hmmmmmmmmmmm....

Why? The title. That gay-ass title. Hype + gay title = Future dust-collecting DVD at Blockbuster.

$200 million opening weekend, people.

Are there ABBA songs in this movie, too?

It's funny, because "Gojira!" sounds like a Japanese native speaker trying to say, "Godzilla!"

JOE: Oh my god! It's Godzilla!

IZUMI: Whear? Oh! Oh no! It IS Gorzheerah!

JOE: That's "GodZILLA," Izumi.

IZUMI: That what I say! GorZHEEERAH!

JOE: Zilla! Z I L L A. ZILLA!

IZUMI: Yah! ZHEERAH!

JOE: Sigh.

George W. Bush, the wisest man of our time.

Could this be it? I'm just wondering...

Fan fags like you two are the lowest common denominator. You're not hifalutin because you avidly follow a viral marketing campaign, fucking morons. Discover literature.

Mark my words, this is going to fucking BOMB. Only the most pathetic of fan bois are hyped about this movie. Because the movie is CLEARLY all hype and no substance. Another strike against it: IF it sucks it won't spread by word of mouth, which will be the nail in Cloverfield's coffin.

The Blair Witch project succeeded because it was a novel "first of its kind" thing and well hyped, so it didn't matter that it pretty much sucked.

The Blair Witch hype machine was much more potent than this movie. With Cloverfield they've been so vague the entire time they've been virally building the mythology of this movie a lot of people don't even give a shit about the mythology, let alone the movie itself. At least in the Blair Witch you had a rough idea about the movie, as the fucking villain is the namesake of the title.

Additionally, the Blair Witch sites were actually framed around GOOD STORYTELLING (compared to Cloverfield viral sites) where they build their mythology through exposition and fake journalism rather than staged LAME ass and unrealistic blogs and plugs for fake fucking Slurpee drinks. Yeah, that was done BACK IN THE FUCKING LATE EIGHTIES with the SQUISHIE. Let's use a fake drink related to all of JJ Abram's other projects to hype this movie too! Let's make this the Blair Witch of monster movies!

See how uninspired and derivative these fucks are? No wait, you probably don't.

its cause they're interested, but don't have the time/smarts to do a search, right? viral marketing wouldn't do a full arg on websites, right?

I'm happy that you are an English major, my post obviously wasn't to call into question your level of intelligence, rather point out the folley of your explicit and/or implicit argument that "people who don't read AICN interviews about a hyped up popcorn movie aren't intelligent."

Thanks for laying the sarcasm on so very thickly, too much icing IMO though, you obviously didn't get my sarcasm in referring to Steinbeck.

As for being an English major, wow, congratulations. I can visualize how your e-peen must stand at attention at the declaration of your higher education! I just read literature, however, as an intelligent person I don't feel like I require a professor to explain to me all of the inferences I am supposed to make from a particular work. I don't need training wheels to comprehend literature I guess you could say. And if one is so inclined to delve deeper into the interpretations of what they are reading there are more than enough works of literary criticism for one to choose from.

Thank you, thank you very much. *bows*

I can see that the creature has some kind of covering on its back. The covering appears to be pretty much the same color as the rest of its body.

I can also see the creature's LEFT leg as it moves across the frame. It doesn't appear to be moving much though. This could be because what we're seeing in this clip is not the final "cut" of the monster. I mean, it could be that CGI isn't complete yet. Actually, it probably isn't in this clip.

I can also see the creature's RIGHT leg. The creature appears to have a very slim lower body, with small, slim legs. It actually, in this clip, looks a little awkward as it walks.

Am I putting way too much into this?

With the slusho site(s) referring to oil, and oil being a fossil residue, maybe what we've found is a dinosaur that managed to adapt and survive at the depths of the ocean or beneath the earth's crust, and the offshore drilling broke it free. Surface, anyone?

DINSDALE !! ??

