Fashion Board 4-6-04 to 5-7-04

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick


The trouble is with some beautiful girls is that they are shy. People mistake that for snobbery or aloofness and so that is why they are disliked.

Reminds me of the Onion article that was titled something like "Girl Thought of as Shy Really Just a Bitch"...

[john123]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick


(and then of course there are the girls who are bitchy - but that is why they are disliked)

2. I hate those beeyotches!

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Have you ever hung out with a model or someone who just looks like one? ANd I dont mean Miss America or the prettiest girl from your high school I am talking someone you cant take your eys off. The one percent. They are reviled. Maybe not be EVERYBODY but they get as much judgment and prejudice as Kirstie Alley in the 300s.

I have a pretty good friend here who is a model. She doesn't have any problems in the friends department.

That said, there is a difference in my mind between initial impressions and inability to get along with people once you get to know them on some level. I understood your comment about the beautiful chick who was dating some prince, but if people like her when they get to know her, then I wouldn't put her in the category of women who simply don't get along with other women.

What Fugee said was right. I have no doubt that Trish should not be judged for not getting along with the cloying reality tv virgin wannabes, but if she really can't get along with other women in real life, the problem is more likely hers than it is the other women's.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I have a pretty good friend here who is a model. She doesn't have any problems in the friends department.

That said, there is a difference in my mind between initial impressions and inability to get along with people once you get to know them on some level. I understood your comment about the beautiful chick who was dating some prince, but if people like her when they get to know her, then I wouldn't put her in the category of women who simply don't get along with other women.

What Fugee said was right. I have no doubt that Trish should not be judged for not getting along with the cloying reality tv virgin wannabes, but if she really can't get along with other women in real life, the problem is more likely hers than it is the other women's.

I think we agree. The question is how well she knows these other women in real life. I mean, if she is really a model (and I have my questions sicne she appears over the hill for the gig and has visible botox resulting in a weird eyebrow situation for her0, then maybe she only knows models whoi are catty. any other interacions with women might be no more than as acquaintance. This is a guess about adulthood, not high school, middle school, etc. I mean, her sister seems to love her and she appears to be freom a nice family so i doubt its a situation where every women she has gotten to know really well hates her.

but who the fuck knows.

[john123]

Originally posted by Berry Hunter
You mean you don't at least know someone who's banged Trish? Sorry, man.

I used to know the GA who was the original Chef, before he auctioned the log-on on eBay. The tall one with the paper bag over his head. We had beers at the Brickskeller with the poster formerly known as Walt Wallet back in the summer of 99. Rehashed the Spanish-American War. Somehow I have a feeling that Chef may have slept with this Trish person back in his UofF days.

For whatits worth, I was drinking Tusker, a Kenyan lager. I can't find it in NY. forwahtitsworth.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by john123
I used to know the GA who was the original Chef, before he auctioned the log-on on eBay. The tall one with the paper bag over his head. We had beers at the Brickskeller with the poster formerly known as Walt Wallet back in the summer of 99. Rehashed the Spanish-American War. Somehow I have a feeling that Chef may have slept with this Trish person back in his UofF days.

For whatits worth, I was drinking Tusker, a Kenyan lager. I can't find it in NY. forwahtitsworth.

You are my new favorite poster. Keep it real, man.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Fugee
I love opera where people can sing 5 minute arias after being fatally stabbed or while dying of consumption. Suspension of disbelief is not a problem for me.

Concur.
I remember an introduction Stephen King wrote to one of his collections of short stories in which he said that his favorite kind of story was one where shit just happens because it happens (he also admitted that his attempts to explain things were usually really crappy). In general, this is an excellent attitude towards not just fiction but real life - sometimes shit just happens 'cause it happens. Get over it.

It was an interesting article, and makes a good point, but there are errors and then there are errors, and some should be the subject of suspended disbelief and some are just sloppy filmmaking for which there isn't really any excuse. The article is entirely right that whether it matters or not depends on the context of the movie. "Realism" is overrated. Reasonably careful moviemaking isn't.

