kimmy

I have nothing to say to the prorogation debate, but that was laugh out loud funny. -k

The FINAL VERSION?? Is that a promise? Does that mean you're done posting your drivel now? The FINAL VERSION looks a lot like the previous version, except with MORE CAPITAL LETTERS and EXCLAMATION POINTS!!! !!!!! I am sure the ENTIRE WORLD will be very excited to receive this. Actually I believe you're the one who has adopted a position against 98% of the human race. Everybody except you knows that Nostradamus is just a big pile of dog crap. It's just fairy tales for kids and fruit-cakes. You're funny. -k

Are we still talking about the prorogation of parliament, or did Stephen Harper buy a used Death Star at Dick Cheney's garage sale? -k

I'd think it might actually be men who could find this more embarrassing. For some reason this has me picturing George Costanza shouting "Shrinkage! there was SHRINKAGE!!" I have no such worries. The kimmables look great. Whoever is operating the scanner when I fly is in for a treat. One of these machines was operated in Kelowna BC's airport on a trial basis for a few months. Two privacy recommendations came out of the experience. One, the images are not stored on any permanent media. Your image is gone as soon as the next person gets scanned. Two, the scanner is in a different room. You don't see the person studying the image, and the person studying the image doesn't see you. They'll see every inch of your body, but won't see you, they'll see a naked blue CGI creature. -k

Indeed. Your prediction may have been epically wrong, but it's given us a lot to talk about. Well, I doubt anybody went to see this because they were expecting Tolstoy. They delivered what they promised. The Matrix' big special effect breakthrough wasn't CGI (which was hardly revolutionary by the time the Matrix came out) but rather the "bullet time" photography and innovative combat sequences. Yes, one would think that machines would be smart enough to figure out that their method of generating electricity was incredibly inefficient. I'm not sure that they raised prices. I paid $12 including the special glasses. I believe the only raise in prices for this movie was a $3 surcharge for the glasses. The other movies at the theatre had the same pricing; the 2d version of Avatar was the same price as other movies, the 3d version was $3 more. I was actually expecting to pay $12 + 3 for the glasses. ...taking screens away from all the other billion-dollar blockbusters the theatres have in the pipeline? Even taking the most astonishing cost estimates, Avatar has already earned double that, before a cent of home video or merchandise is counted. And is still going strong. The studio itself has to be very pleased with it. The theatre operators must be very happy as well, because they didn't pay the production costs, and receive the benefit of a steady stream of popcorn-buying traffic. Most theatres are now multiplexes, and most of them are showing at least a couple of movies that aren't drawing much in any given week; these movies are the ones that will be taken off the marquee and have their screen given to a new film that might or might not draw better. There'll reach a point when Avatar too isn't drawing and gives up its screen, but we're not at that Avatar isn't taking a screen from the next blockbuster. Avatar is taking a screen from a romantic comedy aimed at women aged 45+ and does niche business appealing to an audience that doesn't get out to theatres in great numbers normally. -k

I took it the way you intended it-- Comic Book Guy snarkiness, directed at a lot of people who deserved it. Some people seemed interested in discussing the premise, though. I thought the title fit the video, and I did laugh at the video. ("... the sad thing is, she might actually be SMARTER than Joe Biden." ) -k

He speaks! Incidents of racial profiling prove that Albertans are racists? Seems to me that racial profiling is constant news emanating from Toronto, so I guess Torontonians must be the biggest racists in all of Canada. Hey, I can find articles about fringe groups of racists and white supremacists in Ontario too (you just provided us one the other day!) so I guess Ontarians are racists and white supremacists too. Why aren't you trolling Ontarians? I thought "progressives" were supposed to understand that it's wrong to base generalizations about groups of people on cherry-picked data and isolated incidents. Yet you're doing exactly that here. You're no different than somebody who makes generalizations about all Muslims based on the actions of suicide bombers. You might think you're different, but you aren't. You're not actually a "progressive" at all. -k

Seems fitting that William named a thread about Ignatieff after the theme from Titanic. -k

I think the reason you're having a hard time reconciling those two posts with Globe's earlier messages is that your sarcasm detector is broken. The "I am not a bigot" and "I don't hate Islam, I just think it's evil" posts are his characterization of other posts being made. -k

Someone could, if they wished to do so. However, I chose my words carefully, to make sure that they weren't an attack on Ontarians in general. Only an idiot would have needed it explained to them. I am not sure what you feel you have gained by insisting on having it spelled out for you. All you're arguing here is that William Ashley is really bad at what he does. We're already in agreement on that point. By this kind of logic, an ad criticizing a politician's level of education would be racist too, since many "people of colour" do not achieve university educations. -k

