>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

Forrest Gump may be a cliche now, but his performance in it was great. He was great in Philadelphia and The Green Mile as well. For pure strength of acting, I think you've got to go with Cast Away. Not many actors can carry a movie all by themselves with only a volleyball to interact with. If you want a role that really steps out of the norm, try The Ladykillers.

Hanks may not be one of those guys who completely transforms himself for a role, but I still think he's solid. Tim Allen has never acted, to my knowledge. He plays himself in all his roles.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.


Also, Tim Allen's a crackhead.

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.

Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.

But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.

So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

Good morning!

>> ^Raaagh:

Bill monologues should be inserted into more pop culture. Sesame Street should get him on as a guest star extolling on the finality of the letter Z, Bill O'reilly should have him in a segment called "Thoughts of Bill" where he explores a rationalization of this weeks neo-con cognitive dissonance, Good morning America should have a live cross etc


Yeah. Except, now he's dead. Yet another brilliant videosift idea wasted by the grim reaper.

Bill monologues should be inserted into more pop culture. Sesame Street should get him on as a guest star extolling on the finality of the letter Z, Bill O'reilly should have him in a segment called "Thoughts of Bill" where he explores a rationalization of this weeks neo-con cognitive dissonance, Good morning America should have a live cross etc

OMG, I can't believe you found the new Jessi Slaughter video!!

Always interesting to see a good interview.

Incidentally, this is who rougy really is
http://videosift.com/video/The-End-Of-Morality-and-The-Anarchy-Of-The-Soul?loadcomm=1#comment-1063463
http://videosift.com/video/The-End-Of-Morality-and-The-Anarchy-Of-The-Soul?loadcomm=1#comment-1063531
http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America?loadcomm=1#comment-1040292
http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America?loadcomm=1#comment-1040293
http://videosift.com/video/Gordon-Ramsay-s-Perfect-Scrambled-Eggs?loadcomm=1#comment-644095
http://videosift.com/video/Wikileaks-U-S-Apache-killing-civilians-in-Baghdad?loadcomm=1#comment-971348
http://videosift.com/video/Powell-Eviscerates-McCains-Negative-Smear-Campaign?loadcomm=1#comment-549763
http://videosift.com/video/The-Chronicles-Of-The-Obamessiah-Volume-I-The-Adulteress?loadcomm=1#comment-531070
http://gwiz665.videosift.com/?loadcomm=1#comment-1041622
http://videosift.com/video/Does-the-world-need-nuclear-energy-TED-Debate?loadcomm=1#comment-1017215
Really just check out http://videosift.com/search?q=&t=c&u=rougy&o=lovotes&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search

@dag there's a difference between censorship and personal attacks. Oh well, people can see what kind of a douche he is, so I guess that's a better way to silence him --- let the users ignore the dickhead.

For easy access, this is who rougy really is
http://videosift.com/video/The-End-Of-Morality-and-The-Anarchy-Of-The-Soul?loadcomm=1#comment-1063463
http://videosift.com/video/The-End-Of-Morality-and-The-Anarchy-Of-The-Soul?loadcomm=1#comment-1063531
http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America?loadcomm=1#comment-1040292
http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America?loadcomm=1#comment-1040293
http://videosift.com/video/Gordon-Ramsay-s-Perfect-Scrambled-Eggs?loadcomm=1#comment-644095
http://videosift.com/video/Wikileaks-U-S-Apache-killing-civilians-in-Baghdad?loadcomm=1#comment-971348
http://videosift.com/video/Powell-Eviscerates-McCains-Negative-Smear-Campaign?loadcomm=1#comment-549763
http://videosift.com/video/The-Chronicles-Of-The-Obamessiah-Volume-I-The-Adulteress?loadcomm=1#comment-531070
http://gwiz665.videosift.com/?loadcomm=1#comment-1041622
http://videosift.com/video/Does-the-world-need-nuclear-energy-TED-Debate?loadcomm=1#comment-1017215
Or just check out http://videosift.com/search?q=&t=c&u=rougy&o=lovotes&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search

@rougy What the hell is wrong with you? Do you have a crush on some sixth grader and want to show her your money? You are disturbing.

