>> ^Zyrxil:
Btw, you can upvote your own video so it starts at 1.


You are right..!If everyone does it, it's not cheating anymore.. Is there a way to find a thumb yourself instead of the automatic way like Dag tried to do?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'first, four, minutes, Green, Lantern, First, Flight, movie, cartoon, disc, WB, Warner, Bros' to 'first four minutes, Green Lantern, First Flight, movie, cartoon, disc, WB, Warner Bros' - edited by xxovercastxx

I genuinely believe my http://www.videosift.com/video/Mothers-Milk is one of the finest pieces of unintentional TV comedy on the Sift.

As for the unsifted, I thought my recent http://www.videosift.com/video/Warner-Bros-Response-to-Christian-Bale-Tirade would shoot straight through the queue. Guess it didn't because of all the *bleeps* on f-bombs

And did I get this right, we can now each give a single *quality for a sift talk post? Cause this is a really great idea

no doubt about WMG - I deaded about 400 videos from eric's playlist tonight, and I swear at least half were "copyright claim by Warner Bros". jackasses.

In reply to this comment by Zonbie:
thanks! fixed
(it got pulled because Warner Bros Music Copyright Claim...)

thanks! fixed
(it got pulled because Warner Bros Music Copyright Claim...)

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner Bros."

Warner Bros. should know better. I agree that it was shitty for Fox to do, but come on did WB think that Fox forgot about it? WB should have asked permission before making the movie. Begging forgiveness isn't always easier than asking permission, in fact it woulda saved them MILLIONS.

Smartest thing to do now is to settle by giving Fox a big cut of ticket sales but a much smaller percent of DVD sales, then way under-advertise, spin some online controversy to get movie nerds to boycott the theater showings and make a killing on DVD sales. Cult classic status may be the only way to go...at least it would be a big f*ck you to Fox.

A bit coy, arn't we?
>> ^dag:
^but if only there was a way to put a "filter" if you will, on those 500 channels, and "sift" out only the good content ...

Shameless plug while preaching to the choir?

>> ^dag:
^but if only there was a way to put a "filter" if you will, on those 500 channels, and "sift" out only the good content ...

Sorry to disagree, I mean for part 2, I'll agree with you... but for the first half... wow... isn't it amazing how in retrospect you realize the extreme cheese of the soundtrack? Makes me thing of a Warner Bros. cartoon in many ways.

And of course Family Guy had great fun with the actual ending.

I'm home alone and have nothing better to do than respond to this thread, because a lot of the comments in here still bother me. So... here goes nothing.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> The video in question (Dita) is an act of grace a beauty, not a vivid depiction of sex. The act is designed to be something that one merely watches, from which they are detached and it is forever that way. It is a solo act meant to please for the sake of a good show.


WRONG! There is absolutely nothing graceful or beautiful about that (or her, really). See my comment on the performance in a minute.


Dirty books, on the other hand, are of a couple's acts in the bedroom, written to suck the reader into the characters words and actions, even letting them place themselves into the character's shoes. The book is more about being a part of the act, making the reader imagine (through ample use of details and adjectives) every part of sex. It's porn you read, and not watch, though I will say it is not disgusting or objectifying as real porn.


You know why women love romance novels? Because we can imagine it's our significant other doing everything the protagonist in the novel is. Generally it's a scene that plays out in our minds with the characters, not us (women). But even if we were picturing ourselves in that mental scene, it would be with our significant other. Because really, the sex scenes in romance novels are a lot more exciting than ones in real life. If we got enough romance, we wouldn't need to read romance novels. There's nothing disgusting or objectifying about getting a little inspiration. It's erotica - not porn.


My question to you is this: How can you tell the internet in one comment that "Even I can appreciate burlesque" but in the next, tell the internet that it's not acceptable for men with significant others to watch it, if only for art of the performance?


Burlesque is an art, but that's not burlesque. That's a terrible, terrible striptease. You haven't seen any of the great old burlesque. It originated as a sort of comedy show. Gypsy Rose Lee (who, by the way, the Warner Brothers movie "Gypsy" is about. I guarantee you Dita is not burlesque if Warner Bros. did a burlesque movie) and Sally Rand (not quite as good, I don't think, but still notable, and the woman who originated the fan dance). Do you see any comedy in Dita's "work?" I didn't think so. It used to be a complete one-act comedy show, not a two-minute, poorly-done dance where you end up in nothing but nipple pasties and a g-string. Look up some of the Bettie Page stuff on here.

