The hilarious part is that c-note is probably right about the cops. But he was being a total ass about it.

Alan Alda is great and I'm definitely going to watch this show.

But if you think that racism is only what you do, not what you say, I have a simple experiment for you.

Find a black/asian/jewish/hispanic person and do something nice for them. Help them change a tyre or carry their groceries. When they say thanks, reply "no problem, <insert ethnic slur of choice>", and watch them realise how not-racist you're being!

wow...this thread took a very unexpected path didn't it?

is nobody going to comment about the awesomeness that is alan FUCKING alda?

how about that show by louis ck,horace and pete?
great show right?
i know i am a huge fan.

*promote horace and pete,and alan fucking ALDA!

*ban
Alan Osborne
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8InFek1zGNc

Your video, alan watts-acceptance of death, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

She must feel crazy sometimes. Almost like a movie--"Am I going crazy here? Am I the only who sees what is going on here?"

For those who don't know, she frantically tried to tell Alan Greenspan that he had to control credit access and interest rates before the collapse in 2008.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/05/making-credit-safer-html

http://billmoyers.com/segment/flashback-elizabeth-warren-basically-predicts-the-great-recession/

I fear she will go a little crazy at some point; that being right for so long, about something so important---will lead to mind almost cracking. I hope not.

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

I disagree that it cannot be adapted to film. It could be done with a director that can function in a storytelling environment, which Snyder simply cannot do. The problem with Snyder was covered very well here recently, *related=http://videosift.com/video/Nerdwriter-Fundamenal-Flaw-Zack-Snyder-Batman-v-Superman
He was exactly the wrong director to have film this. I would have went with Del Toro or Whedon, but even they have their flaws.

Now, if the question is, can an adaptation be done that Alan Moore will feel 'suits' his vision? Probably not. He is an artist, in very good ways, but also in some very bad ones. He has a specific idea of how his creation must flow, which means he will never be satisfied with a medium outside of the graphic novel or comic.

Personally, I think one of the few un-adaptable works would be Gaiman's Sandman, but that's just my opinion.

You have ZERO proof she was hired quid pro quo. Absolutely zero. Do you honestly think Clinton would risk any bad optics whatsoever if she thought DWS wouldn't help her win? That was the Rodman analogy. Clinton hired her to help win the election, not to regulate elections to be fair.

And even Sanders supporters said the nomination wasn't stolen. He lost. He lost mainly because he didn't appeal enough to minority voters. You have to take a massive leap of cynicism to make that claim.

You're making it sound like Clinton hired Alan Grayson. That's my point.

Then you magically transfer DWS's guilt directly to Clinton. Did Clinton do that, or did DWS? I'm pretty sure it was DWS. I hated George W. Bush as president. That didn't make me magically transfer guilt about the Valerie Plame incident directly to him because there's no evidence he was responsible for outing her as a CIA operative.

And again, you're also talking about the leader of the Democratic Party favoring a lifelong Democrat over a dude who just decided to join for a Presidential run. When I think of a candidate who is personally corrupt, I think of Nixon. He broke a law. Clinton didn't break any laws whatsoever. NONE! She didn't even do anything. DWS didn't break any laws for that matter. She shouldn't have done what she did, but good lord, you're blowing this way out of proportion.

How exactly am I helping Trump win? Because I'm gonna vote for Clinton over Trump, Stein, and Johnson?! You're gonna have to explain to me how I should help Trump lose. Do I vote for Trump?! Do I vote for some other candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning?

And all evidence does not argue against Clinton being the most qualified candidate out of the remaining candidates. She is BY FAR the most experienced candidate in government. You can sit there and rail about the hiring of DWS to help campaign all you want, but there is no possible way you can possibly make the claim that she isn't the most experienced out of the remaining candidates. She was the most experienced candidate among all primary candidates, too. That's an undeniable fact. All evidence at the very least doesn't say she isn't the most qualified. None of the 2016 primary candidates came remotely close to her experience in foreign policy. None of them came close to her experience in domestic policy.

This isn't to say experience is everything. But you're making a very flimsy argument about her being personally corrupt, and then claiming the ridiculous assertion that all evidence says she's not the most qualified candidate, even though she's clearly the most experienced.

And yes, we don't know how good or bad a President she would be. You also can't know if a specific Honda Accord will be more reliable than a specific Chevy Corvette either. That doesn't stop me from buying the Honda Accord without batting an eye if I want the most reliable car.

Only in this case, it's more like a Honda Accord vs. a lit on fire dumpster on wheels.

Agreed.

They managed to turn a treatise on Nietzsche's abyss and the nature of Anarchy & Fascism; into a one sided fairytale about extreme neo-conservatism vs pseudo-liberal collectivism.

& don't get me started on the fucking "eggy in a basket"!

V is supposed to be a god-damned monster, not a relatable hero.

Reading V after seeing this film was what made me truly understand why Alan Moore wants nothing to do with film adaptations.

Is this really the leftest Alan Dershowitz? Is there, at long last, no more left than he? Couldn't this just be lefter Alan Dershowitz?

So the problem is shitty writers? Fair enough, but I think shitty writers of Superman outweigh good writers by a significant ratio.

In fact, the only writer I've ever seen do a truly good job with Superman was Alan freaking' Moore. The problem with Superman isn't that he isn't relatable, it's that it's hard to give him an interesting challenge.

Batman is at his best (story wise) when he's vulnerable and has to solve a problem. It's hard to write Superman without him just being more powerful.

Wow, it sounds like Alan Rickman did the caterpillar voice. I think this might have been his last performance.

You film Alan Rickman's face while Ellis gives his 'guns...pens...what's the difference' speech offscreen. He gives the 'Hans...Bubby' line. It throws Rickman off for a moment and makes his reaction that little more genuine.

Then you film Ellis giving the speech. Probably after it has been tidied up and reworked a little bit.

Then you edit them together.

I was hoping this was going to answer a question I have asked for a long time but still don't have a clear answer. Is it common to have 2 cameras filming actors simultaneously during a shot/counter-shot scene in a standard Hollywood production, so it's recording their interactions in real time?

Or is it more likely done with one camera, with the actors filmed sequentially and responding to off-camera dialog as they speak their lines. And then the shot/counter-shot are strung together in editing.

Seems to me the one camera would be more logical, as otherwise the lighting resources themselves would have to be doubled and kept out of view. Also I don't ever remember seeing any pictures or footage from a movie set where they have 2 cameras and 2 sets of lights, etc.

The reason I keep asking is that on IMDB in the trivia section you always read some nonsense about somebody's onscreen reaction to some unscripted ad-libbed line being genuine.

Well if they aren't both in the same shot how could it be a genuine reaction if the shot/counter-shot are filmed with one camera at different times? And the dialog may be spoken and recorded hours apart?

Like this scene from the "Die Hard" trivia section:
Hart Bochner's line "Hans... Bubby!" was ad-libbed. Alan Rickman's quizzical reaction was genuine.

They weren't in the same shot, so how can his reaction be genuine when the line may have been ad-libbed several hours earlier or later. If it was ad-libbed at all.

It strikes me as stupid made-up shit that passes for trivia and knowledge on the Internet but wanted to get some opinions on this.