It's Spiny Norman, the Giant Hedgehog

Spiny Norman is tearing apart NYC in search of the Piranha brothers, Doug and Dinsdale Piranha

Vince: "Well one day I was at home threatening the kids when I looks out through the hole in the wall and sees this tank pull up and out gets one of Dinsdale's boys, so he comes in nice and friendly and says Dinsdale wants to have a word with me, so he chains me to the back of the tank and takes me for a scrape round to Dinsdale's place and Dinsdale's there in the conversation pit with Doug and Charles Paisley, the baby crusher, and two film producers and a man they called 'Kierkegaard', who just sat there biting the heads of whippets and Dinsdale says 'I hear you've been a naughty boy Clement' and he splits me nostrils open and saws me leg off and pulls me liver out and I tell him my name's not Clement and then... he loses his temper and nails me head to the floor."

Interviewer: He nailed your head to the floor?

Vince: At first yeah

Presenter: Another man who had his head nailed to the floor was Stig O' Tracy.

Interviewer: I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor.

Stig: No. Never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to buy his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.

Interviewer: But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor.

Stig: (pause) Oh yeah, he did that. Interviewer: Why?

Stig: Well he had to, didn't he? I mean there was nothing else he could do, be fair. I had transgressed the unwritten law.

Interviewer: What had you done?

Stig: Er... well he didn't tell me that, but he gave me his word that it was the case, and that's good enough for me with old Dinsy. I mean, he didn't *want* to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off. He'd do anything for you, Dinsdale would.

Interviewer: And you don't bear him a grudge?

Stig: A grudge! Old Dinsy. He was a real darling.

Interviewer: I understand he also nailed your wife's head to a coffee table. Isn't that true Mrs O' Tracy?

Mrs O' Tracy: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Stig: Well he did do that, yeah. He was a hard man. Vicious but fair

:)

"Just because I'm ____, does not mean I stink!"

Meanwhile, the humorless dummies in the Neill Cumpston TB disqualified themselves from such a privelege.

And yes, that Cumpston TB is all too symptomatic of the apparent decline of the standard AICN Talkbacker. In fact, it's just one sign of the increasingly bad trends contained within this site's TBs. But I digress.

Anyway, I'm right there with you - just reading some of those clueless posts (trying to masquerade themselves as "above it" or "having more important things to do") made me shake my head in amazement.

BTW - are you home for the Holidays? How has the special rehab been going?

And I know how you feel when it comes to the Talkbacks. Aside from the occassional bit of genuine news or in-depth on-topic discussion, it seems the only thing worth looking forward to is this site's cast of lunatics and nutjobs. And it is in this that we must place our hope. Because after that HOBBIT announcement, I have a feeling that we'll be seeing some legends in the making.

I'm not sold on Gomez, but we'll see. And Rickey, there is NO comparison to a Jets vs. Giants Fan. Since I have been alive, the Jets have never made it to the Superbowl. The Giants: 3 times. Want to trade?

And I'm thinking the Jets could use Livian as their QB, because really, who would notice?

I've mentioned this to Xiphos already, but with the NFL now Rickey, expansion has ruined the depth on teams now.

The same could be said for the NFL of course....but since they make sooooo much gobs of money, it ain't gonna be touched.

That's what makes the Patriots an even more remarkable story, in terms of what they have accomplished over the last several years. Are they better than the '70's Steelers or '80's 49'er's/Redskins....hell naw! But considering their QB and Coach are the only constants (more or less), that's pretty amazing. And yes, I loathe the pricks with a passion.

Know what a Puerto Rican is? A Mexican crossed with a Whitey.

Know what a Dominican is? A Puerto Rican crossed with a Black.

Those wacky Hispanics ...

"Today's topic is the paradox--or one of them, anyway--of American Jewish political behavior. No, it's not that hoary old cliché that they "earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans." Rather, it's that they think like enlightened liberals yet allow belligerent right-wingers and neocons who frequently demonize, distort and denounce their values to speak for them in the US political arena.

Don't take my word for it. According to the American Jewish Committee's 2007 survey of American Jewry, released December 11, a majority of Jews in this country oppose virtually every aspect of the Bush Administration/neocon agenda. Not only do they disapprove of the Administration's handling of its "campaign against terrorism" (59-31 percent), they believe by a 67-to-27 margin that we should never have invaded Iraq. They are unimpressed by the "surge"--68 percent say it has either made no difference or made things worse, and by a 57-to-35 percent majority they oppose an attack on Iran, even if it was undertaken "to prevent [Iran] from developing nuclear weapons."

