That's supposed to be 'money' in musical form, as in the song by Pink Floyd on their iconic album Dark Side of the Moon.
I was on teh intarwebs today and decided to catch up on the IMDB. Apparently I missed that Michael Moore made another film, and it's quasi big news. The film is entitled "Capitalism: A Love Story" and embarks on a quest to find out what happened with the economy and why we are so f#$%ed! ( I censored this on my Dad's behalf)
While I'm sure it's a well done documentary, in so far that it will be entertaining and mildly informative, I was sort of peeved with the trailer and a clip I saw from Jay Leno's new NOT the Tonight Show.
http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi3607560729/ You can see it there with the clip from the film, just skip over Michael Moore singing (or your brain will melt within your skull and leak out your ears!).
In the clip he goes from business to business, bank to bank in a (borrowed? rented? who cares) Brinks armored truck, asking for the bailout money back so that he can give it to the American people. This is beyond retarded and just a little sad. He's not making a point (and if he's trying to then it's a BIG sad). He's just trying to make the bad guy (banks being bailed out) look even worse by refusing to give some fat guy in a baseball cap billions of dollars that he promises to take back to the US treasury. I don't get it.
Before I continue, I don't disagree with Michael Moore. In fact I think the bailouts are a greater show of stupidity by our government than the legislative equivalent of driving a railroad spike through your head because you have an itch. It's just the way he's showing it.
It's insulting to everyone. To me, to him, to the American public, everyone! We can't be shown numbers and charts because that's too boring so the only way we will get up off our asses and do something is to get unnecessarily pissed off at the people getting these bailouts.
Of course they won't give him the money! Of course they'll tell him to get out! He's a fat asshole! If he came to my house, I'd probably call the cops too. Not because I thought he was going to ask for money to give back to the American people. Mostly because I would have no idea why Michael Moore was visiting me, other than he was hungry and wanted to eat me.
Low and behold, his little trailer did make me think a bit (and write this blog), and I did some calculations myself. According to CNNs "bailout tracker", which as far as I can tell is monitoring everything that's being reported by the government concerning economic bailouts of any kind, we (the US government) are bailing out a total of............................11.....TRILLION....cents..NO...DOLLARS!!!
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
(That's the link above)
America's population is just under 305 million. If you took that 11 trillion and distributed evenly (we probably wouldn't, since there are quite a few folks out there who don't need it but would definately put it back into the economy) to those 305 million Americans, it would be $36,000/person!!!! Again thats for every man, woman, AND child so there are some kinks to work out. But come on, wouldn't that stimulate the economy better? And since those companies that suck are going under, that money would be supporting the businesses left who had their stuff together. Supporting good and punishing the bad. Of course, really we shouldn't be giving this money out in the first place (I'm a libertarian) but we live in an imperfect world.
Enough ranting for one day......Michael Moore sucks!!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
I'm A Family Man
So the other day, my girlfriend asked me this,
Ya, that's the back. It contains: a 32-inch electronically deployed LCD screen, Wi-Fi, Sony Viao laptop (with additional ports for laptops to be connected), PS3 (this is an option on the vehicle), a Vertue Constellation luxury cellphone (that's an 18-karat gold plated cell for those of you who don't know), and an espresso maker!!
"Do you ever see other people with kids and feel like you want one?"
No, not really. Not at all.
It's not that I don't want kids or love having kids around (they're more fun that adults most of the time), I just don't get the feeling to have kids when I see other people with them. I mean, most of the time I think to myself, "Man, that kid is annoying. I'm glad he/she isn't mine."
So then I was asked the follow up question,
"So what does make you want to have kids?"
Well, I guess, maybe, when I'm watching cartoons....it would be nice to have someone to watch them with. Ya, maybe when I'm watching Spongebob, I'd like to not be the only person laughing at Patrick the Starfish (cause there are usually people laughing, but it's mainly toward me and not the show). But not just Spongebob, there is TMNT, GI JOE, Transformers, He-Man (all the classics) and whatever new Japanese anime I happen to be into at the time.
She didn't really like that response, and kinda maybe said something to the effect of "We won't have any TVs" or "I'm leaving you", but of course all that is rediculous (especially the TV thing).
Today, I found another reason. A better reason. An awesome.....reason.
This...
