His "style" is to take elements of existing movies and genres and putting them together to what I'll call generously "homages" to the originals. Tarantino is a remixer, taking samples and putting them together into a new song. Sounds familiar but is somewhat new.
He is very, very good at that and can write interesting dialogue (the first half of Death Proof was nothing but). He also starts to believe his own hype (as seen in Django Unchained, a good but way too mastubatory in nature film) and risks to develop the same relationship to Christoph Waltz (a very good, distinctive and interesting actor) that Tim Burton has with Johnny Depp.
I love pretty much all his movies but he certainly has to watch out that he doesn't trip over his own ego and reputation, both bigger than good for him.

Watch out! SNOW SERPENTS!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Watch out Anne Coulter - you're about to be disrupted by a younger, nuttier model.

I don't get the Right's logic on stuff like this... More and more wealth is moving to the top few percent, and more and more of the earnable wages are moving to the top few percent. Walmart for example could easily afford to pay every employee something like $2-3 more an hour, give benefits and hire more people so their stores are properly staffed and still make a profit. And they get upset at the people working there needing help... "oh it's the government's fault for giving them aid letting the company do that"... What?! The company made a choice, and they blame the government actions for it... it's like when they blame moving jobs overseas on the government instead of the rich guy who decided that it is in his own greedy personal self interest to send the jobs there rather than pay Americans. Or its like that cartoon where a rich man, a middle class man and a working class person are all at a table with 100 cookies and the rich guy takes 99 of them, the middle class guy gets 1 and the working class guy has crumbs, then the rich guy warns the middle class guy "better watch out, he wants your cookie" and they fall for it, they get mad at that guy rather than the guy who took 99 cookies for himself...

They get upset at wanting to keep minimum wage in pace with inflation, something that happens in most countries. They get upset at the idea of the cost to business to do so, but somehow businesses do it all around the world... heck, when we were thinking of moving to New Zealand and a few other places we discovered that most countries force employers to give paid vacation time, not just a bonus that some/most employers offer after 1 or 2 years of service if they want. Almost every country forces employers to offer paid maternity leave, and paid holidays... American businesses have it easy compared to most countries, one could possibly argue they have an unfair advantage compared to the rest of the world. And it's not like those businesses outside the US don't make a killing, as in those countries the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, so that isn't a unique US trait.

They claim that only like 4% of the workforce get paid minimum, but ignore the fact that figure doesn't account for the fact that if minimum kept pace with inflation, that is the actual cost of living, then it would be over $10 something right now, which means everyone making less than that is below minimum... that guy working at Walmart, Target, McDonalds or whatever for $9, yes, they may be "above minimum" but if you account for the actual cost of living they are below it...which means that person making $12, while they are well above minimum isn't that far above it. Stretching it further, if minimum kept pace with worker productivity, and nobody is suggesting it should, it would be over $17, so the companies are getting great value out of their workers, and still would be even if minimum wage kept pace with inflation. That doesn't even account for where it would be if it kept pace with CEO/Executive pay of over $22...

And yes, Walmart is near the bottom of the rung in jobs, no matter what the right may say about them having a choice... Nobody grows up wanting to work at Walmart, McDonalds and the like. Most people working at those sort of jobs work them because that was the best job they can get, and after a while, you gain "job security" as well as you can call it that, which makes it harder for them to move on, up and out, taking a risk that some rich guy might ship their jobs overseas so he can take more for himself while screwing over his workers and the American public. So they get stuck, because it's the best option that they have, especially in a country that is so far lopsided in favor of the business over the workers... in one of the few countries that doesn't guarantee health insurance for everyone, that took a Republican created plan that makes people buy health insurance from for profit insurance companies (which if I recall correctly was one of the top 3 most profitable businesses in the US per dollar earned, with banks at number one, and pharmasutcal companies), and made it the law of the land, while those same Republicans, many who co-sponsored the legislation when Republicans tried to pass it at the federal level, now oppose their own creation... because apparently the changes that the left made to the bill (not being able to deny people for pre-existing conditions and not being able to charge them extra, and moving to comprehensive coverage rather than just catastrophic coverage, so two things that mean insurance companies have to pay out more for) are bad.

Watch out for that...

Helping coordinate acts like this is the single most effective way we as adults can fight bullying. If you don't teach kids to watch out for and help each other, the only times kids will be safe from bullying is when directly under the exclusive supervision of adults.

Not bad, though he(they) made a few mistakes in the german parts. The most obvious in the end:
"Danke für das Aufpassen" does not mean "Thanks for watching" in the sense he(they) intended, it rather means "Thanks for watching out"^^

Those guys better watch out. That looks like Gorignak's territory.

