Sensible Erection | Bring me the head of Jobs

Wednesday, 17 March 2010

quote [ Try Spicy Steve Nachos, iPad Thai and an Apple Cheese Plate
and pay homage to the greatest consumer electronics company of all time. ]

oh.dear.me.

[humour] [by Bob Denver@11:40pmGMT] [+5 WTF]

Comments

jaxtraw said @ 11:45pm GMT on 17th Mar
Even christians only use bread and wine metaphorically, rather than actually sculpting a Jesus to devour.

rezties said @ 12:11am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:3 Funny]
Equating Steve Jobs to Jesus is underestimating Steve Jobs. Have you ever had an in-depth conversation with an Apple nut?

Unless you are one.

In which case, I apologize. For many reasons.

nik said @ 11:34am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:1 Funny]
Jobs gave me (well, sold me) an iPhone that actually does something. Jesus told me I should be a masochist pussy who, when punched in the face, gives my opponent a change to smash the other side too, for symmetry.

Give me Jobs any day. That Christ guy is a fucking idiot.

Chop-Logik said @ 3:33pm GMT on 18th Mar [Score:1 Funny]
No, that app is coming in April.

scabble said @ 9:59pm GMT on 18th Mar
The "turn the other cheek" thing was explained to me as it contextually relates to the culture of the time, and it takes a different meaning.

(If anyone wants to correct any errors here, feel free.)

There is the concept of the "clean hand" and the "unclean hand." If someone strikes you, they will do this with their unclean hand. When you turn the other cheek, you aren't blindly asking for more punishment. The striker has two options- to strike you again with their clean hand, which is an insult to them (for reasons I don't fully understand) or to backhand you with their unclean hand. This might hurt like a sonofabitch but it essentially means they "take it back."

So turning the other cheek is either an insult, or it forces someone to apologize, after a fashion. It isn't being a masochistic pussy, it's more a sort of masochistic passive aggression.

FWIW

scabble said @ 12:09pm GMT on 18th Mar
I've often thought there's a lost market out there for a bakery that could sell life-sized Jesus-shaped loaves for Confirmation parties.

sanepride said @ 11:46pm GMT on 17th Mar [Score:1 Insightful]
It would be a lot funnier if it was made out of liver.

Baxter_UK said @ 12:51am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:3 Funny]
It would be funnier if it was made out of Steve Jobs.

sacrelicious said @ 2:55am GMT on 18th Mar
it would be bigger and have a filling made of itself if it were made out of Steve Jobs.

delacroix said @ 3:40am GMT on 18th Mar
It would have a filling made out of itself regardless.

Misanthrope said @ 5:39am GMT on 19th Mar
I don't think you can call it a filling if it homogeneous throughout.

Misanthrope said @ 5:39am GMT on 19th Mar
it is*

sacrelicious said @ 12:06am GMT on 18th Mar
how many times have I heard apple fanboys say "okay, I admit to being an apple fanboy..."? and out of those how many has the intended subtext been "I have a macbook, touch touch me to feel that warmth that surges through our symbiotic link"? and of those how many have no idea that everyone else looks at them as just some sad sucker who thinks letting a manufacturer of mass produced goods brand him is a good way to establish an individual identity for himself?

jaxtraw said @ 12:13am GMT on 18th Mar
I am a radical individualist, and my Radical Individualist Brand™ apparel is the proof.

f00m@nB@r said @ 12:30am GMT on 18th Mar
~~Radical Individualist Brand™~~ vintage glasses

Nihil said @ 1:28am GMT on 18th Mar
In my day, they were simply called "old glasses".

sacrelicious said @ 2:47am GMT on 18th Mar
it really bothers you that I lack 20/20 vision, and can find attractive and well-fitting eyewear for less than the cost of retail, doesn't it?

nik said @ 11:35am GMT on 18th Mar
I read what you said, and all I heard you say was, "I am a fag."