P.S. "Even I can appreciate burlesque" means I like some, but not this [Dita]. For someone who admits they've only seen two clips of burlesque, how dare you confront me on something like that? Look up the history of burlesque. Maybe watch someone other than Dita von Teese. It's like someone saying they don't like a particular artist, or a particular period in art history. It doesn't mean I dislike every painting ever made, or that no one should look at art anymore because I decided I don't like it. Burlesque has never been about the ability to strip down from a dress to pasties and a g-string in less than 20 seconds. There's nothing burlesque about her act - it's a striptease, pure and simple.


I hold that burlesque is only that; an art. I personally don't get any arousal from it, not does it raise any carnal desires within myself. Hell, I've only seen two instances of it, both here on the sift. The female body, with all it's curves, is designed to flow like water in almost all directions. Combined with graceful movements and a dynamic act, it is a thing of grace and beauty.


Oh please. You just admitted yourself you've only ever seen two instances of burlesque. How can you possibly go on about how graceful it is, and how it's such a glorious artform, when you've seen two "dances," both by the same woman?

>> ^MarineGunrock:
As I looked around, I saw (obviously) many women in bikinis. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about bikinis, but it got me thinking about the whole "objectification" thing. If women, as a whole, don't want to be objectified, why wear such a reveling swim suit when there are plenty of good looking alternatives? [edit] What I'm saying it that it opens them up to it.
And for that matter, why put make up on?


1) You've heard it before, but it obviously bears repeating - Women don't dress up for men. They dress up for other women. I shouldn't have to think every morning when I get dressed, "If I see someone with a penis today, will he say something lewd if I'm wearing this? Might someone possibly get excited?" I dress for other women. Would they think I'm attractive? Intimidating? Smart? Chic? If I wanted to dress to attract attention from men, I'd walk around in a bikini top and shorts. But I don't.

2) Just because women wear revealing clothing doesn't mean they're inviting you to look. I lost 20 pounds and bought myself a bikini, because I felt good about my body again. I regained so much self-confidence just by owning it, and that I was no longer embarrassed or felt fat walking around in one. That doesn't mean I wear it just to attract attention, or in the hopes that guys compliment me. I wouldn't take a compliment seriously if I was wearing a bikini anyway - I know my boobs are all you were looking at.

Maybe I wear makeup because I want to feel pretty, or I got a pimple this morning, or I have a sunburn and my skin tone is uneven. Why should it matter?

Listen up Utah Muppet - I love your vids, but I will always contest your stance. so there. gimme some more warner bros, bro.

The geek of all things geek has finally geeked out. uh - yeah, good job hairy dude.

Hollywood made a poor remake of this a few years later.

Wikipedia says:
"In 1993, Warner Bros. remade Nikita in English as Point of No Return (The Assassin), directed by John Badham and starring Bridget Fonda. Nikita also inspired the 1991 Hong Kong action film Black Cat, which closely follows the original film’s storyline."

I changed the embed to something not put up by Warner Bros. Hopefully this one'll be unblocked.

In reply to this comment by Zifnab:
*blocked

A 1957 cartoon short in the Merrie Melodies series, directed by Chuck Jones for Warner Bros. Cartoons. The film features Bugs Bunny being chased by Elmer Fudd through a six-minute and 11 second operatic parody of 19th century classical composer Richard Wagner's operas, particularly Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung) and Tannhäuser. It is sometimes characterized as a condensed version of Wagner's Ring, and its music borrows heavily from the second opera Die Walküre, woven around the standard Bugs-Elmer conflict.
Originally released to theaters by Warner Bros. on July 6, 1957, What's Opera, Doc? features the speaking and singing voices of Mel Blanc as Bugs and Arthur Q. Bryan as Elmer (except for one word dubbed by Blanc). The short is also sometimes informally referred to as Kill the Wabbit after the line sung by Fudd to the tune of Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries," the opening passage from Act Three of Die Walküre (which is also the leitmotif of the Valkyries).
In 1994, What's Opera, Doc? was voted #1 of the 50 Greatest Cartoons of all time by 1000 members of the animation field.
wiki
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051189/