I don't think the people who think the Republican party is doomed understand just how brainwashed their people are. I have to hear Fox news every day, and hear comments from conservatives every day about how everything is going to hell in a hand basket and only the Republican party can save them. It's becoming clear that all this is just galvanizing the core. They think they are being repressed, they think there is a war against Christianity (which is funny since the Republican party is perhaps the most polar opposite of the 4 larger parties, and certainly of the two majors, to the teachings of Jesus) and only Republicans will help stop that war. Their churches are telling them there is a war against Christians and how they are being repressed and to vote Republican to save them. These people, once they can no longer deny that the climate is warming and is man made, will just point how it is the end times and continue to ignore it, because Jesus is coming soon anyhow. It's like that cartoon where the rich man takes 99 of the 100 cookies, the middle class guy takes one and the poor guy has just crumbs and the rich man warns the middle class guy to watch out, that the poor guy wants his cookie, and rather than be mad at the guy who took 99 of the cookies, he actually gets mad at the poor guy for wanting one. They don't care that a rich man fires over 1000 people and keeps everyone else at minimum for 4 years without raises so he can have a jet, they see those minimum wage workers and the people he fired as the enemy.They honestly believe the big corporate media machine is the "liberal media", disregarding the fact they are very much interested in keeping the status qua going, rather than expose the truth of growing income gap in this country. By 2016 most people will have forgotten the shutdown and those that remember it won't remember it is the Republican's fault, yes, the progressives will remember, but the conservatives blame the Democrats, liberals and progressives anyhow, and the rest won't care by then. The Fox News watchers, Rush listeners are just more solidly believing now that everything is the fault of the poor and the needy and the liberals, Democrats and progressives that want to help them.

TLDR: Those seeing the end of the Republican party, must not be around the hard core enough to see how brainwashed they are by Fox, Rush and their churches. All this just solidifies their anger.

Haha thanks for watching out for me. And thanks for the bump!

people really spend this much time and energy while writing an email?
i mean..ill look over it for glaring misspellings and poor punctuation.
(which you may have guessed i miss often)

i never really considered that someone would struggle with their own expressive nature so much.

and you guys,both @lucky760 and @eric3579,are some of the nicest people i have conversed with online.

as for fretting how someone will receive your words.
you both need to stop.
its a waste of time and here is why:
the very tool you are using to imagine how someone will read your words is your own subjective understanding of that person.

in other words.
to derive the intent of a persons words by using anything OTHER than those actual words is presumption.

we all presume.it is a human trait,and we do so by using our own subjective understanding.

this is why a liar believes everybody lies.
or a cheater is certain everybody cheats.
thieves know everybody steals..
and so on.

you both are pretty genuine.
i bet that if i met you both in real life there would not be any major shocks.
eric would be a tad anxious and unsure.
lucky would be fairly reserved and deliberative (until he got comfortable and then WATCH out).

in my opinion neither of you should devote too much time worrying about such matters.
you both are some pretty genuine dudes who should not have to worry about perceptions of other people.
thats their problem..not yours.

I'll start by apologizing for the long reply...
I looked as closely as possible in HD fullscreen and on my computer the head never touched ground. More to the point, the child never reached for his head. Either way the point is moot, the mother never once even glances at the child to determine injury.
I did look closely, down to street view, at the whole park, and what I saw was it seems that in the non-skate areas there is a different texture to the ground (around the pool, playground area, etc.)
From my viewpoint (and I admit I could not read the park rules, I tried from every angle) the rest of the park is built specifically for skating, and has obstacles designed to skate on that have clear marks on them that that's what they are used for. The area you think is the only skate area has ramps in and out to skate on, so perhaps I'm wrong, but the implication of that design is you can skate everywhere. If I'm wrong in that guess, I'm wrong. There's no way to tell for certain from what I can see. That said, I draw the line at the areas designated for skating, and not in the areas designated for other things. As I've repeatedly stated, the skater bears some responsibility for not looking in a public place, but mom bears far more for allowing child to run free in a public skate park, especially when he was headed straight towards the street with no one watching until he screams.
I do admit from what I see this park is not well designed, as there is not a clear separation of the skate area and non-skate area, or a path from one non-skate area to another. If all the areas besides the small rail/bowl area are not for skating, they certainly should not have built it filled with skating obstacles and ramps, knowing that skaters will skate them.
I guess I misunderstood, yes, he was skating towards the picnic tables, but was no where near them at the end of his run, so who's to say he didn't plan on turning left into the rail area or stopping after the kick flip? The child was headed for the street, agreed?
Barrels out from behind an object is what children often do, and why they get hit, they don't know to look first.
Kid's mom is not seen until after the incident, then walking from the pavilion, she was not with or watching her child from every thing I see.
My reaction to blame the mom is because she was not watching her child and went off because that inattentiveness led to an accident, and she was the one responsible for her child's safety, no one else.