Yes, I did offer some provocation, didn't I. However, you'll notice I didn't make a generalization about Ontarions at all. I simply mentioned that I encountered Canadians who were so ignorant about other Canadians was when I lived in Ontario. And I did live in Ontario for several years, more than long enough to know that a fair number of people there really don't know crap about the rest of the country... the sort of people who think they've been "out west" because they've been to London, and think they've been "up north" because they've been to North Bay. If you wish to posit that Ashley was asking an honest question seeking an answer, then I wish to posit that you're an imbecile. If you insist on having the obvious spelled out for you "explicitly", then here it is: Happy now? I termed it "profound ignorance", and profound ignorance it is. Ashley trotted out the article in an attempt to substantiate his argument that Albertans are racists... and got his ass owned. Amusing, but misguided. Sure, you could try to argue that Ashley is so illiterate that it's hard to guess what he's actually trying to say, but Ashley's intentions are made clear by his own remarks. Well, according to most progressives, no, whites are not subject to racism. However, that's beside the point. The point was that if an argument can be made in regard to someone irregardless of their race, then it's clearly not based on racism. If someone were to declare themselves a candidate to be Prime Minister within a few months of arriving in Canada, I would expect their degree of "Canadianness" would indeed be a topic of discussion, regardless of their race or religion or ethnic background. Particularly if, as in Ignatieff's case, there were the strong appearance that the opportunity to become Prime Minister was the only reason for their sudden arrival here. Attempts to spin it into an attack on "people of colour" is just ridiculous, as are your attempts to excuse Mr Ashley's idiocy. -k

As AW mentioned, it all depends on whose forgiveness Tiger Woods wants. If he wants LilBabyJeeezus to forgive him, then I would think yeah, turning Christian is a no brainer. If he wants Elin Nordegren to forgive him, that's probably not going to cut it. But what about his sponsors? What about the American public that those sponsors are trying to reach? If Tiger Woods goes on Oprah and declares himself to be on the fairway with Jeeeezus, are millions of Americans going to say "hey, he's a Christian now! Yay for Tiger!" A few months ago Tag Heuer was the watch of guys who rule the golf course. Then Tag Heuer was the watch of guys who cheat on their wives with skanks. Presently Tag Heuer is no longer the watch of guys who cheat on their wives with skanks, at least as far as their US advertising is concerned. How does the public see him if he "finds God"? Does that erase the taint of this scandal from peoples' minds? Does he go back to being the guy who rules the golf course, or does he just become that guy who cheated with a bunch of skanks and then claimed that he found God and saw the error of his ways? Are Christians likely to be impressed, or are they more likely to see his "conversion" as a cynical ploy to heal his public image? Are non-Christians likely to be impressed, or are they more likely to see his "conversion" as a cynical ploy to heal his public image? And how confident is Tag Heuer going to be about putting this guy back on their advertisements? -k

Yes, that could happen sometime... ...sometime last weekend. FWIW, I also thought The Dark Knight was pretty blah, with its only highlight being The Joker (both in concept and in Ledger's performance.) Many would likewise say Avatar was pretty blah, with its only highlight being the fantastic visuals. -k

The word on the street is that you have a tiny penis. Everyone laughs at you behind your back. You don't have any friends. You are, however, world famous on Google! I started typing in "David Mabus", and by the time I was up to "b", the autocomplete was already suggesting "david mabus spam" as the most popular search term. Wow! I accepted this helpful suggestion, and with moments was reading this: David Mabus rap-sheet But wait! The adventure continues! Nostradamus predicted the coming of Depeche Mode! I know there's gotta be a "Personal Jesus" joke in here somewhere, but I'll be darned if I can figure it out. But apparently it's not all fun and games with David Mabus... Fascinating. That's some interesting stuff. -k

Indeed I did. I had thought William Ashley's comments spoke for themselves. The guy opens his post by saying of Alberta: "Don't they still call Chinese chincs there?" Are you honestly telling me you need someone to explain you you why this is "profound ignorance"? Perhaps, but that would be pure speculation. The only solid information Kinsella provides about the neo-Nazis and Heritage Front infiltrating the Reform Party is that they were "mostly in the Greater Toronto Area". Buffing out his attack on Albertans by providing us evidence of neo-Nazi activity in Toronto is most ingenious! Nice crop of the quote, but no. He's not saying supporters of neo-Nazis will be furious. He's saying the supporters of this government are neo-Nazis who'll be furious to have Chinese bosses: Doesn't it sting albertans to know that Canada sold out athabasca to the Chinese? Their NeoNazi supporters must be furrious knowing that they will be working for their Chinese Bosses. It's obvious what he's getting at here. Sure, maybe his shoddy writing skills would leave some doubt as to what he's trying to say, except that his prejudice is so clearly stated in the opening line of the message, which was, again: "Don't they still call Chinese chincs there?" If the argument is equally applicable to a white person, how is it a racist argument? Well beyond what's actually stated, my ass. The guy's prejudice and ignorance are clearly stated in his message. It's obvious he was trying to write a slam piece and provoke a reaction, and, he got one. He was posting earlier today but apparently didn't have anything to say to this thread. How surprising. -k