Witness, the Brabus (made by Mercedes). It probably means something in German, but I like to think it's just a combination of "bra" as in "wassup bra?" and "bus". Kinda like a dude-mobile...except a minivan.
Anyway, from this picture you can see it just looks like an ordinary minivan with maybe a few more curves and a Mercedes Benz symbol. But there is soooo much more.
Check it...
Ya, that's the back. It contains: a 32-inch electronically deployed LCD screen, Wi-Fi, Sony Viao laptop (with additional ports for laptops to be connected), PS3 (this is an option on the vehicle), a Vertue Constellation luxury cellphone (that's an 18-karat gold plated cell for those of you who don't know), and an espresso maker!!
I wouldn't even want to drive this thing!! I think I would sooner have my 4 year old (not 3, that's crazy) drive, then have to take this sucker out on the road without enjoying all those goodies. Ok, maybe this isn't a great reason to have kids, but everyone can agree it is an awesome reason to have kids!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
It's Hairy Out There
(Once again, I have no idea if everything should be capitalized in the title)
So friends, this time I am dispensing with the humor and writing about something serious. Where are the jobs?! I have now been unemployed (by my calculations) for eight months and I have to tell it's not because I haven't been trying. Fortunately I have been able to keep busy and work toward my career at the same time with some key purchases I made at the start of my unemployment (camera and editing suite) and now I am happy to report that my portfolio hath grown considerably. But even so, the job market today is wrecked and everyplace wants someone with experience, even though you could probably teach a monkey in a month to brew some coffee that tastes just as good (if not better) than a Starbucks cup.
To those of you who found a job recently, how did you do it? I mean I've applied to everything I have a bit of experience in, and some things I didn't but knew that within a week I could do it as well as anyone. I mean, come on, if a coffee shop is looking for someone with "at least three years of barista experience" there is something wrong with the job market. I am now of the philosophy that in today's "world of work", it is better to go for a job above your experience level than below it. Here is my rationale for my thinking:
Let's say you a business owner. You need someone to operate a cart that shuttles boxes from one end of a warehouse to the other for packing and shipping. It's a job that most anyone can do, and therefore would be simple to hire for right? Well, say you put out a job posting that reads "Need a cart operator for moving boxes. Must be able to lift 25lbs and be on time. No experience necessary." With a job posting like that you are liable to receive 100s of applications and resumes for this one position. So in order to weed out all the people who just want something that pays you put, "Need a cart operator for moving boxes. Must be able to lift 25lbs, have forklift and warehouse experience, and high school diploma." Now you may get down to about 50. At this point you might just take those 50 and read through the first ten and pick out three of those to interview.
The problems don't stop there, because even if the employer successfully weeds out a good portion of those who just need a job, there might be a few that escape through and then just dump the job after they land a better one. Employers know that people are settling right now, so they tend to take slightly under qualified people in the hopes that they stay on for longer than a month or two. It's a revolving door with a majority of low paying jobs, though more so right now than say a year or two ago.
This is why I believe the answer to our current economic crisis is to not sell ourselves short. If we settle for less then we all get less, but if we strive for more, for better, then we all benefit.
So friends, this time I am dispensing with the humor and writing about something serious. Where are the jobs?! I have now been unemployed (by my calculations) for eight months and I have to tell it's not because I haven't been trying. Fortunately I have been able to keep busy and work toward my career at the same time with some key purchases I made at the start of my unemployment (camera and editing suite) and now I am happy to report that my portfolio hath grown considerably. But even so, the job market today is wrecked and everyplace wants someone with experience, even though you could probably teach a monkey in a month to brew some coffee that tastes just as good (if not better) than a Starbucks cup.
To those of you who found a job recently, how did you do it? I mean I've applied to everything I have a bit of experience in, and some things I didn't but knew that within a week I could do it as well as anyone. I mean, come on, if a coffee shop is looking for someone with "at least three years of barista experience" there is something wrong with the job market. I am now of the philosophy that in today's "world of work", it is better to go for a job above your experience level than below it. Here is my rationale for my thinking:
Let's say you a business owner. You need someone to operate a cart that shuttles boxes from one end of a warehouse to the other for packing and shipping. It's a job that most anyone can do, and therefore would be simple to hire for right? Well, say you put out a job posting that reads "Need a cart operator for moving boxes. Must be able to lift 25lbs and be on time. No experience necessary." With a job posting like that you are liable to receive 100s of applications and resumes for this one position. So in order to weed out all the people who just want something that pays you put, "Need a cart operator for moving boxes. Must be able to lift 25lbs, have forklift and warehouse experience, and high school diploma." Now you may get down to about 50. At this point you might just take those 50 and read through the first ten and pick out three of those to interview.