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

f00m@nB@r said @ 12:18am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:1 Funny]
http://myfoodlooksfunny.com/

f00m@nB@r said @ 12:32am GMT on 18th Mar
sac + jaxtraw: gimme a fucking break! this is funny. jesus fucking christ! get a sense of humor.

f00m@nB@r said @ 12:38am GMT on 18th Mar
"when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Chop-Logik said @ 12:52am GMT on 18th Mar
What's the maxim where you fly off the handle at the drop of a hat?

Baxter_UK said @ 12:55am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:4 Funny]
I DON'T FUCKING KNOW.

jaxtraw said @ 1:04am GMT on 18th Mar
When all you have is an Apple...

Ankylosaur said @ 1:59am GMT on 18th Mar
make Appleade.

Naruki said @ 1:07am GMT on 18th Mar
When your nick is Naruki...

Dioxin said @ 1:12am GMT on 18th Mar
"when all you have is a hammer, splinters in your colon just becomes a fact of life."

f00m@nB@r said @ 2:20am GMT on 18th Mar
touché.

Chop-Logik said @ 2:30am GMT on 18th Mar
WHO YOU CALLING A TOUCHEBAG?

<3 <3 <3

Dioxin said @ 2:50am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:1 Funny]
Three three, three three, three three, three three, three, three.

Chop-Logik said @ 3:22am GMT on 18th Mar
Making hands with your hearts, and hearts with your hands..

teknokracy said @ 1:19am GMT on 18th Mar
It's funny because they live in their own self-fulfilling thread.

JOECAM said @ 12:59am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:2 Funny]

Ankylosaur said @ 2:09am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:2 Funny]

jaxtraw said @ 11:34am GMT on 18th Mar
I wish I could upmod this again. It's been cracking me up for hours now.

Dioxin said @ 1:09am GMT on 18th Mar

If I remember correctly, the guy has a chestbuster inside him.

Alien Resurrection was a crappy, crappy movie.

Baxter_UK said @ 1:13am GMT on 18th Mar
No, Alien 2 was a crappy movie. Alien Resurrection was a good movie, and was directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who then went back to France to continue making films that didn't have exploding chest aliens.

Baxter_UK said @ 1:13am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:1 Good]
I meant Alien 3 was crappy. Alien 1 & 2 were also good.

ahPook said @ 1:20am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:1 Underrated]
I like all Alien movies and no Alien v Predator movies.
Alien Resurrection was fun.

teknokracy said @ 1:20am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:1 Underrated]
God I'm glad you corrected yourself... I would have really trashed that post.

DrowJones said @ 5:28pm GMT on 18th Mar
You were about to nuke his post from the orbit?

cb361 said @ 1:27am GMT on 18th Mar
I enjoyed 3 more than 1. I liked the dramatic, over-the-top scenes.

Ankylosaur said @ 2:02am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:2 Funny]
I, too, enjoyed 3 because I enjoy smelters and smeltering paraphernalia.

Krutz said @ 8:32am GMT on 18th Mar
Things that were good about Alien 3:

- The soundtrack.
- The establishment that aliens look different depending on their host.
- The setting.
- The prisoners and the prison dynamics.
- The Alien POV camera when it was chasing people.

Things that weren't good about Alien 3:

- The beginning, based on the out-of-left-field idea that the queen had time to lay eggs before getting offed.
- Killing Hicks and Newt.
- Relying on bad (even for the time) CGI and blue screen effects rather than sticking to the practical effects that worked so well in the previous films.
- The studio not just swallowing its pride and using some Dark Horse comics to have a kick-ass film where, while the Sulaco survivors were in hypersleep, aliens had basically infested Earth.

jaxtraw said @ 9:10am GMT on 18th Mar
I enjoyed it at the time, it was an enjoyable movie. Which I enjoyed. I am glad there was no internets then, because I would have known not to enjoy it.

I didn't enjoy the fourth one, because I didn't see it.

cb361 said @ 1:19pm GMT on 18th Mar
I guess that on its own, 3 is an okay movie. The problem isn't that it was bad, but that it should have been so much better. I think the only people who knew where to take the Alien franchise after Aliens were Dark Horse, who had no compunction about actually releasing a swarm of hungry xenomorphs on Earth.

