jakobnicholas

She’s more like a cross between a dominionist, a Miss America contestant and an asshole.

That's how I like my VP's.

nothing much apart from calling The President a murderer and communist and so forth.

Quotes please.

Name me one that was running for President (there were many Dems in the primaries) that lied about President Bush in that way. Please name one and what they said. Thanks

Umm.....Palin wasn't running for President. I don't have have any quotes, but I know Al Gore took MANY jabs at Bush. John Kerry as well....and Kerry WAS an aspiring President.

And is Palin "lying" or just distorting and/or illuminating? Please tell me what lies she's said.

And you know what, Obama's a big boy. I think he can handle a sassy author throwing out insults.

Palin-as-VP nom completely changed the game. The GOP seemed like they had lost their minds, and this daft hockey mom was suddenly on the ballot. The fact that McCain, who I formerly respected, thought that was in any stretch of the imagination a good or even safe choice for VP completely blew all of my faith in him to make a decent decision. Plenty of smart, well-thinking people voted for McCain, but if they thought for a second that Palin was going to be remotely competitent in a national office, they are nuts; if they didn't think so, they are completely irresponsible.

Many smart people also assumed that if they voted for McCain, he'd survive 4 years.....a very good assumption to make, as we have to go back to Kennedy to see when that didn't happen.

When I cast my vote, I NEVER thought I might be casting a vote for the VP to maybe be President.....NEVER. I figured there was maybe a 1% chance that either nominee wouldn't survive in the White House. And I NEVER considered health an issue. McCain has proven to be a very tough cookie. I'd argue that I'd have more concern over Obama's well-being. I could imagine more crazies going after him than McCain.

And it didn't bother me that McCain nominated Palin. I liked that he nominated a strong-willed female who had Conservative views. I thought it'd be cool to have an energetic mother of 4 in as the VP. She would be a hell of a lot more exciting than the gasbag in there now.

Many good ones have been mentioned so far.

But my Top 10 would include the following 2, who haven't been mentioned yet (!):

Victoria Williams

Lisa Germano

again. its not honest disagreement over taxes or something. its her LYING calling my party socialists and murderers. i personally dont say that about President Bush. shes a lying asshat

Were you on the moon during Bush's last few years? There were THOUSANDS of Sarah Palin types.....many in the media....who distorted and criticized Bush almost every waking moment.

Obama and Hillary Clintom were both superior candidates to what the Republicans were running up.

On this forum, it's alwasy assumed and a given that the Democratic candidate is better than the Republican. If you don't vote Democrat in every election, you're a nutjob.

Many very smart, well-thinking, great people had their own good reasons to cast a vote for McCain. In their, minds, HE was the better candidate. They didn't vote for him because they're racist or homophobes or Glenn-Beck-T-shirt-Wearing sheep. They just thought he'd make the better President. Just like people who voted Obama, thought Barack would make the better President.

Atticus' posts on this thread have been right on.

Obama has made some pretty big missteps, but many of those fuck ups have been in response to Bush’s fuck ups.

Oh, well of course. In fact, I think we should blame Palin for some of Obama's fuck ups as well.

She is a ignorant hag and screw her because she goes around mouthbreathing that Obama wants to kill old people and suck off terrorists etc. So screw her basically. Shes not just disagreeing with The President politically shes spewing her garbage rhetoric which basically calls The President a murder. So screw her. Not to mention! She quit her friggin job!!!!!!!! She has no place speaking on public policy. I can believe her followers don’t even call her on her quitting. They just ignorantly lap it up and never ask anything. So screw her

Do you feel better?

What do you suggest? Should we ban people from going around criticizing our President?

Last year, she was, like, on this ballot, you know, to hold the second-in-command office in our nation, and, like, a lot of people thought that was a good idea. I like lots of decent human beings, but I don't want hardly any of them doing anything in the White House except getting a tour.

A good amount (but big minority) of people thought it was a better idea to have John McCain be president than to have Obama be President. They weren't voting for Palin.

Worse than all this.....the ultimate fear-mongerer, Al Gore, actually WON the popular vote in a Presidential election!! THAT'S scary.

Stop worrying about Palin folks. You all might worry more about the current President.

(You all MUST check out the SNL Obama skit.....great stuff.)

Personally, I like Sarah Palin. But I'd never expect nor want her to be on any future Presidential ticket. I think she'd have ZERO chance of winning.

I don't quite understand people's concern and/or worry about what she says or doesn't say or whether people like her or not. She seems like a decent human being and many people respect her for some of the things she believes in....big deal.

SNL had a funny disaster skit about Palin and Glenn Beck running together in 2012. Pretty clever.

