I Think That’s A Small Part Of The Reason He’s So Loved -- He’s Awful, Yes, But That’s Underneath

A beat after scissors, with no word to go on.

For statistical purposes, I'm from the Rockies.

also we came to a WILD realization tonight: when playing rock, paper, scissors, people from the east coast and midwest go on SHOOT, and people from the west coast (who are insane) go on scissors. like WHY

This view that all too many hold in the church is infuriating. Jesus absolutely understood the systemic nature of poverty and totally depended on the generosity of family, friends, and strangers. There's a reason so much of His teaching is about helping the poor and in need.

From Matthew 25:

33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did itto one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand,‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

44 “Then they also will answer [b]Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do itto one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

There are some absolutely blood boiling quotes in here, but I think it’s still worth a read even if it’s just confirming what you already know.

Reblog if, no matter the size of the role, you would agree to work with the Muppets if offered the chance to do so, no questions asked

The Right Stuff (1983, set from 1947-1963) - an epic about the test pilots who became the first astronauts (played by Ed Harris, Dennis Quaid, Scott Glenn, Lance Henrickson, Fred Ward) and Chuck Yeager (Sam Shepher), who didn't.

American Graffiti (1973, set in 1963)- George Lucas's mosaic of the last night of a group of teens before they go off to college or the military or whatnot, set in 1963.

Malcolm X (1992, set 1940s to 1960s)- Spike Lee's flamboyant, powerful masterpiece that remains the greatest biopic Hollywood ever produced.

The Godfather (1972, set 1947-1955) The Godfather Part II (1974- interleaves 1901-1920ish and 1958-1959) - classic crime dramas that transcend their pulpy origins with a vivid portrait of the experience of first and second generation immigrants, the bonds and foibles of family, and the endless yet evolving nature of the cycles of violence that define crime. (But they’re also pulpy fun.) Part III (1990, set in 1978) is also quite good; its only real flaw is not being as grand as I and II.

Forrest Gump (1994, set 1940s to 1980s) - the 1990s answer to Frank Capra, a corny, beautiful, funny, sentimental yarn. Very much an oddball nostalgia fest from Gen Xers about Boomers, and thus is a very strange point of view today, but it remains hugely entertaining.

LA Confidential (1997, set 1950s)- the ultimate modern Noir, a funny, atmospheric, violent tale of police corruption in 1950s LA, following three cops, from charming sleazbag Kevin Spacey, violent brute Russell Crowe, and seemingly incorruptible stick-up-his-butt Guy Pearce. Unsurprisingly, all three are terrific at those roles.

Carol (2015, set 1950s) - absolutely gorgeous romance about two women who fall in love and struggle to deal with what that means in that world.

Does anyone have any recommendations for colorful movies that take place in the past (preferably the ‘50s and ‘60s)? I love these kinds of movies and would love to watch some.

Howard the Duck

Given the imminent release of Avengers: Infinity Wars , what could be more fun or appropriate than revisiting all the Marvel Cinematic U...

My review of Marvel’s first ever movie!

This unquestionably belongs on any list of the 10 greatest Batman stories.

tim drake’s snapchat is 90% him making bruce wayne do normal middle-class american things and filming the results. popular youtube compilations include the one where they’re at denny’s at two in the morning and tim keeps trying to get bruce to order a moon over my hammy just so he’ll have to say it, the one where they’re at disneyworld and bruce gets increasingly frazzled culminating in him actually physically picking up gaston for reasons no one can entirely recall, and everyone’s favorite series “bruce wayne doesn’t understand walmart”

Okay, not quite. I was spot-on with what Guardians would make, but I really thought Turtles would drop faster. Also, that Expendables wouldn't completely bomb. Which is too bad; I was hoping they'd stick around long enough to make a genuinely satisfying entry. You know, with a story and some nice character work and a classic action sequence and maybe even, I don't know, living up to the title and giving its stars some good death scenes.

Box Office Prediction (August 15-17)

I know it’s a long shot, but I’m calling Guardians of the Galaxy to retake the number one spot this weekend, though it won’t be until the weekend actuals are released on Monday that we’ll know.

Read More

why the fuck does english have a word for

but not for “the day after tomorrow”

???