Silent said @ 3:53pm GMT on 18th Mar
As a man who has repeatedly re-read Earth Hive/Nightmare Asylum (novelization) I whole heartedly support Earth being over run by bugs.

cb361 said @ 4:46pm GMT on 18th Mar
Only because you're betting on the bugs eating all the zombies.

I didn't read the novelizations. Have you read the comics? I had the full set of UK editions, until my mum threw them away. Partly my own fault though - I told her she could throw away my old computer magazines and the comics were in similar binders.

Krutz said @ 4:48pm GMT on 18th Mar
Ah, sorry, I should listen to the libertarian and never express an opinion again.

And sorry to hear the 'net is so influential over your opinions. I do hope you've never been told to go die in a fire or something; you could get hurt.

jaxtraw said @ 8:15pm GMT on 18th Mar
I just happened to like the movie. Nothing deeper than that.

sacrelicious said @ 4:50pm GMT on 18th Mar
two things.

-if hicks and newt survived the movie would have been Swiss Family Alien, and would have sucked out loud. you know this in your heart to be true.

-aliens infesting earth would have broken the budget I'm sure.

Krutz said @ 5:23pm GMT on 18th Mar
One thing: You didn't read the comic I'm referring to, did you?

sacrelicious said @ 5:37pm GMT on 18th Mar
I think I read an ish of that storyline. it looked like it would have been very expensive to film.

Krutz said @ 5:56pm GMT on 18th Mar
I think it wouldn't have been any more expensive than previous ones. Rather than having large splash pages of aliens overrunning cities and what have you, they used a more effective technique of the Sulaco receiving bits of newsfeeds where you have scenes of carnage or quick-cuts of combat (much like the second movie). Particularly effective was a panel where a camera was recording a room full of dead humans with the words "DARWIN WAS RIGHT" written in blood on the wall.

Once that's established, you just need isolated sets for the story; the viewer already assumes every city on Earth is decimated (or at least, every city that matters), so there's no need to actually show it unless the director just wants to burn money.

sacrelicious said @ 6:16pm GMT on 18th Mar
but you aren't thinking like a producer. a producer thinks "we have to show everything, just think of the spectacle! ohhh, that's gonna be more spectacle than we can afford to show..." then they hire a director who thinks "how can we cheat it to look like it's more spectacle than it is?", but that's another story.

Krutz said @ 7:44pm GMT on 18th Mar
You're leaving out the part of the producer that thinks "it costs HOW much? Can't we just make it out of cardboard?" :)

And perhaps back then, yeah, it would have been all matte paintings and miniatures, costing much more than comparable CGI today.

But if it were impossible to deliver a worldwide apocalypse without going over budget by showing every city in flames, no zombie movie would ever be made.

sacrelicious said @ 7:52pm GMT on 18th Mar
notice how most zombie movies of non-recent make have been set in houses, malls, underground bunkers, small towns, and other pre-existing sets/locations, or sets easy to construct. and are also set more or less in the present day.

Krutz said @ 7:57pm GMT on 18th Mar
That's true, but for an Alien film, the costumes are more or less contemporary (the only change to modern clothing I can recall is Burke's odd collar on his suit). Aside from high-tech installations, your sets for alien-infested future-Earth could look a lot like they do now. They could pull a "Blade Runner" and festoon a few windows with Asian characters or have a cell phone that has some kind of hologram function to tell the audience "it's the future."

For the most part, your buildings could remain the same, especially if the characters were hiding from monsters. Heck, most of Detroit could probably fit the bill.*

* that's another thing about Detroit I think the city needs to do: Sell the buildings that need to be demolished to movie companies. Let them blow them up, saving the city the trouble, and then all they have to do is cart away or bury the debris.

sacrelicious said @ 8:10pm GMT on 18th Mar
unfortunately the first two established a very futuristic future, wardrobe aside. and even dressing a few hundred extras in modified business suits can add up.

pulling a Blade Runner makes perfect sense to you and me, but the money people at the studio would probably look at how much Blade Runner cost to make vs how much it made back at the box office, and nix the idea. that's a movie that made its money on video, and the bean counters, as today, don't give that the weight they should.

