I was pretty much a Marvel-only type of kid; the two-dimensional DC characters could never hold my attention.

That said, early Wonder Woman stories were (in)famous for being riddled with bondage & domination themes. WW lost her powers when she was tied up, so she was constantly being chained, cuffed and restrained. It was no accident; her creator was very open about his intent and (confusingly) somehow felt that women being tied up was empowering them.

Power Girl was a parody of the over-sexualization of women in comics right from the get-go, but became very popular in spite of it.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.
I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."
I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now.

Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.

I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."

I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now. >> ^rebuilder:

Call me a cranky heretic, but the superhero comic is the worst thing that ever happened to US comics... There's good stuff coming out all the time, but so much of the comic output seems to basically be softcore porn with outlandish, paper-thin action plots it's not even funny. At least in Europe, when they want to make porn, they make straight up porn - and the plot still beats the shit out of the usual Marvel fare.

>> ^Hive13:

>> ^eric3579:
Might just be me, but video doesen't load.

Same here.

It doesn't load for me when I try to watch it on my Opera and Chrome browsers, but it works just fine on my Firefox. I haven't tried it on IE, nor have I any intention to. And Safari users: You're too cool for all this Flash player shit, aren't you?

>> ^eric3579:

Might just be me, but video doesen't load.


Same here.

Your video, Conan visits the Warner Brothers animation building - Part 2, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Conan visits the Warner Brothers animation building, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_di_Lammermoor#Trivia, it's been used in;

The "Lucia Sextet" (Chi mi frena in tal momento?) was recorded in 1908 by Enrico Caruso, Marcella Sembrich, Antonio Scotti, Marcel Journet, Barbara Severina, and Francesco Daddi, (Victor single-sided 70036) and released at the price of $7.00, earning it the title of "The Seven-Dollar Sextet". The film The Great Caruso incorporates a scene featuring a performance of this sextet.

The "Lucia Sextet" melody is best known to some from its use by the American slapstick comedy team the Three Stooges in their short films Micro-Phonies and Squareheads of the Round Table, sung in the latter with the lyrics "Oh, Elaine, can you come out tonight...." But the melody is used most dramatically in Howard Hawks' gangster classic "Scarface": Tony Camonte (Paul Muni) whistles "Chi mi frena?" in the film's opening sequence, as he guns down a ganglord boss he has been assigned to protect.

It has also been used in Warner Brothers cartoons: Long-Haired Hare, sung by the opera singer (Bugs Bunny's antagonist); Book Revue, sung by the wolf antagonist; and in Back Alley Oproar, sung by a choir full of Sylvesters, the cat.

The "Lucia Sextet" melody also figures in two scenes from the 2006 film The Departed, directed by Martin Scorsese. In one scene, Jack Nicholson's character is shown at a performance of "Lucia di Lammermoor", and the music on the soundtrack is from the sextet. Later in the film, Nicholson's cell phone ringtone is the sextet melody.

The Sextet is also featured during a scene from the 1986 comedy film, The Money Pit.

In the children's book "The Cricket in Times Square," Chester Cricket chirps the tenor part to the "Lucia Sextet" as the encore to his farewell concert, literally stopping traffic in the process.

An aria from the "mad scene," "Il dolce suono" (from the 3rd Act), was re-popularized when it was featured in the film The Fifth Element in a performance by the alien diva Plavalaguna (voiced by Albanian soprano Inva Mula-Tchako and played onscreen by French actress Maïwenn Le Besco). A loose remake of this film version of the song was covered by Russian pop singer Vitas.

The "mad scene" was also used in the first episode of the anime series Gankutsuou (in place of L'Italiana in Algeri which was the opera used in that scene in The Count of Monte Cristo).

The "mad scene" aria, as sung by Inva Mula-Tchako, was used in an episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent involving the murder of a young violinist by her opera singer mother (who performs the song right after the murder).

The "mad scene" was released as a music video by Russian male soprano Vitas in 2006.

Among other selections from the opera, the "mad scene", "Verranno a te sull'aure", and "Che facesti?" feature prominently in the 1983 Paul Cox film Man of Flowers, especially "Verranno a te sull'aure," which accompanies a striptease in the film's opening scene.

The opera is mentioned in the novels The Count of Monte Cristo, Madame Bovary and Where Angels Fear to Tread and was reputedly one of Tolstoy's favorites.

"Regnava nel silenzio" accompanies the scene in Beetlejuice in which Lydia (Winona Ryder) composes a suicide note.

A portion of the opera is also used in a key scene of the film The Fifth Element, written and directed by Luc Besson.

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?

Any Caddyshack clip is a good Caddyshack clip (excepting "Caddyshack 2: Revenge of the Cocksucking Warner Brothers Executives").

Tags for this video have been changed from 'HDDVD BluRay Warner Brothers' to 'banned, redacted' - edited by jonny

problem with Ellison's rant is that as a writer, he's ALREADY gotten paid. He gets paid every time a DVD with any show he wrote gets sold. I'm al behind the writer's strike (4% ain't dick, they deserve more than that) but to whine about getting paid to do an interview? Why in hell did he do the interview if he won't let anyone use it? Vast majority of people do not get paid to do interviews. He knows that. If he didn't want to do anything promotional for Warner Brothers, then he shouldn't have done the interview. He knows that quite well. But since he's HARLAN-FUCKING-ELLISON! he figures he should get extra cut? FUck you harlan. "Amateurs" work for less (or nothing) because they don't have the notoriety and fame you already have. Harlan did plenty of cheapo work when he was nobody, but now he's pissed that "amateur" writers do the same? Feh. He'll never change. "everyone's an idiot and an asshole except me; I'm the smart pugnacious guy" yeah yeah Harlan, whatever.

*dead

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner Brothers

Tags for this video have been changed from 'singing,frog,cartoon,warner brothers' to 'singing,frog,cartoon,warner brothers,50s' - edited by swampgirl

Tags changed from "chuck jones,warner brothers,daffy duck" to "chuck jones, warner brothers, daffy, 50s" by gold star member swampgirl.

who would dare to charge websites to be on the internet? ERrrrr... my web hosts really want me to pay, even if i show them this video.

Well, obviously, he means PAY, as in: only warner brothers and AOL can afford to put stuff up, or start saving for licensing fees, taxes, ISP's to not block your site, etc.

Besides, there are still lots of free ways to communicate(even if webhosting costs money) such as this comment, Youtube, myspace etc. and usually you get your homepage space at your ISP etc. and there is also p2p. A regulated internet is what he is talking about: someone who controls, blocks, approves etc.