BUT...

while many are getting their panties in a bunch over an unelected mother of 4, their elected hero Obama is trying to figure out how to actually run the country.

SNL had a brilliantly hilarious sketch to open the show this past Saturday. HA!:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/china-cold-open/1178451/

Thinking about possibly spending eternity in a good place with my loved ones helps me keep my chin up in rough times and helps me try to do things right. I've accepted and understand that life ain't always easy and/or fun. It's how we deal with it and get through it that matters.

I have a friend who had a tragic accident many years ago...was almost paralyzed. Now he has many physical and psychological things he fights with. BECAUSE of what he went through, he doesn't believe in God. He can't imagine a loving, caring God doing that. I've tried to explain that it's not for us to know all the answers. I wish he didn't feel the way he does, but I understand it.

I'm not suggesting that you or others who don't believe in God are screwed. In fact, I've always believed that good, caring people have a really good chance of "living on". The Catholic church teaches to pray for everyone...Believers and non-Believers...so that we all will hopefully live in eternity.

That Jesus exists has never been a doubt for me. So it's hard to think and imagine what it'd be like to not believe in God.

What if a god existed, but afterlife did not? Why would your life be worse if there were no afterlife or god? Honest question; I don't see how a deity would or would not change your life, and I would love to know.

I really don't feel like going into why God's so important in my life. A lot of it is personal. I can't imagine living my life with the thought that God does not exist. I have no idea how to answer that.

You and other Atheists can believe whatever you want to believe. It sounds like we both try to be good honest people, and that's the #1 important thing for all people in the world to coexist.

Do you ever wonder if your desire that the people you describe have heavenly afterlives is simply your way of coping with such tragedy?

 

I don't think anything here is a "happy accident," rather our world has been created as it is and my making sense of anything won't change the shape or course of the world.

 

Why worry about whether this is all there is? Does it matter? A piano could drop on me tomorrow; I could be the victim of a heinous, random, violent act; I could be diagnosed with cancer; either way, I don't think I would do anything differently.

 

Would you? Would you live your life differently if you knew there was no afterlife? If you wouldn't live your life differently, then what difference does it make?

It's impossible to argue faith. We obviously believe things so differently, that it seems almost foolish to say what I think about your post, 'cause you'll find what I say to be as silly as what I think it is you're saying. But, what the hell...

I'm not "coping" by imagining better lives for those with crappy existences. I'm simply hoping and wishing and praying for that to be the case. As a Catholic, I believe praying for those unfortunate and those who don't believe can make a difference in the world.

I don't think Believers are trying to make sense of the world. In fact, most Believers will say it's not for them to try and figure out. Believers try to live life as good as they humanly can and follow the Commandments...which will surely include many times that they fail and commit sins....and try not to worry about anything else.

How do you know you wouldn't do anything differently if a piano fell on you? If you were paralyzed and psychologically devastated, you may want to end your life. If you believed in God and an afterlife, maybe you'd try to hang in there and make the most of a terrible situation. Maybe you'd say prayers. Maybe hundreds would pray for you. Maybe a friend would turn you on to God. Maybe you'd start believing.

If I knew there was no afterlife, then I'd also know there was no God. If I knew there was no God, then YES, my life would be MUCH different. For the worse.

I think of toddlers that die, or kids in horrific murders, or parents of murdered kids, or people paralyzed for life, or people with mental problems, or the billions of kids born into poverty in 3rd world countries....

It's sad to me to think that these people have shitty existences, then just die. I imagine these people getting a chance to REALLY live after this life. I imagine it being a heavenly existence, but who knows....maybe they get to lead another life after this one. Obviously, I don't know for sure. This is just what I feel....and what I think many believers feel.

We all have our own soul and feelings and emotions. It's amazing and magical to me. I absolutely CANNOT and WILL NOT EVER believe that it's all just some happy accident. It's hard for me to believe that this existence is all there is.

Just a curious bystander here.

If it's true that Atheists don't believe in any God or a creator or a reason for our existence, I've always wondered what they think happens to people after death.

Do they simply not know and/or don't care?

Do they expect to it be total "lights out"...just nothingness?

Do they think there's a possibility of reincarnation?

If so, who's controlling that?

Are they open to the possibility that if they've led a good and caring life they might be given the chance to spend eternity somewhere?

If so, would they rather be able to exist in eternity in some sort of "heaven" and perhaps see dead friends and loved ones, or would they rather just die and that's it?

I know Atheists don't believe in Hell. But do Atheists ever wonder if they might spend eternity in a hell-ish place?

Dark Neon's painful to listen to. Ouch.

