u2roolz

I feel for you man. Because my name is Kristofor I was sent a Miss Teen USA Application at the tender and tight age of 13. And a friend of mine named Daniel was sent a free pair of L'eggs panty hose at the age of 17. He was then called Danny Hose.

I always wanted to walk into a fancy restaurant that people have a terribly tough time to get into on a Saturday night and seductively coo to the hot hostess "I've got reservations...."

Really?! That didn't seem to foreshadow a little scene that we saw in a certain Season 5 Season Finale final scene? I think we need to focus more on the actions and motivations of the characters rather than the mysitcal "box". What type of man kills a man who killed who his parents in cold blood? It helped solidify the Sawyer character and lent him some closure. I don't think he could play house with Juliet in Dharmaville if he wasn't given the chance of closing the book on killing this man. He had to get it out of his system. This was integral to the story of Sawyer. What type of man l

I think you really answered your own question within your own question. What if you knew that there was a Jacob/MIB (Free Will/Destiny)? Would you feel that your life was pointless because you weren't pulling the strings? What if the strings that were pulled led you to the woman that you love and you weren't given a bad hand after all? I think you should think of Jacob/MIB as the physical embodiments of Free Will & Destiny. (yes, they are characters now, but they've been with the show since Season 1 second 1. Now we have a face and a name...well at least one.) Your feelings about

Time to lay down the law on this one.... The Child Actors: I thought that they did great. They weren't given Shakespearean quality dialog and if they were people would complain that they couldn't handle it. Plus, young Jacob is actually Matt Damon from the past. The Time Period 23A.D.: Let me tie this with the one above before I go on. Someone complained that characters are not supposed to announce what they already know to another character: I didn't really get that because in my head I realized that this is all that these kids (including Alison Janney) know. They know of nothing else and

She may truly have herself convinced of this, but it sounds like she needs someone not necessarily you considering the whole issue at hand. While you may be a separate entity, your family comes with you. One question: Is she truly proud of her current job situation etc. Does she have a reason to be ashamed? My best friend met his girlfriend at Purdue University and she flew all the way out to New Hampshire to meet his parents and continued to do this for the duration of their relationship because she wanted to meet them.

Well, somehow I think this will pass. At a certain point your girlfriend should start feeling like an ass if she doesn't come to visit for Christmas etc. with you and she may start to feel that your family is talking about her behind her back. She may start to question you about what they say about her. At a certain point she may want to control her own image of herself by showing up and trying to act as if nothing ever was wrong. I say this because if you get married like you say, I highly doubt you won't be inviting your family and not to mention the awkwardness of finally meeting your wife.

It turns us all into nosy neighbors, but with a $10 movie ticket.

Yes. I realize that. That was part of the joke.

The idea that we're kind of as a universal entity on the fence between being private and public about certain things and not other certain things. As I stated before things dealing with a newborn shouldn't really be for public consumption. And the fact that some people aren't thinking twice about seeing a movie that kind of is an invasion of privacy for these newborns' 1st 6 months on this Earth really bothers me. Take this: I go over to my friend's house who just had her 1st baby. She shows me pictures and is in awe. I'm happy for her. Scenario 2: I go over to my friend's house who just h

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't pay full attention to that because it's not really my business. Voyeurism: a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I think what bothers me is the nonchalance of it all. The fact that it doesn't seem to bother some people makes me feel upset.

Going back to my original post I feel that some things should be kept private between mother, father and child. That is their experience that if they wish to share with relatives, friends and others is entirely up to them. The Truman Show is becoming real by the day.

I agree with what you wrote. My friend agreed to "his" documentary because he understood the point of it being about a struggling musician in today's musical environment. You would say yes or no to a film crew to film you. My point that I've said on here and still stick to is the filming of newborns. I know that I'm not alone in this feeling. It's just that no one has popped in here yet with similar feelings on this subject.

I've done documentaries. I did one on my friend who is a musician. I filmed his performances and interviewed him. The performances I felt were voyeuristic because the camera was in one location and because of that you couldn't get another angle to view the performance hence it being fly-on-the-wall. The interview portion was not voyeuristic because I was interviewing my friend who responded with answers. Although, I was off camera and it was from my perspective. Babies seems very voyeuristic because there is no narration. You're there to see images which tells the story. It was a jok

I'm surprised to see this so cheap at Newbury Comics for $6.99. Anyone else surprised?

I'm 100% with you on this concept. Normally, I'd be the one making a case similar to what you're doing for me. But like I said this whole concept rubs me the wrong way. In a strange way I wish that they could achieve this film and it's impact but without using actual babies.

I can probably figure that they at least had a crew of 5 to 6 people with equipment which would probably scare the baby. They probably hid in the back to get a good zoomed in shot. (Edit:) I guess the difference between you and me is that I have an obvious problem with the whole idea of cameras (read: film crew) even being there and you're making a point of whether or not they were intrusive. And again I ask you: Would you want a film crew of 5 to 6 people with equipment filming your child for 6 months? And I'm not even talking about your rare chance of being a celebrity because we both know

Yes. But I don't need a movie to feel that way. You kind of glossed over my point. It's not with the parents, but moreso with allowing us as viewers to watch these 4 children in a voyeuristic way. Is it my right to watch someone else's kid grow up before me for purely selfish reasons to go "Oh such a cute baby!!" or to get some profound idea into my head? We shouldn't be shoving cameras into our newborn's faces for our own pleasure or knowledge. I can understand it for purely anthropological reasons, but if we're all going through the same thing but in different cultures do we really need

Nope. I actually meant the official Wilco page which has a special section for television appearances. I think they'll do your name (Sonny Feeling) or I'll Fight. I'd love to see Bull Black Nova but it's a bit long for broadcast tv. Yeah, there's only Russell Crowe, but Craig can kill time with the best of 'em.