It's always funny when something with a long comic history comes into the mainstream and everyone debates it like it's something new that only exists because of other shows that exist in recent pop culture.

The real question is: Why are the Defenders -- who are basically Dr. Strange's "Avengers" -- comprised of the 2000s Marvel Knights minus Moonknight?

Why not Moonknight instead of Iron Fist?

It's not as simple as "punch-em-up" versus the graphic novel, artsy Alias side of Marvel. The Netflix version of The Defenders is weird and I'm just hoping they tie in Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange) and the "Matrixesque" side of Marvel with what is the "Lovecraftian" side of Marvel. The Defenders are more this dark horror magick side who fought against the Nameless One and his legions.

They tried to be artsy...and ended up fartsy.

I was doing an artsy fartsy series like this with hydrofluoric acid but we ran into some problem I remember and barely even got through the first model.

Yup, same here. He made it sound like they were the only group that did anything worth anything back then. They would've never gotten anywhere without Warhol using his fame and promoting them extensively and were just stupidly artsy fartsy and pretentious; the mega-hipsters of the day.

I think why he disliked Beatles was that their debut album was released at the same time as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.. Warhol got them record contract in the first place and the album bombed (allthou has some legendary songs, no doubt) but without him no one would've heard about them since of before.

Also Reed has probably the worst "rock" album on his merit: Metal Machine Music.. Some idiots take that album seriously It's just two guitars leaning against amplifiers...

All we have to go on is this:

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered
"snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

I don't know, I think this is absolutely nothing but short clips featuring human fatalities, and the only context is additional short clips with human fatalities. And yet, when it's in black and white and all from 50 + years ago, set to sentimental music, it seems rather artsy. Hard to say.

Everybody knows original un-fake-bullshit-milliondollar$$$-for-lulz Zombies
DOESN'T run.

And an artsy fartsy movie.. videosift really kills itself not letting people up/downvote unless you submit movies (which none views/vote anyway)

[The censored version of] this video has over 47 million views on YouTube. That's incredible.

The naturally-occurring supermodel is a very rare thing. See also:

Samuel Bayer art
Treats! Magazine photos
Treats! Magazine shoot
Treats! Magazine Behind the Scenes

(Naturally this artsy stuff passes dagwood's test.)

By watching this video, you agree that it is artistic, and that all sexy stuff is done for purely artsy purposes.

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Typical Vimeo, artsy pretentious nonsense

There is a void left by MTV not that it matters to them or their old competitors. I foresee that void being supplemented, though, probably with Pitchfork any day now. They are like a fucking trendy music empire waiting to plumb the coach potato world with artsy farts and hippity hipsters and make lots and lots of money while ruining music and whatever subculture is "cool" for everyone just like MTV did back in the day. Can't wait...

*Happy!!!

Austin's a pretty hip, liberal and artsy city despite being in Texas.

Here's how a comedian who is also a decent human being responds to this sort of thing:

"It can be challenging for people in comedy and art to find better ways to do what we do, and avoid hurting people who don’t deserve to be hurt. But that’s my problem to solve, not anyone else’s.

I want to make people laugh, and occasionally think, and maybe — wow! — both at once. I want to have fun doing it. It may always mean being irreverent, skeptical, absurd, even indulging quite a bit of cynicism and sarcasm. But I never want to depend on continually kicking people who are already down to do what I do. I’d rather find another line of work entirely. (Bowling alley attendant comes to mind, since that might have been my last honest job before getting all artsy-fartsy and comedyish.)

I want to stand on the side of humanity. I want to be humane, even when being a goddamned wise-ass."

>> ^spoco2:

Casino Royale was Awesome.
Quantum of Solace was close to being good, but fricken ruined by shaky cam action sequences.
When will shaky cam die? It does not make it seem more urgent, does not lend suspense to the scene, just shows you don't know how to stage a good action scene.


I know sooo many people that hate shaky cam. They sometimes have to look away, they don't like it at all. I love it. I don't know why but using the camera like that, forcing me not to see a situation clearly makes it better for me. I guess because if someone framed a shot where I couldn't see one of the characters clearly or a fight was mostly out of shot it would just seem like artsy bullshit to me. With shaky cam they can control more or less what I see but also actually showing me the threat or what's going on.

Also when you have shaky cam...the next thing to use is the absence of shaky cam. Say in a war scene where suddenly things go silent and everything is still. I can understand not liking too much shaking, but the hand held camera thing I honestly think is a great idea, and I've never had motion sickness so it doesn't bother me at all. So you have guys like me to blame for shaky cam.