Off the top of my head, for sure:

Old Country for Old Men

Mystic River

You Can Count On Me

Lord of the Rings (Two Towers)

Spiderman 2

And I don't remember seeing a Pixar mention, so...

The Incredibles

Wall-E

Monster's Inc.

i loved m ward's performance. i was excited for okkervil river as well but did not enjoy it at all. all of the shouting reminded me of modest mouse (and not in a good way).

Sheff's shouting has become a little annoying during live shows. Okkervil's early records are really subtle and beautiful and sans shouting. Black Sheep Boy had a little bit of it, but it works awesomely. Sounds wierd, but it's hard to enjoy Okkervil River live at times 'cause Sheff isn't always easy to watch....he's a little over-dramatic at times (and not in a good way.)

M. Ward's music and the way he played seemed too artsy-fartsy or precious or something. Can't explain exactly why I didn't like it. Probably not fair to judge him from 30 minutes of performance.

I thought Okkervil River was really good. Sheff still can't sing, and maybe he was trying too hard to ape Arcade Fire's performance, but it was still a lot of fun.

 

I like M Ward quite a bit, but I always find myself just begging him to break out of the mellow folksy rut when I see him play.

 

Andrew Bird is boring as snot. Seems like Ive seen him play too much lately, and it has turned me off to him. His performances have zero energy and the whistling gets old fast. Seems like a good guy, and I'll still listen to his records, but absolutely zero desire to see him live anymore.

Okkervil River is one of my favorite bands, but I'm not always liking their verions of songs live. I DO love Sheff's energy passion and energy, though.

I'm not familiar with M. Ward, and what I saw didn't do anything for me.

I agree about Bird.

I can read the recent pro-WTWTA posts and understand why they like it. And maybe I can understand Jonze's intent. And though hard, I can maybe agree that Max DID learn from the monsters and became a boy who understands his mom better.

All that said, for me, it doesn't change the fact that the time on the island was dull and frustrating and boring and painful to listen to. I don't care how anybody spins it, or how much psycho-babble is needed to explain why the monsters talked like they did, I just found the dialogue to be so awful and so un-interesting. I wanted it to end 10 minutes after Max landed on the island.

How is it that I could care so little for Carol? Some were obviously moved when Max left the island. Not me.

The final scene with his mom WAS good. But part of it, for me, was I was glad I didn't have to listen to the monsters anymore.

I should let this go. We all see movies differently. I thought LOT of this movie was brilliant....the real life scenes, the sound, the music, the creature design, the visuals...

But I've had a hard time figuring out how to explain what bothered me about the movie. Thanks to the internet, thousands of opinions can be found on just about anything. I found this lengthy review from someone named Daniel on a Christian website. I think he hits on a lot things that I agree with...I bolded some of it.

As far as production value is concerned, this film is phenomenal. Everything from the visual effects to the cinematography is well done. The animatronics are very believable. The film is colorful and the scenes and locations often seem to reflect paintings; perhaps they are meant to emulate Sendak's book?

The music probably fits the "indy" genre very well. It really sets the tone of the movie, and it is possible that I will pick the soundtrack up; I didn't hear any swear words in the lyrics. The music is great. As far as good goes for this film, that is all I have to say.

I think this is the kind of movie that film critics are really going to love, as it is very "artsy" and psychoanalytical in certain ways. My main issues with the film are as follows: Just from a story point of view, I was very confused as to what it exactly was about. I understood that the monsters represented the child's psyche (aspects of his own personality mixed with those of the people around him) and that the child had a very disturbing anger issue which he expressed through acts of violence and rage. But so much of what actually went on in the movie was confusing.

It was even more confusing because of the second issue I had a problem with: the conflict/resolution in the film. It is obvious in the movie that the child had deep emotional problems and that he was on the island because of these issues, sort of "battling with himself," or, perhaps "learning to cope" in some way. But the problem never feels like it is properly resolved.

The ultimate message of the movie (which is really hard to pin-down; it seems very postmodern to me) as far as I could gather it was: "life is hard and it gets harder and all you can do is deal with it." At one point in the movie, one of the monsters is depressed because of his own feelings of inadequacy in relation to the false promises that the child made about being a "king." The child said he would fix the problems of the monsters, and it was later discovered that he was just an average child with no powers. This causes one of the monsters to ask if there truly is a king who could give them any sort of hope, and he seems to conclude that there is not. This goes along with the child's teacher, who, earlier in the movie, posits that one day the sun will burn out and consume the solar system, but that humans will likely have eradicated themselves long before such an event takes place.