Jews are also impressively sensible when it comes to Israel/Palestine, all things considered. Though barely more than a third think peace is likely anytime soon, and more than 80 percent believe the goal of the Muslim states is to destroy Israel, a 46-to-43 percent plurality continues to support the creation of a Palestinian state.

This wholesale rejection of the Bush/neocon agenda, moreover, is consistent with the way American Jews describe their overall political identity. Jews are more liberal than conservative (43-25 percent) and far more Democratic than Republican (58-15 percent). This preference, significantly, extends to national security issues, often considered a Republican trump card. By a massive 61-to-21 percent margin, Jews say Democrats, not Republicans, are "more likely to make the right decision about the war in Iraq." Regarding terrorism, Democrats win 53-to-30 percent.

As a Jew who shares most of these beliefs, I am tempted to trumpet these numbers as big news, but it's news only if you haven't been paying attention. An examination of past AJC surveys as well as a number of other polls of American Jews demonstrates that Jews have remained remarkably faithful to the values of liberal humanism. These views, however, have been obscured in our political discourse by an unholy alliance between conservative-dominated professional Jewish organizations and neoconservative Jewish pundits, aided by pliant and frequently clueless mainstream media that empower these right-wingers to speak for a people with values diametrically opposed to theirs.

Take a look at the agendas of some of the most influential Jewish organizations, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Organization of America and the American Jewish Committee itself; each has historically associated itself with the hawkish side of the debate--and some have done so even when Israel took the more dovish side (the Jewish equivalent of being holier than the Pope). Forget for a moment the argument over whether what some call "the Lobby" is good or bad for America. My point is that it's bad for the Jews.

In large part the trouble lies with the antidemocratic structures of these organizations and the apathy of most Jews with regard to organized Jewish life. Major Jewish groups respond to the demands of their top funders and best-organized constituencies. Most American Jews, however, have little or nothing to do with these groups. According to the AJC survey, while 90 percent of Jews say being Jewish is either "very important" (61 percent) or "fairly important" (29 percent) in their lives, exactly half say they belong to a synagogue or temple. A fraction of this number belong to Jewish political organizations, and the number of major funders is but a tiny percentage of that. As with so much of American life, the far-right minority is better funded and better disciplined than the liberal majority.

Fault can also be found with lazy editors, reporters, producers and the like who invite neocon and other unrepresentative people to speak for Jews and Jewish values. Consider the most prominent Jewish voices in the punditocracy who regularly sound off on Israel, Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, etc. My list includes Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Seth Lipsky, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, John Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Richard Cohen, Mortimer Zuckerman, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg, Lawrence Kaplan, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, Jonah Goldberg, David Gelernter, Ruth Wisse, David Brooks and David Frum. Most are Bush apologists, most supported the invasion of Iraq and most are sympathetic to the idea of an invasion of Iran. Not infrequently, leading Jewish pundits mock and ridicule the majority Jewish views. Irving Kristol, writing in Azure, attacks the "political stupidity" of American Jews. Gelernter, writing in The Weekly Standard, complains of Jewish political behavior as "a lesson in self-destructive nihilism."

Given the scare tactics the neocons routinely employ--from their frequent deployment of the intellectually vacuous term "Islamofascism," to Perle and Frum's warning that the nation's only choice is "victory or holocaust"--it is a remarkable tribute to the good sense of American Jewry that it remains a bastion of liberal humanism despite such naked attempts to manipulate longstanding fears and insecurities.

These pundits have every right to put forth their views, of course. It's long past time, however, for the mainstream media to recognize just how out of touch they are with the values of the American Jewish mainstream.

If not now, when?"

It's probably time you cut down on crank.

It's probably time you cut down on crank.

If so, then I hope you have a glass stomach so you can see where you're going because a head shoved that far up one's own ass won't be easily removed.