Are you still on about http://videosift.com/video/Jessi-Slaughter-on-Good-Morning-America ? You really need to get the sand out of your vagina.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

It's right tempting, isn't it?



In reply to this comment by Payback:
Just for the record, I would shoot his mouth off too.

...and then other parts.

In reply to this comment by rougy:
You know...I just think that...anyone who gets a hard-on over fucking with a stupid eleven-year-old girl....

Should sit next to me in a bar, and shoot his mouth off.

But there is always the possibility that she could sneak online somewhere else or when her parents weren't watching. There is no way to absolutely foolproof against your kids doing something stupid. Sure, the parents didn't even take the minimum precautions, but the tragedy that struck could have happend anyway.

Is the point you're making that its okay that she received death threats and had a lot of harassment because her parents failed to protect her properly? Or are you blaming her directly because she automatically needs to take responsibility for whatever she does at whatever age? Neither of these alternatives feel very convincing to me.

She made some bad choices, she said things she shouldn't have said, she might even have done things utterly stupid. But in no way could she at 11 understand the full depth of what she was doing and what kind of people she was dealing with.

I read some discussions involving you here on the sift, and I think people who didn't know you or know what you had done came out and judged you and it hurt, and you hadn't realized how your actions would be perceived by others and couldn't understand the reaction and/or backlash that you had to face. If that hurt you, you should have at least an inkling of understanding about how hurtful the combined effort of 4chan would be able to utterly destroy someone. I cannot bring myself to see any humor in it.

I don't know, I recently posted a horrible video of israelis killing palestinians. I thought it was fun, so maybe Im just full of shit. It's possible. But I feel sorry for this girl.

>> ^gwiz665:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chtierna" title="member since September 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">chtierna she may be 11 years old, but her father certainly isn't. If he payed attention, this would never have happened. Posting things on the internet is like posting it in the newspaper, except more people can read it - how do you think people would feel if she made a letter to the editor saying she wants to "put a glock in your mouth and make a brain slushie" and post naked pictures of herself on page 6?
Freedom, like the internet, comes with responsibility. If you're not adult enough to realize that responsibility, then you definitely shouldn't use it. The parents, as always, are to blame for the behavior of the kids.
She's like a stupid tourist who wants to get her picture taken with a cuddly wuddly panda bear, kicks it, and gets her face bitten off. I don't hate her, I feel sorry for her. And I laugh derisively in her general direction.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

>> ^rougy:
You know...I just think that...anyone who gets a hard-on over fucking with a stupid eleven-year-old girl....
Should sit next to me in a bar, and shoot his mouth off.

The girl absolutely DESERVED every single piece of ridicule that she received from the internet. She posted naked pictures of herself on an anonymous imageboard, that has a notorious reputation of figuring out who the hell you are if you don't hide your tracks well enough. Not to mention she provoked them, knowing full well what they are capable of. Anyone who has been there for long enough knows how quickly they can track down information on someone to find addresses/jobs/phone numbers/spouses/family/etc. It's almost scary how good they are at that.
Not to mention most of the people that get a "hard-on over fucking with a stupid eleven-year-old girl" are stupid 11-year-old boys, something that eventually they will grow out of, but will be replaced by a flood of other 11-year-old boys with the same/similar online demeanor.


E L E V E N Y E A R O L D ! ! ! ! ! ! !

WADR, parents AWOL!


As to the second bit, best case you are partially correct, worst and unfortunately best case, NOT!.

>> ^rougy:

^ Hey! Why stop there!
Keep them locked in the closet and feed them through a doggie door.
Maybe you forgot what it was to be like when you were eleven (11) years old.
I'm sure your folks knew where you were and what you were doing every minute of the day.


Yes.... And?

As do I mine now. It's called parenting.

Wonder why there are adults who should not be or cannot be turned loose, much less children?