I am bold enough to say that the depressed monster and the fatalistic teacher seem to not-so-subtly represent doubts about Christianity (or possibly any sort of supernatural/theistic belief.) The answer to the monster's query is that there is no king who will protect, provide for and rescue him. He is apparently doomed to live a hopeless existence, in the same way that the world is apparently doomed to be consumed by the sun one day.

A friend who I watched the movie with specifically mentioned the incident about the monster and king, and he said, "When I saw that scene, I wanted to say to the monster: there IS a King who will be there for you! His name is Jesus!"

In a lot of ways, this movie seems to be about hopelessness and about simply dealing with hopelessness in a way that leaves out the supernatural. The child tells a story early in the film about a vampire who loses all of his teeth and is forsaken by his vampire friends because of it; this seems to represent how the child views himself.

Dave Eggers, who co-wrote the screenplay for this film, also wrote "What is the What?" which was the story of Valentino Achak Deng, one of the "Lost Boys" of Sudan. Deng himself struggled with the problem of evil related to the incredible suffering he witnessed and endured during the civil war in Sudan. While the book does not dwell on the issue all that much, it unashamedly questions God's role in the evil that took place in Sudan. Was it God who brought the evil, or was it God who stood by and watched the evil? Is there even a God, if He would allow such terrible things to happen? It seems like Eggers may have translated some of that thinking into the screenplay for this film.

It is very unclear what the child was supposed to have learned from his experience, as there is no tangible point where it is made evident that he learned anything at all. I kept waiting for a moment where the boy would realize the error of his ways, the "Eureka" moment where he would be reconciled with the monsters for being dishonest with them and return home to his mother to apologize for hurting her. I waited, but it never came. If it did come, there was nothing overt about it.

In the book, the child chooses to return home to his mother because he realizes that she is more important than the Wild Things. In the movie, he seems to leave the island depressed, realizing that he has hurt the Wild Things by lying to them about being a king with special powers. He seems to return home because he has to, rather than because he misses and loves his mother. (Admittedly, he runs home to see her, but the reason he leaves the island in the first place seems to be related to what I wrote above, as far as I could tell.) From a philosophical/moral perspective, what is so objectionable about this film is the utter senses of hopelessness and fatalism that are present throughout.

The film seems to have underlying atheistic assumptions: there is no one looking out for us; there is no one who is going to help us. There is no "king" with power to protect us; if we live long enough to see the sun die out, we will die with it. The monsters put their faith in the child, only to be shattered when they find out he is a fraud. Their hope was an illusion; hope is a placebo. Aside from that, the monsters themselves, while functioning as comic relief at certain points, were actually quite frightening. And I do want to say at this point to those of you who are parents: this is NOT a kids' movie! It is very much an adult movie with adult themes.

Do not let its PG rating and the fact that it is based on a children's book fool you. What was so scary about the monsters (and they were; there were children crying in the theater) was not that they had horns and sharp teeth and massive bodies. It was that they were personifications of the child's mind, and thus were incredibly immature and flippant with their dangerous strength and ferocity. It was like the movie "The Last King of Scotland," where Nicholas Garrigon says to Immi Amman, who calls himself a king, "No, you're a child. And that's why your so ****ing scary." Essentially, the monsters were the same way.

I felt the same sense of dread watching this film as I did while watching “The Last King of Scotland;” there was a constant fear that one of the beasts would snap and rip the child to shreds. Numerous times throughout the movie, several of the monsters threatened to eat the child. When the child first arrives, one of the monsters removes the child's (who is made king) crown and scepter from a pile of smoldering human bones. At the end of the movie, it is revealed that he is the only king that the monsters hadn't eaten, and thus the source of the bones, while hinted at earlier, are confirmed. There is a constant sense of tension in the film that the child is surrounded by a pack of immature and very dangerous creatures.

Like the child himself, there is a constant teetering between a sense of happiness and a near explosion of rage, especially with the "main" monster who seems to most clearly personify the boy, voiced by James Gandolfini. It is hinted at more than once that if the child says or does the wrong thing, he will be killed. The monsters seemed to personify very visceral and explosive emotions that made the child himself violent and angry at times. It was honestly disturbing to watch the beginning of this movie.

The child is portrayed very well and very realistically; the sad thing is, I think there are a lot of kids like that today. I used to be one of them, so seeing it on the big screen really hit home for me. I think of how angry and upset and explosive that I used to be when I was younger, and it makes me glad for the grace of Jesus Christ, who changed my heart and made me a new person.