The problems don't stop there, because even if the employer successfully weeds out a good portion of those who just need a job, there might be a few that escape through and then just dump the job after they land a better one. Employers know that people are settling right now, so they tend to take slightly under qualified people in the hopes that they stay on for longer than a month or two. It's a revolving door with a majority of low paying jobs, though more so right now than say a year or two ago.
This is why I believe the answer to our current economic crisis is to not sell ourselves short. If we settle for less then we all get less, but if we strive for more, for better, then we all benefit.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Don't Mess With Geeks
I came across a story today that I found, well, awesome. Before I get into it though, a bit of background of why this story is so awesome to me.
I'm a day dreamer. By day dreamer I mean I have fantasies play out in my head while I'm awake, so they can be in the day, afternoon, evening, or even night. With that rationale they should be called wake dreams instead....ya, I 'wake dream' a lot.
As an example: I'm walking down a street by myself and there is a group of thugish guys standing around. I see a young girl walking on the opposite side of the street and the guys start to cat call at her. Here is where my day dream starts.....
The guys move over to her and start to harass her further and she begins to call out in distress. I'm walking by and calmly ask the guys to stop and leave her alone. To which they say "What are you gonna do about it asshole?!"
"This."
And I headbutt the first guy in face, breaking his noise and rendering him unconscious. The other two come at me with knives, but I catch one of the guys hands, pull his arm forward, and break his elbow backward over my shoulder. The last guy lunges at me only to find his friend being flung at him as I roll him over my shoulder. With all of them beaten and broken on the ground, I pick up my bag and start to walk away. The young girl runs up behind me and asks me to wait, wanting to know my name. I look over my shoulder and say, "Just a good samaritan."
At this point I've already passed by the group and of course nothing happened, but one can dream. This guy in the story actually lived it.
At Johns Hopkins University, a group of undergrad students had some electronics stolen from their apartment. Some days later, one of the students heard something going on downstairs and after noticing the garage pried open he became wary and investigated further. Now when you think there is a robber on the premises you generally want some protection....so he grabbed a samurai sword. Being a geek, he had one. He found someone trying to take their PS3 and once discovered the perp lunged at him. He defended himself by slashing at the perp cutting off his hand and MORTALLY wounding him in the chest! Ya, he killed the guy with a samurai sword. The last person in maybe 150 years to kill someone with a samurai sword...is a Johns Hopkins undergrad student. Wow.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
NIHON PWN!
The title is pronouced Nee-hone Pone and means (in mixed languages) Japan is awesome (loosely translated). There are several reasons for this but just to name a few:
1. They have life-size giant robots!
If you are familiar with Japanese anime (animated movies and television shows) then you would recognize this 30 story high, actual size replica of a Gundam. Gundam is a popular anime show that has spawned dozens of television series, severval animated movies, and zillions of toys and other collectables....but this is a bit crazy. Towering just outside of Tokyo proper, this giant robot is a major tourist attraction and also a monumental waste of money. But awesomeness doesn't (and shouldn't) have a price tag.
2. Insanely fatty pizzas made by Pizza Hut (now discontinued *tear)
This pizza boasts a whopping 646 calories PER SLICE! To put that in perspective, the highest rated caloric intake item found at a resturant in the US (as of '04 census by the Food Network) was the Outback Steakhouse's "bloomin' onion" at appoxiametly 2000 calories! This means before you finish your 3rd slice of this pie, you would have consumed the equivalent of an entire giant onion that has been shredded and deep fried! Deeming it a serious health risk, the nation of Japan decided to discontinue it's production and went back to smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day all while working off of 2 hours of sleep.
3. Barcodes
I know, why barcodes? Cause the Japanese make everything fun and cute! Check them out!
Most people wouldn't think to decorate a barcode, but in Japan they leave no stone unturned. Now when they scan your item at the store and wonder why you are getting ripped off by a combination of overpricing and inflation, you can take a look at the barcode and say, "Well at least they are putting that money to good use!"4. Clothing is lightyears ahead!