I pointed quoted the "chinc" portion and called his comments ignorant. I would think that most people with any sort of thinking capacity of their own would be able to grasp why. According to Kinsella, the Heritage Front people were not "within Alberta", they were within Toronto. Regardless, characterizing Albertans as neo-Nazis who'll be furious to have Chinese bosses is just disgusting. It's a big leap of logic to transform the commentary about Ignatieff's opportunistic return to Canada into an attack on people of other races. It's a much bigger leap of logic to somehow posit that the Conservative party's marketing group is somehow representative of Albertans. It's obvious that Mr Ashley is not interested in the foreign investment angle of this story and was merely using it as a pretext to launch his ignorant and poorly-thought out generalizations about the people of a province. -k

"the corporation" in the movie bears little similarity to any present-day corporation I can think of. Maybe it was inspired by the British East India company? The cartoonish portrayal of "the corporation"-- they might as well be scheming to make fur coats out of Dalmatians-- makes it hard to take the movie seriously as any sort of social commentary. In the scene were they are watching the aftermath of the first attack, corporation-guy seems to look regretful of what they've done, but maybe he just had gas when they were shooting the scene. We never find out... we don't see any more of him until the very end of the film. -k

I remember a scene in a movie where a space probe is being prepared to be launched on a path that will take it far beyond our solar system. Aside from the usual sorts of things, they also place a diagram of our solar system and of human beings, and a recording of the Brandenburg Concerto. "If another species finds this, I think I would be very happy if their first exposure to humanity was the Brandenburg Concerto," someone says. I can't recall what movie the scene was from, but that part of it, the idea that the Brandenburg Concerto would be the ideal representation for our species, was quite charming. I think the worst possible first impression would be if the alien species discovered a cache of Oleg Bach messages. -k

As I mentioned earlier, characterizing Albertans as racists. Suggesting Albertans refer to Chinese people as "chincs" and the reference to neo-Nazis. I'm surprised that this sort of thing needs to even be pointed out. What planet are you people from? -k

Quiet, you, we're talking about serious science here! And, on that note, I offer up a few calculations I just did. As you're probably aware, the strongest influence of gravity that we here on earth experience is ... the earth. If you're standing on the earth's surface, the earth's gravity is over 1700 times stronger than the next most powerful gravitational pull you'll experience from a celestial object, which is the sun. (this is highly beneficial, because it keeps you from flying off into space each time the sun rises.) The third strongest gravitational pull you experience comes from our friend the moon. The moon's gravity, from the earth, is about 1/170 as strong as the sun's gravity. What about other planets? When it is its very closest to us, our closest planetary neighbor, Venus, exerts a gravitational pull which is just 1/150 as strong as the moon. The largest planet, Jupiter, exerts a pull which is 1/90 that of the moon. Saturn, smaller and much farther away, exerts a pull which is just 1/1263 as strong as the moon. Mars, although much closer than Jupiter and Saturn, is tiny and exerts a pull which is just 1/2430 as strong as the moon's. Get Mars' weak ass out of here. As you can see, it is clear that the gravitational pull of all other celestial bodies is miniscule compared to the influence of the sun and moon. If you want to see the awesome destructive power unleased by celestial forces pulling our seas, you can take a picnic basket down to the beach and wait; you can witness this cataclysmic force twice daily. -k

Exciting, isn't it? The thrilling technology George Lucas envisioned now seems just around the corner! -k {must be going; off to Taji Station to pick up some power converters.}

I am kind of wondering if William Ashley is going to come by to defend his ignorant, inflammatory remarks, or if this was just a hit-and-run. -k