I am not convinced that a so-called "placebo" of faith could be responsible for so radical a change. The "king' represents nothing more than shattered faith in this film. I think one of the main messages of this film is that we have to fix ourselves, because no one else is going to do it. While I am all for personal responsibility and self-reflection, I am very much convinced that there is a King who can change our hearts and lives. We will not burn ourselves away with blood lust or global warming, for as the last chapters of scripture tells us: the end will come on His terms, not ours.

For its production value, I think this is a great film.

Morally, it can be lighthearted at times, but this is because of the immaturity of the 9-year-old protagonist whom the monsters represent. In reality, the creatures personify the very skewed psyche of a troubled and disturbed child who expresses his deep emotional hurt and feelings of loneliness and betrayal physically and violently. The tone of the film is downright dark at times, expressing hopelessness, fatalism and explosive rage.

Philosophically, this movie could very well stir some deep discussions, but keep in mind that the themes are very difficult and very adult.

As a final warning: please do NOT take small children to see this film. You will regret it.

My Ratings: Moral rating: Offensive / Moviemaking quality: 4

"Understanding" isn't really what made me take issue this film; it was the lack of any kind of narrative or character arc. The monsters may work on some psychologically representative level, but that doesn't mean they tell a story. When I asked a friend's 8-year-old daughter what she thought of the movie, she said it bored her and she didn't understand what any of the monsters' problems were.

Yes.

Perhaps Jonze should have added a couple F-words to give it an 'R' rating.....THEN film-goers could go watch it in an art-house and maybe anticipate that this would be a more adult film. If a movie is rated PG and is based on a very well-known children's book, it's almost expected that it will be entertaining in a more conventional way.

I can understand the idea that the Wild Things were all elements of Max's personality and that it is why they were troubled and not very articulate. But even if interesting on a psycological, thinking-man's level, I struggle to see how any of it is entertaining. How this movie got a wide release by a big studio I have no idea.

I saw many kids in the theatre aged 7-13 who appeared bored to tears. I heard one 10 year-old ask an adult, "why are the monster's so sad and angry?". I heard a Mom say, "Well, that was a waste of money".

I agree that Lennon carried the White Album.

But it just wouldn't be the quirky, imperfect masterpiece it is without Rocky Raccoon, Helter Skelter, Why Don't We Do It In The Road...

I marvel at Paul's contributions on songs that weren't his. "Come Together" and "Something" are fantastic John and Goerge songs, but it's Paul's bass that sucks me in.

I finally saw the movie today, and came away astonished by the artistic achievement on multiple levels. I'm a little stunned by all the negative reactions in this thread. Most of the criticisms strike me as honest, perhaps, but baffling, too. When I have more time I'd like to offer a defense of the film and a rebuttal to many of the criticisms listed in here, but right now time is short so all I'm going to add is the glib pronouncement that Where the Wild Things Are might be the best movie I've seen so far this year.

I'll agree that everything in the movie that wasn't on the Wild Things' island was VERY well done. It was understated, powerful, artistic, emotional....and the way the monsters were created and looked was perfect.

(Except one thing....I was sympathetic to Max up until he stood on the table and screamed and BIT his Mom. Do many kids do that?)

For me, WTWTA failed big time when Max was with the creatures.

I found a few random critics' opinions that I agree with:

"the talking beasts Max meets on an island sound like refugees from a failed Woody Allen comedy. Whining, griping, fighting, they’re every bit as irritating and mundane as neurotic next-door neighbors. You wouldn’t want to spend five minutes with these crazy people in monster skins."

"You don’t connect with them (the monsters). You don’t understand them. And after an hour, you — and the kids you dragged to this disaster — won’t care."

"While light on plot, Sendak’s book crackled with the combustible energy of adolescent anarchy and creative play – two elements severely lacking from Spike Jonze’s mopey, withdrawn feature-length adaptation.....Jonze and screenwriter Dave Eggers focus on psychological threads hinted at in the book but left in the background for those who choose to look. By bringing this emotional strife to the forefront and making it the project’s emphasis, Jonze offers “Wild Things” as a therapy session, an elaborate vehicle for investigating his own deep-rooted psychological issues regarding trust, dependence and the fear of parental abandonment......most of “Wild Things” struck me as silly and self-indulgent.....I hoped for more “wild rumpus” and was put off by the amount of psychoanalysis. To me, a more appropriate title for Jonze’s adaptation would be 'Where the Whiny Things Are.'"

I found this interesting coming from a dude who finds Michael Savage entertaining.

 

Silly and irrational indeed.

Have you seen WTWTA?

What do you think of it?

I retracted my silly and irrational statement....that's obviously subjective. But I thought the scenes on the island were very poor and goofy. Tell me why you think they weren't.