Japan is all about simplification and looking ahead to the future (which is why robots will begin their uprising there). Here is an example from the clothing world.
What you are seeing here is basically a "cut-to-the-chase" solution for young girls. Low rider jeans keep getting lower, but you don't like changing your underwear that much and can't get away with it if they keep getting exposed when you bend over. Fear not lazy skanks, I give you the lowest low rider possible with built in exposed underwear! Japan 1 - rest of fashion world 0.
I'll be back sometime with more weird stuff from Japan, and I'll try to keep it PG cause Lord knows that there is some questionable stuff coming out of there that goes waaaaay beyond an R rating. Till then...
Friday, September 4, 2009
Quack = PWNED
Ok, if you live in Oregon and/or are from Oregon you eventually fall into one of two camps: Oregon State Beavers or University of Oregon Ducks. Now because my girlfriend and her family have always been U of O Duck fans, that's who I lean towards (even though my blood is burnt orange and will never be anything but a Longhorn). But after yesterday's events, I can officially say when it comes time for picking sides in the Civil War game, I won't even hesitate to quack.
For those of you who don't follow sports, or don't own a television, or have access to the internet, or live under a rock, Oregon played Boise State in their football season opener yesterday. After the Duck's crushing loss, defensive end Byron Hout made some offensive remarks to Oregon running back LaGarrette Blount. Apparently it was bad enough that Blount thought Hout (it's weird their names are similar) should take a seat on the turf and think about what he said. Seeing as how Hout was not going to listen to reason and calmly do that, Blount was forced to suckerpunch him to the ground.
You can check it out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxAIcRHs1tk
Wasn't that badass!?! It sucks that the guy was suspended for the WHOLE season! I understand you can't tolerate that sort of behavior, and since they aren't getting paid to play (sort of) you can't really fine him (unless he's taken to court), but the whole season?! How about half? I mean he's their star running back and more than that, I wanna see him play the second half of the season with the opposing team afraid that he's gonna deck them at any given moment!
I mean how cool would that be that he rushes for say 7 yards, then gets up from the pile and motions like he's going to hit the guy who tackled him. Then the next run he goes for 12. Then 15. Pretty soon people are afraid to look at him cause they think he snuck a gun into the stadium and the line just hikes the ball straight to him.
Another thing that pisses me off by that suspension, if Hout didn't drop like a skirt at a Prince concert, then he would've had maybe a 3 game suspension tops. Not only that, why shouldn't there be fighting? It's an intergal part of hockey and the sport still seems to be doing ok. Even more than hockey, these guys are supposed to hit each other. When you have THAT much testosterone and THAT much physical contact it's actually miraculous there isn't a fight like that every quarter, much less every season!
I say fighting should be a yellow card offense, to meld two different referee styles. Since in soccer you would get red carded immediately and in hockey it would be only a 5 minute penalty, why not make it yellow card offense and if they get another one then they're gone for the game. Or better yet, if they fight then they can't come back till that series is over (we'll make it both offense and defense series). I would start watching pro football more regularly if they did that and also some college games that I don't give a shit about. Hell I might even consider getting that ESPN college game pass or whatever that gives you like 60 more games just to see some lower division schools duke it out, cause they know they're not going to get anywhere near the NFL.
Well, here's to dreamin'. And go Blount!
For those of you who don't follow sports, or don't own a television, or have access to the internet, or live under a rock, Oregon played Boise State in their football season opener yesterday. After the Duck's crushing loss, defensive end Byron Hout made some offensive remarks to Oregon running back LaGarrette Blount. Apparently it was bad enough that Blount thought Hout (it's weird their names are similar) should take a seat on the turf and think about what he said. Seeing as how Hout was not going to listen to reason and calmly do that, Blount was forced to suckerpunch him to the ground.
You can check it out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxAIcRHs1tk
Wasn't that badass!?! It sucks that the guy was suspended for the WHOLE season! I understand you can't tolerate that sort of behavior, and since they aren't getting paid to play (sort of) you can't really fine him (unless he's taken to court), but the whole season?! How about half? I mean he's their star running back and more than that, I wanna see him play the second half of the season with the opposing team afraid that he's gonna deck them at any given moment!