Practical F/X vs. CGI in Willow

I finally caught up with the 1988 George Lucas / Ron Howard fantasy yarn Willow, and it's a blast. Not quite a classic, but spectacular, imaginative, thrilling, and charming in a way few blockbusters are.

The highlight for me - besides Val Kilmer's delightful rogue The Mad Martigan - is a battle sequence in a castle, where Martigan is basically taking on a few dozen villains on his own using a variety of tricks and tactics while Willow is busy trying to get his sorcery to work. There's a lot of other elements at play here - the villainous Princess Sorsha trying to figure out if she loves or hates Martigan, sorceress Raziel is stuck in a goat form, and trolls have encased all the inhabitants of the castle into stone and are still lurking around somewhere. It's a terrific scene as it is, but then Willow, trying to ward off a troll, accidentally turns it into a gigantic two-headed dragon known as the Eborsisk. And it's fantastic.

Later on, there's a scene widely praised at the time where Willow turns Raziel from a goat into an ostrich, a turtle, a tiger, and finally her own form in turn. It was the first CGI Morph in film, and led directly to The Abyss, which led to T2, which led to Jurassic Park, until now, when studios spend $250 million to make over-budgeted cartoons with live actors pasted in here and there.

Which got me thinking on the CGI vs. Practical Effects debate, since this is a nice example of the same effect being done both ways. Thinking about it, I think in both cases it was the right call.

The troll-to-dragon transformation is done with a combination of go-motion (an advanced version of stop-motion developed by Phil Tippett for the Hoth battle in The Empire Strikes Back) and animatronics. The effect is choppy and ugly, and the result is unsettling and creepy. It looks wrong, something that should not be.

It also necessitates cutting back to Willow's reaction shot. That's one of the things that makes the scene so good, really - Warwick Davis's look of "What the hell did I just do?" elevates both the horror and humor of the scene.

By contrast, the CGI morphing is smooth and fluid. It's no more or less realistic, but we're talking about magic here, so realism isn't exactly the goal. But this scene isn't Willow accidentally turning one monster into another, much more horrific monster; it's about Raziel becoming her own form again, and about the beauty and wonder of magic. It also allows the scene to take place in longer takes, but we don't especially need Willow's reaction until Raziel is herself.

Reversing the effects wouldn't have worked as well for the story - the smooth transformation would have looked like just a cool effect with the troll-to-dragon rather than horrifying (CGI can do a great many things well, but creepy just is not one of them), and Raziel's wouldn't have had the same sense of wonder and beauty with the grotesque look of go-motion. (The AT-ATs or ED-209 are exactly the sort of thing Go-Motion is good at)

Unfortunately, go-motion has largely gone extinct in the CGI era, as it's thought to be less "realistic", though I'm somewhat unconvinced given how cartoonish the effects look in mega-budget films like Days of Future Past (a phenomenal movie, by the way) or Amazing Spider-Man 2 (not a phenomenal film). Like makeup effects, bladders, models, matte paintings, and even celluloid film itself, go-motion is the older, harder method, but there are stories told better. Sometimes, like King Arthur in Excalibur, storytellers should charge into battle using the Old Ways.

On the other hand, sometimes you want a T-1000 to wreck up the place, and gotta bring in the computers.

Practical and digital are both tools, both with their function and form in stories. I hope going into the future, film makers remember the old methods and use them, and that cynical, f/x savvy viewers remember what beautiful things can be done with the new methods and don't dismiss them out of hand. (myself included)

I passed an amazing follower milestone last month, and I’m having an ASOIAF Art Giveaway to celebrate! 

PRIZE: Commissioned watercolor art of YOUR CHOICE by metalshell, subject to certain restrictions. 

You can see some examples of metalshell‘s beautiful work here on deviantart. The examples of metalshell‘s art featured above are Winter Roses and Sharp Steel and Little Birds. 

RULES: 

You must reblog this post to enter, and you must be following me.

You can reblog as many times as you want, but don’t spam your followers.

Likes count as an additional entry.

No giveaway blogs. 

The giveaway closes on my birthday, October 14! You have until then to reblog this post. 

The winner will be chosen on October 14 at 11pm PT. The winner must have their askbox open, and they must respond within 3 days, or a new winner will be chosen.

Read the detailed rules & restrictions. 

Thank you all so much for following me, and good luck!