second post reply starts here:
OK, that's clearer that you don't excuse her actions. I accept and agree with that.
Expect the parent to be upset, absolutely. Expect them to be aggressive, not really but many people go that way. Expect them to be violent to address their own parental failings, not at all. Expect them to understand they (not the skater) is 70%+ at fault for not supervising a toddler? Never, parents rarely accept their failings and almost always deflect responsibility.
I feel you miss-state the situation. I say he should have hit her to stop her advance, not if she stopped, at the end of the video, she's still attacking. That's self defense, and using the skateboard in that capacity seems fine to me. We may disagree, people are different.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph...we just don't see it the same way. I feel like many parents have a natural defense mechanism of responsibility deflection, and I don't accept any responsibility for other's children, and would never expect them to take it for mine. I understand the mindset of parents that believe we all have a responsibility to take care of their children, I just disagree with it.
I also disagree that age is an excuse, if the child is too young to watch out for itself, it's 100% the parent's responsibility in my eyes, not mine.

And then there's the new idea that this discussion is all about a faked video. If true, the parent is still irresponsible for letting their child be run into on concrete where he may well have broken his skull, but maybe not completely out of control crazy violent.
Again, apologies for the long post.

To me it's one or the other...either it's justifiable violence or it's crazy to think it's justifiable violence. To me, using violence to answer an obvious accident is just plain crazy.
I watched in full screen and could not see the head touch ground, and never once noticed the child putting it's hands up to it's head, which would be the normal reaction if it's head were hurt. I mentioned it was not bleeding to indicate there didn't seem to be even a superficial skin wound, not to indicate that no blood means no injury.
Well, I indicated race because they were of different races, and sex because they were different sexes, and age because they were different ages, and for some reason it seems you expected different levels of responsibility from them. Perhaps it was not for any of these reasons, but I think they all come into play in your apparent theory that have differing levels of responsibility for their own actions, certainly sex seems to for most people.
Somehow my first post in this thread disappeared, I explained there that I thought they had about a 60/40 split with the larger responsibility going to the adult skater because NEITHER was looking where they were going, perhaps even 70/30. My point is that the child was not looking where it was running either, and was not being supervised by anyone that was watching out either, and it bears SOME responsibility. It could just as easily been hit by a bicycle that likely would have had every right to be there the way it ran diagonally across the open area, and I feel the reaction would have been identical.
I am not surprised that the law is different in many places. In many states, if someone assaults you and you have something in your hands, you may use it to defend yourself. It wouldn't be 'bringing in a weapon' because you had it in hand when attacked. If you pick something up, it would likely be different. In almost every state, if the attacker is still moving towards you (as she was at the end) you may use whatever force needed to stop the attack. In some states, it seems you may arm yourself before being touched and use deadly force to stop the advance if you fear attack. Once the attack/advance is halted, I think that all changes almost everywhere.
On a moral basis, my feeling is if they sucker punch you in the face, you should get one free shot back at them, even if they turn and run. I'm not sexist or ageist and try to not be racist, so none of those things should enter into who hit who.
edit: and you are correct, I just guessed the skater was white based on his appearance, accent, and the fact that he's skating. I may well be wrong about that (and many other things).

How far away the mother was and what a terrible mother she is is irrelevant. Even if she was Mother of the Year she still wouldn't have been hovering over her son with a leash she could use to yank him out of the way to safety.

The bottom line is the skater was a douchecock for being so careless as to potentially seriously injure that defenseless, innocent little boy. Yes, smashing someone's head to the concrete can be fatal. It's very common for someone to impact the ground with their head and die from the resulting brain trauma. (It happened to a Marine in the news last week. It happened to a guy I knew in high school. It happened to Natasha Richardson. It almost happened to Larry Miller, but they saved him by removing his skull.)

For his fucking selfishness and ignorance toward people around him he deserves more than a single punch to the face. It should be beaten into him to watch out for bystanders and especially small children when practicing his poser-ass skateboard tricks.

Of course, he, like many people commenting here, surely feels he didn't do anything wrong, so I'm sure he'll take nothing away from the incident except that some little asshole kiddie got in the way, causing himself to get an owie, and his low-life absentee psychopathic mother is just a raving lunatic.