I mean how cool would that be that he rushes for say 7 yards, then gets up from the pile and motions like he's going to hit the guy who tackled him. Then the next run he goes for 12. Then 15. Pretty soon people are afraid to look at him cause they think he snuck a gun into the stadium and the line just hikes the ball straight to him.
Another thing that pisses me off by that suspension, if Hout didn't drop like a skirt at a Prince concert, then he would've had maybe a 3 game suspension tops. Not only that, why shouldn't there be fighting? It's an intergal part of hockey and the sport still seems to be doing ok. Even more than hockey, these guys are supposed to hit each other. When you have THAT much testosterone and THAT much physical contact it's actually miraculous there isn't a fight like that every quarter, much less every season!
I say fighting should be a yellow card offense, to meld two different referee styles. Since in soccer you would get red carded immediately and in hockey it would be only a 5 minute penalty, why not make it yellow card offense and if they get another one then they're gone for the game. Or better yet, if they fight then they can't come back till that series is over (we'll make it both offense and defense series). I would start watching pro football more regularly if they did that and also some college games that I don't give a shit about. Hell I might even consider getting that ESPN college game pass or whatever that gives you like 60 more games just to see some lower division schools duke it out, cause they know they're not going to get anywhere near the NFL.
Well, here's to dreamin'. And go Blount!
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Movies Are For Fun
To start, a quick question unrelated to this post's topic. In a blog title what gets capitalized? I could just look right now on teh intarwebs, but because I'm writing this post I thought I'd pose my query as an odd intro. Well, there it is. ON WITH THE SHOW!
Today, on my walk back from the coffee shop, I was listening to the newest installment of SModcast. For those who aren't "in the know", SModcast is in fact a podcast that is usually weekly (depending on their mood and work schedule) made by Kevin Smith (Clerks, Dogma, Zack & Miri) and Scott Mosier (producer of most of Kevin Smith's movies). The two talk about whatever pops into their heads, usually involving pop + an extra 'o' in the middle (hehe that made a funny face too *shaking my head* .... ok concentrate) and or some kind of homosexual references. Today's was no exception, but they did talk the majority of the time about movies and more specifically remakes.
Now Mosier is a pretty critical character when it comes to cinema, but Smith is more of the mind that movies are meant to entertain.
I should say that Mosier enjoys a great deal of films as well, it's just he's harder to really please.
I was going to do today's post about this crazy video some guy put out there that nukes are fake and it's just a government conspiracy to keep us all scared of the apocalypse, but what the two filmmakers said really struck me. Here's why...
I don't pretend to know everything about filmmaking or film history, but I have been known to give out some critiques on films. Just the other day I was discussing with my brother how I wished that the film "Inglourious Basterds" (I spelled it wrong...right this time) was 30 minutes shorter. I felt the dialouge in most of Tarantino's signature 'round table discussions' was just too long, and could stand to trim anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes off each.
Now am I wrong about that, as my brother thinks, or is my assessment of the film correct? Who the hell cares! I loved the film, it was awesome. The characters were rich (some of them, which is odd for a Tarantino flick) and extremely well acted (all), the dialogue was superb (always is), and the violence was just what the doctor ordered (though from the trailer, you would think there should be more).
Back to SModcast. They were discussing remakes and how people always seem to get in an uproar over them. "You're ruining a classic!" yells an educated, half-mature, critic who has devoted his life to saying bad things about normal movies and sucking the cocks of independent films that no one has seen and half of no one can understand. Their point, which is a sentiment I agree with, is that films are about ... wait for it ... enterFUCKINtainment! Who cares if Transformers 2 has ZERO plot (which really, it has no plot, try to find it. It's like the last page of a 'Where's Waldo' book) but you know what? It has some kickass effects, the coolest looking robots I've seen in a movie, and Megan Fox .... come on!
All these things hark back to the remake thing. The point they make is that remaking a movie, does not destroy the original. In fact, Quentin Tarantino is end-all-be-all proof of that since almost every movie he's done has been a remake of sorts. I just saw that the original "Inglourious Basterds" Italian film was playing at a theater not too far from my house. That's revival son!