arctan said @ 4:43am GMT on 19th Mar
The bean counters need to show lots of dollars to the higher-ups as soon as possible so that they themselves can get promoted to a higher-up position and start making higher-up salaries as soon as possible. It's a simple economic decision on their part -- money the movie makes on DVD counts for less because it comes in after the bean counters may have already been laid off, transferred or jumped ship to another company, i.e. after it's too late to really do them any good.

cb361 said @ 6:24pm GMT on 18th Mar

sacrelicious said @ 6:31pm GMT on 18th Mar
oh, that's the one sam kieth did? I didn't read that one.

Krutz said @ 7:45pm GMT on 18th Mar
God, I wish Fox would just adapt one of the comic stories, at least once. "Berserker" would be a good small-cast film.

cb361 said @ 10:04pm GMT on 18th Mar

This scene remained with me as an acme for evil, for many years.

sacrelicious said @ 3:09am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:3 Insightful]
I think they were all good in their own way, and more importantly, they were all very different from eachother stylistically. the last two had flaws, minor flaws, and aren't as good as the first two. the second had flaws that were bigger than the flaws of the last two, but compensated for them in such a greater ratio of awesomeness that it is the best of the four. the third's biggest flaw is that it is boring and a touch over-acted. but it was atmospheric and engaging still. it is the worst of the three, but I would hardly call it bad. if it were a standalone film I think it would be regarded as a cult classic. the fourth was the funniest of the three, and the only of the three to contain intentional humor. it starts out very strong, but does get a little less focused in the middle. this failure to maintain the momentum and charm of it's opening act is characterized as "bad", but really that's better described as "short-of-great". the first one does the opposite: drags in the beginning, and builds to the end. good for it, it is great. the second one does. not. drag. the third one only drags.

Silent said @ 3:14am GMT on 18th Mar
I may be drunk, but this explains things better than I could sober.

damnit said @ 4:09am GMT on 18th Mar
I liked Resurrection because it had Ron Perlman. He's the most hardworking actor (lots of movies/voice work under his belt) I know.

shiftace said @ 7:58am GMT on 18th Mar
Ron Perlman is the fucking man. he was fucking awesome in beauty and the beast. I loved that show.

shiftace said @ 8:00am GMT on 18th Mar
Fuck! I meant I fucking loved that show.

cb361 said @ 6:12pm GMT on 18th Mar
I fucking fuck the fucking fuck fucks.

Krutz said @ 7:46pm GMT on 18th Mar
Fuck. Fuck never changes...

Krutz said @ 8:35am GMT on 18th Mar
Perlman couldn't save the fact that:

(1) the only technological advance since Alien 3 (wasn't it over 100 years?) is whiskey cubes.

(2) scientists who had grown the aliens from the cell up not only putting them in containers together, but somehow forgetting that their blood was acidic and not designing cages appropriately.

(3) it may have been budget cuts, but the preggers alien queen scene was just plain stupid looking.

Supreme_Coconut said @ 3:11pm GMT on 18th Mar
I saw the first one when I was twelve. Borrowed it from a friend. To this day, I'm freaked out about being in dark, tight areas. I think that movie made me claustrophobic. Aliens was bad ass from start to finish. Bill Paxton shined like the Sun. Then we have Alien 3. There's some good things there, but the overall tone is pretty lousy. I wasn't surprised to hear that the original script had been thrown out a week before filming. Sucks for Michael Biehn since he was supposed to be in there somewhere. The fourth movie? Ugh. Can't have an Alien movie without Ripley. But didn't she die in the third? Hey, I know, lets clone her hair shavings from the prison planet. And then at some point, amid all the lousy acting from everyone outside of Weaver and Perlman, the alien queen will give birth like a human and make a fleshy alien. I don't mind saying that it was almost as revolting as the "failed attempts" lab. I'd prefer to put Resurrection in with the AvP movies as "movies that shouldn't have been made."

mrcucumber said @ 4:32pm GMT on 18th Mar
I don't get this fascination with sequels. Alien 1 was a classic, excellent movie, all the rest pale in comparison. They were made to ride the wave of success, and it showed.