For instance - they cite "visible crew/equipment" as one of these "plausibles" complaints. Well, that's a pretty legitimate complaint. These prevent you from suspending disbelief (e.g.: 6th sense - the visible tops of sets and sound booms drove me bonkers). I'll cut some slack for really low-budget stuff where they don't have the money to re-shoot, but otherwise - frame your friggin' shots and control your set. (Related complaint: "hairy turtles" in stage shows, where the top of a crew member's head can be seen as he tries to sneak behind a peice of the set; there at least you have the excuse of being live and, if you have a crew guy trapped onstage cowering behind a chair when the curtain comes up, I'll overlook it.)

Anachronisms - whether this is bad or not really depends on how pedantic you are being. Being pissed because you see a clock mechanism invented in 1740 on a set for a movie in 1710 is just being an asshole. Being annoyed that a character in a Merchant Ivory film is wearing a digital Timex is justifiable. I get very, very, very annoyed when people run around in armor that is 500 years out of date. But, you know, Excalibur is just a better movie with all the shiny plate.

Factual flubs - if you notice because you're just wonkish on a subject, get over it (e.g.: bad old Norse in the 13th Warrior, bad RC doctrine in 8 gazillion horror movies). But it can be distressing if you think you've noticed something really clever and you can't be sure if they did it on purpose or not (e.g.: a scene in Apocalypse Now where a squad is firing on an enemy position - but a military historian friend of mine pointed out that, if the visible gun silouettes were chosen intentionally, they are firing on other Americans).

Geography I have mixed feelings about. Usually it just doesn't bug me (putting a building on Wash. Sq. Park on Central Park in Ghostbusters). Maybe it's because I have no sense of direction anyway. But sometimes, if the geography really matters in the context of the movie, it matters, and if it matters someone should have paid some attention to it.

Continuity errors: depends. I'm not annoyed that Grace Kelly's engagement ring changes in Rear Window because she actually got engaged and liked the gumball Rainer gave her better than the prop. The continuity errors in the world famous Creeping Terror (aka: the Carpet Roll That Ate Cleveland and Spit Out People's Shoes) were totally inexcusable (e.g.: leaving to drive to the police station at noon in a dark car and arriving 5 minutes later in the next scene at midnight in a white car).

Plot holes and bizarre motiveless actions: often this is a real problem. If characters just do stupid, unexplainable things because it forwards the plot, well, that's a problem. Noticing that the plotter hasn't thought out every last logical consequence of some plot element usually just means you're paying way too much attention.

eta: Sometimes, too, the obsessive detailing of every little glitch in a movie is a sign of love for it - a lot of the Hitchcock stuff is like this, I think. If you feel strongly enough about the movie to pay that much attention to it, that seems like something of a compliment to me.

[evenodds]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
Tony is the motherfuckin' man

A few notes from the game:

1. The absolute best way to enjoy a basketball game is live. This was my second playoff game this season and it's just spectacular in person.

2. Never ever ever buy tickets for an away team your SO loves. It's much less painful to sit through a Grizz blowout than to endure your beloved gritting his teeth and trying to ignore the trashtalking from the audience around him.

3. Kobe was booed roundly every time he touched the ball. The chant "Kobe Sucks" started up in the 3rd. Somehow, they avoided chanting "rapist! rapist!" Also, the Lakers seem to hate him, and not just because he is a world class chucker.

4. Tony Parker off the pick and roll looks as fast as AI.

5. There are as many strippers in the stands as on the dance team, and that's saying something.

6. I think they'll be adding another banner at SBC.

e/o

[john123]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Concur.
I remember an introduction Stephen King wrote to one of his collections of short stories in which he said that his favorite kind of story was one where shit just happens because it happens (he also admitted that his attempts to explain things were usually really crappy). In general, this is an excellent attitude towards not just fiction but real life - sometimes shit just happens 'cause it happens. Get over it.

It was an interesting article, and makes a good point, but there are errors and then there are errors, and some should be the subject of suspended disbelief and some are just sloppy filmmaking for which there isn't really any excuse. The article is entirely right that whether it matters or not depends on the context of the movie. "Realism" is overrated. Reasonably careful moviemaking isn't.