One estimate I read placed production costs at $290-320 million, and marketting expenses at $120-150 million. I tend to find that the most believable, because it jives with all the varying figures that we've been hearing. It jives with the $300m production cost that was widely quoted earlier, but also explains the $400-500m figures that have appeared in some stories. If they could make movies a "success" by claiming big box-office receipts, why does this metric show that so many movies flop at the box office? I don't believe the movie studios are in charge of the theatre chains, or in charge of the weekly box office figures we receive. I also believe that the distribution companies and theatre chains are publicly traded companies and that they are required to release audited information in their reports to shareholders, so if the weekly figures are lies, they'd get caught in it. I don't know how these estimates are derived, but they are widely considered credible. I think there's no doubt at all that Avatar is a hit of immense proportions. Probably not. It's not going to work on a 7" seat-back. It might work pretty well on a hi-def 50" plasma, though. It's beautiful to look at. It'll sound great. What you're getting at is an important part of the equation for movie studios. Ask people to name box-office bombs, and one they'll often mention is Waterworld. But Waterworld ultimately made money, by the time home video sales and broadcast rights and so-on were included. I don't think the premise you're working under is super strong, though. "Blockbuster" type movies have had extremely strong home video sales. From the Star Wars saga right through to The Dark Knight and the Transformers movies, these "you have to see it in the theatre!" movies seem to do tremendously well on home video too. The Matrix was the first DVD I ever purchased. I didn't have a real DVD player except for the one in my computer. And I had the nice speakers in my computer. I bought The Matrix because I wanted to hear the high-quality sound. I think Avatar will have the same sort of appeal for people looking for stuff that will make the most of their expensive TVs and sound systems. I have an incredible home theatre setup. I want incredible stuff to put on it. As I said earlier, there's nothing new going on here. There have been movies designed to deliver that "you just HAVE to see it in the theatre!" sensation for years. The home viewing experience may have improved tremendously over time, but the danger to movie theatres is about the same. 25 years ago dad had a VCR and a 27" CRT TV, which I imagine was considered pretty swank at the time. I have a 50" plasma widescreen, a blu-ray player, and a bitchen 5.1 channel surround sound system. If 1985 dad could see 2010 kimmy's home theatre, he'd probably regard it as Star Trek technology. But really, the difference is just qualitative. 1985 dad could go down to the store and rent a movie with the expectation of seeing a good quality reproduction of the original. 2010 kimmy can do the same. What's really changed? The expectation of what constitutes a good quality reproduction. That's about it. The threat to theatres, the "I think I'll just wait until it comes out on rental" or "I think I'll just wait until it comes out on the movie channel" or "maybe I'll watch it on network TV some time in the future" is about the same. I think that while the quality of the home movie experience has improved dramatically, the attitude that there are movies that you just have to see in the theatre to get the full experience remains the same. It's not the 1950s anymore. People are entirely used to the idea that you can have moving pictures right in your living room. The movies have survived that. One of the box office reports I linked to earlier contained the following remarks: ...and I think that a lot of it boils down to just that: people want to go out, and movies provide pretty good value. For $12, you could have 3 forgettable beers, two forgettable hamburgers, or 1 memorable movie. Unnoticed amid all the blue aliens, the Sandra Bullock movie "The Blind Side", about an adopted boy who becomes a football star, has drawn huge audiences. Women are apparently flocking to the new Meryl Streep show. Both are, I imagine, not 3d and lacking in CGI creatures. Both films would probably be just fine on a 50" plasma and blu-ray, or even a 27" CRT and VCR. People have been going anyway, in large numbers. A spectacle like Avatar might get a lot of people to the theatres, but people still go to theatres to see movies with more traditional appeal. I see little reason to think they don't. I don't think that the existence of large spectacle like Avatar, which seems designed to get people to go to an actual movie theatre, is evidence to suggest otherwise. They create extra material right at the time of production, specifically intended to buff out their home releases. Short films, extra scenes, commentary. And of course the "direct to video" distribution model has been around for a long time. I think that in the future, downloadable features geared specifically for home theatre will become more common (TV is already exploring this...) but somehow I doubt it will take the place of a real movie theatre. -k

If she had nothing to contribute, why would he marry her in the first place? What was in it for him? How about 2 kids and (for a while) the image of being a family man? It would have been possible for Tiger to have kids with any of the skanks he's been hanging out with, but I doubt golf sponsors would have been as excited about Tiger if he was raising an "NBA style" family. If money is the only yardstick one chose to measure by, I think there's a fair argument to be made that the image of being a faithful husband and devoted father put dollars into Tiger's pocket. -k

I finally saw the big movie yesterday, and I feel like I got my $12 worth. As a story, it's mediocre and been done before. If it was intended to be social commentary, it failed in that respect. But as a spectacle, it was amazing. This was my first experience with the "new" 3d technology, although I once saw a crappy 1950s blue-red-horror cheesefest at a crappy 1950s movie festival playing at a local arthouse theatre. It took a while for me to get used to it. We originally started near the very front of the theatre, and that was just too intense and I had to move back. It took my eyes a while to get used to it (a sensation of blurring and having trouble focusing that went away after a while). I was in an aisle seat and the floor exit lighting was reflecting off the inside of my 3d glasses which distracted me as well; I spent the whole movie with my hand by my ear to block the reflection. But once I got comfortable with the 3d, I was really impressed with it. A few times I found it a little distracting, but for the most part it was used in a way that added to the sense of immersion. And I did feel a sense of immersion in the fantasy environment they had created. I think that's what the movie offers... not a social commentary or a profound story, just 2.7 hours immersed in a completely different world. To me, that aspect of it alone makes it an impressive piece of art. -k