Granted people only get their panties in a wad when it's a beloved film. When Psycho came out by Gus Van Sant (who actually lives in Portland I hear), people were pissed off. I can see why they would be since Hitchcock can't be topped ... he just can't. But that's not the point. The point of a movie has been, and will always be to entertain. I saw the revamped Psycho when it was in theaters and I loved it. Vince Vaughn was scary man! Especially now, with the type-casted roll that he seems to have fallen into, thinking back ... he was really scary! And you know what, I still watch the old one. You can't kill a classic. That's why I'd like to see some directors take a shot at doing a new version of Casablanca. I know, it sort of stings when I say it too, but the more I think of it the cooler I think it would be. Wouldn't be interesting to see what the Coen brothers would do with that, or Marty Scorsese? Hell, what about QT?!
If you keep yourself open to option, usually you get more enjoyment I've found and keep changing for the better. But if you are resistant to change and become stagnant, then you die. Bottom line, it's better to be an open door than a closed casket.
Today, on my walk back from the coffee shop, I was listening to the newest installment of SModcast. For those who aren't "in the know", SModcast is in fact a podcast that is usually weekly (depending on their mood and work schedule) made by Kevin Smith (Clerks, Dogma, Zack & Miri) and Scott Mosier (producer of most of Kevin Smith's movies). The two talk about whatever pops into their heads, usually involving pop + an extra 'o' in the middle (hehe that made a funny face too *shaking my head* .... ok concentrate) and or some kind of homosexual references. Today's was no exception, but they did talk the majority of the time about movies and more specifically remakes.
Now Mosier is a pretty critical character when it comes to cinema, but Smith is more of the mind that movies are meant to entertain.
I should say that Mosier enjoys a great deal of films as well, it's just he's harder to really please.
I was going to do today's post about this crazy video some guy put out there that nukes are fake and it's just a government conspiracy to keep us all scared of the apocalypse, but what the two filmmakers said really struck me. Here's why...
I don't pretend to know everything about filmmaking or film history, but I have been known to give out some critiques on films. Just the other day I was discussing with my brother how I wished that the film "Inglourious Basterds" (I spelled it wrong...right this time) was 30 minutes shorter. I felt the dialouge in most of Tarantino's signature 'round table discussions' was just too long, and could stand to trim anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes off each.
Now am I wrong about that, as my brother thinks, or is my assessment of the film correct? Who the hell cares! I loved the film, it was awesome. The characters were rich (some of them, which is odd for a Tarantino flick) and extremely well acted (all), the dialogue was superb (always is), and the violence was just what the doctor ordered (though from the trailer, you would think there should be more).
Back to SModcast. They were discussing remakes and how people always seem to get in an uproar over them. "You're ruining a classic!" yells an educated, half-mature, critic who has devoted his life to saying bad things about normal movies and sucking the cocks of independent films that no one has seen and half of no one can understand. Their point, which is a sentiment I agree with, is that films are about ... wait for it ... enterFUCKINtainment! Who cares if Transformers 2 has ZERO plot (which really, it has no plot, try to find it. It's like the last page of a 'Where's Waldo' book) but you know what? It has some kickass effects, the coolest looking robots I've seen in a movie, and Megan Fox .... come on!
All these things hark back to the remake thing. The point they make is that remaking a movie, does not destroy the original. In fact, Quentin Tarantino is end-all-be-all proof of that since almost every movie he's done has been a remake of sorts. I just saw that the original "Inglourious Basterds" Italian film was playing at a theater not too far from my house. That's revival son!
Granted people only get their panties in a wad when it's a beloved film. When Psycho came out by Gus Van Sant (who actually lives in Portland I hear), people were pissed off. I can see why they would be since Hitchcock can't be topped ... he just can't. But that's not the point. The point of a movie has been, and will always be to entertain. I saw the revamped Psycho when it was in theaters and I loved it. Vince Vaughn was scary man! Especially now, with the type-casted roll that he seems to have fallen into, thinking back ... he was really scary! And you know what, I still watch the old one. You can't kill a classic. That's why I'd like to see some directors take a shot at doing a new version of Casablanca. I know, it sort of stings when I say it too, but the more I think of it the cooler I think it would be. Wouldn't be interesting to see what the Coen brothers would do with that, or Marty Scorsese? Hell, what about QT?!
If you keep yourself open to option, usually you get more enjoyment I've found and keep changing for the better. But if you are resistant to change and become stagnant, then you die. Bottom line, it's better to be an open door than a closed casket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