For instance - they cite "visible crew/equipment" as one of these "plausibles" complaints. Well, that's a pretty legitimate complaint. These prevent you from suspending disbelief (e.g.: 6th sense - the visible tops of sets and sound booms drove me bonkers). I'll cut some slack for really low-budget stuff where they don't have the money to re-shoot, but otherwise - frame your friggin' shots and control your set. (Related complaint: "hairy turtles" in stage shows, where the top of a crew member's head can be seen as he tries to sneak behind a peice of the set; there at least you have the excuse of being live and, if you have a crew guy trapped onstage cowering behind a chair when the curtain comes up, I'll overlook it.)

Anachronisms - whether this is bad or not really depends on how pedantic you are being. Being pissed because you see a clock mechanism invented in 1740 on a set for a movie in 1710 is just being an asshole. Being annoyed that a character in a Merchant Ivory film is wearing a digital Timex is justifiable. I get very, very, very annoyed when people run around in armor that is 500 years out of date. But, you know, Excalibur is just a better movie with all the shiny plate.

Factual flubs - if you notice because you're just wonkish on a subject, get over it (e.g.: bad old Norse in the 13th Warrior, bad RC doctrine in 8 gazillion horror movies). But it can be distressing if you think you've noticed something really clever and you can't be sure if they did it on purpose or not (e.g.: a scene in Apocalypse Now where a squad is firing on an enemy position - but a military historian friend of mine pointed out that, if the visible gun silouettes were chosen intentionally, they are firing on other Americans).

Geography I have mixed feelings about. Usually it just doesn't bug me (putting a building on Wash. Sq. Park on Central Park in Ghostbusters). Maybe it's because I have no sense of direction anyway. But sometimes, if the geography really matters in the context of the movie, it matters, and if it matters someone should have paid some attention to it.

Continuity errors: depends. I'm not annoyed that Grace Kelly's engagement ring changes in Rear Window because she actually got engaged and liked the gumball Rainer gave her better than the propo. The continuity errors in the world famous Creeping Terror (aka: the Carpet Roll That Ate Cleveland and Spit Out People's Shoes) were totally inexcusable (e.g.: leaving to drive to the police station at noon in a dark car and arriving 5 minutes later in the next scene at midnight in a white car).

Plot holes and bizarre motiveless actions: often this is a real problem. If characters just do stupid, unexplainable things because it forwards the plot, well, that's a problem. Noticing that the plotter hasn't thought out every last logical consequence of some plot element usually just means you're paying way too much attention.

Yez.

[Berry Hunter]

Originally posted by evenodds
A few notes from the game:

1. The absolute best way to enjoy a basketball game is live.

5. There are as many strippers in the stands as on the dance team, and that's saying something.

NBA playoff strippers: Love it live.

Who did the scheduling for the playoffs, anyway? NJ played at Detroit on Monday, and now they have to wait to play Game 2, in Detroit, on Friday? WTF? Are all the series that messed up?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by evenodds
A few notes from the game:

1. The absolute best way to enjoy a basketball game is live. This was my second playoff game this season and it's just spectacular in person.

Especially true in the playoffs. During the regular season no one plays as hard, even the teams that play "hard every night." The amount of grabbing and pushing that goes on off-ball in the playoffs is something you can't see unless you're there. It also explains why the better scorers "need a rest." They have to basically fight through 2 or 3 defenders most every play.

6. I think they'll be adding another banner at SBC.

e/o

I assume SBC is where the Spurs play... They still have a long way to go, but look real good. I assumed there was no way to repeat, but some slight break down for Minnesota combined with the experience at SA could do it. But you can't assume you've beaten the Lakers till they've lost four.

ESPN had a column about the potential defensive numbness of a Spurs-Pistons final.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...ark&id=1795332
Do people really find defense that boring? I'm biased, sure, but Ben Wallace just strikes me as one of the biggest impact players for his help defense, and he is so much fun to watch.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by dtb
HANK!!! If I had a ruler, I'd rap it across your knuckles.

You've got me, babe.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
You've got me, babe.

With you the hair would cushion them.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
With you the hair would cushion them.

That's flinty, sweetie. One's a monkey, the other's a reptile. Not that hard to keep straight (or shouldn't be).

[str8outavannuys]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I just watched episode 3 again and saw, for the first time, Finchie plowing the birthday girl from behind in the alley after the credits. Good times!

That guy pulls a lot of wool.