Thursday, November 18, 2004
That movie...that was one hell of a movie. Never before have I seen something so thought provoking. So fear envoking. So void of joking? Eh, I just needed that last one to keep up the rhyme. But that's fine. Now its bedtime.
Goodnight.
Goodnight.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Pieced off
Today I had a final in ME470. The class is stupid to begin with. Know that first. Next, we have an open book final. And the book is pretty necessary for the final. A friend and I split the cost of books this quarter. I bought 2/3, they bought the other one. The one that they bought was for this class. So I got unintentionally fucked once. Then I go to the bookstore to purchase the book to return it either this afternoon or a few days later. I find the book, they tell me I can't return it because it is a book for this quarter and not for next. (who the fuck cares...I should still be able to return it.) Fucked twice. (the book costs 120 friggen dollars. Fucked thrice.) So I go take the final. Its pretty easy. I get almost everything from the notes, leaving the book in its shrink wrapping to be resold on the internet for minimal losses. In order to get 1/4 of the points on the test, I have to open the book just to get two z-values from statistical tables. JUST FOR THOSE TWO NUMBERS I HAVE TO OPEN THE FUCKIN BOOK! Fucked again...
I'm so pissed right now...I...AAAR
I'm so pissed right now...I...AAAR
I'm still here
I was aware, but was reminded today, that my blog has been poorly attended of late. As such, here is a post. Hope you enjoyed it.
I kid, I kid. Life is good. Shrek 2 was decent. It was the typical sequel. I wonder sometimes about the motives behind these sequels. Do they make these movies because they actually think they can bring the people more of the same enjoyment they brought us in the original? If that's the case...they get points for having pure intentions but seldom get points for a job well done. Sure...sequels are often 'decent'. But that's only because they leech off the strong, brilliant characters of the original. They usually lack the necessary story to make a great second movie and not just more of our buddies from the first.
I also have to wonder sometimes if they just do it because they know they can get us to pay for one more movie. They know they're putting out a sub-par product, but what do they care? They're still profiting off of the original movie. And if that's the case, well, damned if I'd ever know it or if there was ever anything I could do about it but...well...shame on them, damn it!
I'm not saying ALL sequels suck. But I'm starting to think that's just because they follow the same pattern described above, making movies so they can bring us the same ole characters and eventually they usually stumble upon another decent movie. Like Rocky. Damned if I remember which, but at least two of those were pretty good.
But there are also the cases where they create good characters and make enough sequels that they eventually stumble upon a good movie. Exhibit A: Die Hard 3. I guess that should really be blamed on the fact that Bruce Willis and Sammy L are friggen awesome, though.
There are also the cases in which a great character is created but a good movie is lacking. Take Rambo. That man was fucking awesome. But all of his movies sucked pretty hard. But they were all still good to watch because they had Rambo in them.
Anyway...there's a post for you John. I hope it satiates you. And all of the rest of you too. Its not just for John.
Disclaimer: I am fully aware you may disagree with my taste in movies. If that is the case, I'm sorry but you are wrong. If you'd like to argue the point, blow it out your ass.
I kid, I kid. Life is good. Shrek 2 was decent. It was the typical sequel. I wonder sometimes about the motives behind these sequels. Do they make these movies because they actually think they can bring the people more of the same enjoyment they brought us in the original? If that's the case...they get points for having pure intentions but seldom get points for a job well done. Sure...sequels are often 'decent'. But that's only because they leech off the strong, brilliant characters of the original. They usually lack the necessary story to make a great second movie and not just more of our buddies from the first.
I also have to wonder sometimes if they just do it because they know they can get us to pay for one more movie. They know they're putting out a sub-par product, but what do they care? They're still profiting off of the original movie. And if that's the case, well, damned if I'd ever know it or if there was ever anything I could do about it but...well...shame on them, damn it!
I'm not saying ALL sequels suck. But I'm starting to think that's just because they follow the same pattern described above, making movies so they can bring us the same ole characters and eventually they usually stumble upon another decent movie. Like Rocky. Damned if I remember which, but at least two of those were pretty good.
But there are also the cases where they create good characters and make enough sequels that they eventually stumble upon a good movie. Exhibit A: Die Hard 3. I guess that should really be blamed on the fact that Bruce Willis and Sammy L are friggen awesome, though.
There are also the cases in which a great character is created but a good movie is lacking. Take Rambo. That man was fucking awesome. But all of his movies sucked pretty hard. But they were all still good to watch because they had Rambo in them.
Anyway...there's a post for you John. I hope it satiates you. And all of the rest of you too. Its not just for John.
Disclaimer: I am fully aware you may disagree with my taste in movies. If that is the case, I'm sorry but you are wrong. If you'd like to argue the point, blow it out your ass.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Passing on the torch.
One problem has been resolved, a new one begins. I guess life is full of these challenges anyway. They're our proving grounds and our exercise field. One prepares us for the next and our performance dictates who we are:
"Someone said, 'I am three persons: the person I think I am, the person you think I am, and the person I really am.'"
I guess sometimes its difficult when you have to realize that you are exactly those three people, never more, never less. I am never the person that someone else thinks I am, only the person YOU think I am. Sure, sometimes that has its benefits...someone has an unfavorable view of me and you don't let it affect you. It works the other way, too. And that sometimes sucks.
"Someone said, 'I am three persons: the person I think I am, the person you think I am, and the person I really am.'"
I guess sometimes its difficult when you have to realize that you are exactly those three people, never more, never less. I am never the person that someone else thinks I am, only the person YOU think I am. Sure, sometimes that has its benefits...someone has an unfavorable view of me and you don't let it affect you. It works the other way, too. And that sometimes sucks.