Krutz said @ 5:58pm GMT on 18th Mar
I'm curious: What didn't you like about the second film? I thought it was not only a good action movie, it gave the audience a better glimpse of what the larger world of "Alien" was like.

mrcucumber said @ 11:48pm GMT on 18th Mar
That's actually one of my beefs with major Hollywood blockbuster movies. Almost everything has to be explained. The mystery is what gives the first alien a sense of danger, the unexplained, adventure, that the others miss entirely. The movie "undertow" had a kid eating paint chips and household paint. Avoided regular food. Had nothing to do with the plot or the characters but it gave it a sense of reality. I mean, does everything need a sequel? Look at the die hard movies. Wouldn't you rather the film be used for another cool action flick? With a different plot? Adding variety and inspiring other action adventures? I simply see it as a brand. Whenever anything turns into a brand it becomes a plasticy version of itself.

I dunno, sure, it might have been entertaining but could it have stood by itself? Probably not. It needed the first to lay the ground work. Sequels always piggyback on the success of the first. However, there can be a body of work that is successful provided the scripts are written as a whole, ala matrix ( but even then the 2 and 3rd sucked). I guess I just like the pristine nature of the virgin story, and not use popularity to rake in the cash....prostituting the concept - It always loses something, a je ne sais quoi in the process....

Krutz said @ 12:56am GMT on 19th Mar
As I understood it, the first film was basically a sci-fi horror concept based on a bunch of HR Giger's paintings (including, in cut footage, the idea that Alien warriors could make eggs from their victims).

Sequels aren't always needed or warranted, no. But in the case of Alien, it made more sense than most, as we saw the egg chamber on the spacecraft, so it wasn't like there was just one monster to kill.

But "Aliens" is unusual, as it was a sequel that was, I think, at least as good as the original, if not moreso. It also expanded on the core concept. Taken together, both are allegories for disease outbreaks: Patient Zero vs. a pandemic. I think the ones that followed just ran with the "things are trying to kill people" as a meme, though Alien 3 did try to address Ripley's maternal instincts (which were also covered in "Aliens," though it's only seen in extended footage).

I just look at sequels as separate movies: Either they work and are good, or they don't. And while it could be considered a case of money trumping art, I find that, generally, "good" movies with great dialogue, plot, acting, etc. are not the ones that make money, which is pretty much all the studio is interested. I can enjoy a big, dumb, fun movie as much as the next guy, but I find that with all of the micro-managing that goes on in just about every industry these days, competent entertainment that fires on all cylinders is largely a coincidence to the original intent of making it.

Besides, there are plenty of bad movies that aren't sequels, too. More, I would say. I find myself getting more disdainful of reboots/remakes, especially if it's a decade or less since the original.

mrcucumber said @ 5:18pm GMT on 19th Mar
Fair enough....I agree. Maybe it just didn't do it for me, but most sequels don't. Ok, maybe the "Thin Man" series......are they considered sequels?

sanepride said @ 2:13am GMT on 18th Mar [Score:1 Insightful]
Ben Stein has a chestbuster inside him?

About fucking time.

eviltwin said @ 2:27am GMT on 18th Mar
Poor chestbuster...

nbob said @ 3:08am GMT on 18th Mar
Who you gonna call?

Dioxin said @ 7:54am GMT on 18th Mar
chestbuster

EPT said @ 7:18am GMT on 18th Mar
the greatest consumer electronics company of all time

... Nokia?

lsdbeta said @ 11:18am GMT on 18th Mar
... Sony?

DrowJones said @ 5:34pm GMT on 18th Mar
GE?

badgerbaiter said @ 11:44pm GMT on 18th Mar
Speak and Spell?

papango said @ 8:10am GMT on 18th Mar
head cheese. heh heh heh.

JOECAM said @ 12:31am GMT on 19th Mar
What, no liver pate' with it?

Rorschach said @ 2:27pm GMT on 19th Mar
How does all of that pay homage to Nintendo? I don't get it.