when this movie comes out we'll be looking at the Raimi films the way we do Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. I'm really liking the serious vibe here, it's something Marvel doesn't do often.
These are beautiful, it's too bad we won't be able to send a probe there anytime soon. Unless we discover some ancient Prothean technology on Mars when the [supposed] manned shuttle goes there, we may never get to actually see it. Great art Mr. Miller!
Yes, it was. I'm a [formerly] long time Gawker reader and am still trying to familiarize myself with how the comments are here.
You can't write a sequel to Watchmen, it's a great literary work! That'd be like making another Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz or Godfather.
Sometimes I wonder if it's possible that some of the drug dealers you read about were gunned down by vigilantes that don't want any publicity. Guys that aren't doing it for same, sort of like the guy in Super.
This is probably the best example I can think of as to why Gawker needs an ignore function. This entire thread is ridiculous. Rashabon has a history of this.
Suggesting a pregnant woman be careful for nine months is not being misogynistic. That's one of the most reactionary things I've read here. Judging by your comment history you seem to call everyone homophobic or misogynistic, as if you're the moral ambassador for people's opinions.
It looks like Pitbull had a hard time not showing his excitement.
"You see that ad and think it's a bad idea. I look at it and see another Clio."
...their job of killing everyone?
Hearted for your responses. The comparisons of OWS to the Egyptian brutality is completely offensive and I'm glad you told skt.smth off (who I disagree with 90% of the time).
Reading that exchange paled in comparison to the headache induced by going over this one: [gawker.com] Easily one of the most groan inducing exchanges between multiple commenters I've yet to see here. I'm surprised Brian didn't find a reason to include 80% of the commenters in there for this week's banhammer.
Water For Elephants actually managed to be a success. It made $117 million against its $38 mil budget. Every other movie the Twilight cast has starred in though (save for maybe Kristen Stewart) haven't brought in big money.
My biggest problem with the Twilight fanaticism is, to quote Stephen King, "that the books are so poorly written." Harry Potter is wildly imaginative preteen fiction that transcends its fanbase and is just as good a read for kids as it is for adults. Twilight comes across as cobbled together fanfiction that someone decided to publish. The movies themselves also lack the wonder that Lord of the Rings or HP has and instead just rehashes old tropes with new models.
Here's the clip of what you're referring to. It really is amazing.
