The next incident that
really hurt my love of stand-up came a few months later. I often perform at a
place called the Stone Tavern. To be honest, I dislike performing there. A lot
of the comedians rely on shock humor – and that’s pretty much the only thing
that goes over well there. But I’m good friends with the manager and he tends
to give me pretty cushy spots on the show soI just grin and bear it. I performed there in October – bringing a
friend along – and died on stage. Not one joke got a laugh. Ever. No giggles,
no chuckles, no tee-hee’s – nobody went “ha!”
My friend had a good
time, which I was happy about. I would have felt bad if he had a bad time on my
account. But I kind of had to hide that my feelings were hurt about what
happened. Oh, and because I was using new material, I taped this catastrophe
for prosperity:
Galactus has existed in his present form since the entropic collapse of the universe that existed prior to the regular Marvel universe we know today. He is frequently described as having "godlike" attributes, represents an anthropomorphized force of nature and all that jazz. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby frequently danced around the issue, leaving it open to fan's own interpretations. Which is what I'm doing right now, interpreting things through my own personal filters for you, my interested audience.
Galactus is the God of Destruction
Perception Determines Reality:
Every non-human sapient race in the wider Marvel universe sees Galactus as something different. What they are seeing are the various gods of their own people's various creation myths and legends of destruction. As the readers, we're seeing Galactus in the form that the human residents of Earth-616 are seeing because we're human. The first being in the Modern Era to fully see Galactus was Mr. Fantastic, Reed Richards. Richards, being a man of <insano>SCIENCE!!!!</insano> doesn't see Galactus as a traditional god, thinking of him in purely rational terms as being a giant from outer space wearing a totally sweet suit of Kirbytech. His perception of Galactus shapes the perception of us, the readers, and we have conditioned ourselves to see Galactus this way ever since.
In the universe of Marvel Zombies, the cannibalistic undead heroes and villains are only capable of operating on simple zombie instincts. If it's alive, then it's delicious juicy meat and brains to them.
In the Marvel continuities of the Transformers comics, the readers are seeing everything not as ordinary humans see it, but through the perceptions of a Cybertronian because they're the protagonists and antagonists of the story. In Cybertron's own mythology, their God of Destruction is a purely malevolent force that ravages worlds purely because creation offends him. And his name is Unicron...
Today I’m going to review the new Paul McCartney album, Kisses on the Bottom (I’ll explain later), which was released today (this review was written on 7th February).
The album is McCartney’s 15<sup>th</sup> studio solo album. The idea behind the album was for McCartney to revisit songs from his youth. The album is mainly covers of old jazz songs, McCartney only contributing vocals for most songs, enlisting the help of Diana Krall and jazz producer Tommy LiPuma. The album was published by McCartney’s own company, MPL.
I've been making a couple [literally one couple] of retrospective reviews on Youtube for a series of video games by the developer NanaOn-Sha - specifically, Parappa the Rapper and Um Jammer Lammy. I was pretty much doing them just to amuse myself and my friends, but I figure that if I can scrounge together a few video hits here and there, why not? Being a big TGWTG fan, I figured I could stick some hyperlinks on the forums and at least one poor fool would be kind enough to watch it.
Now I know that I've talked about this short before in the past but I haven't given it the proper review treatment that I feel it deserves. Also I've wanted to delve into some of the shorts that deal with more topical issues, mainly the WWII shorts. That's why the next 2 Classic Shorts Showcase are Chicken Little and Education For Death. For those of you wondering why, I'm not including this on Showcase, well that's goes back to the Mickey Rule. In order for a short featuring Mickey and the gang to appear on Showcase, it must be an adaption. You could argue that with my Wise Little Hen review but that was an adaption. Anyways with that out of the way, let's get to this short. Just as with many shorts produced during this time, it was meant to lift spirits and one way to do that was to paint, the enemy in a comical light such as they did with Hitler and the much more serious and not at all comedic short, Education For Death. For this review, I'll be breaking it down into Plot, Character, Music, Images, and My Final Thoughts.
The Plot
The basic plot of this short is that Donald has had a dream that he lives in a land ruled by Nazis and we get to see what his life would be like under control of The Third Reich. The plot is simple but effective, true, this short is comedic in nature but they made the right decision in using Donald for this short because Mickey wouldn't gel with what they were trying to do and Goofy would just feel out of place. Donald works for this short because he is the most relatable out of the main cast and seeing someone like him go through, I think gives the audience a better connection to the events taking place.
Character
Donald Duck voiced by Clarence "Ducky" Nash
This image right here is perhaps the least tame in the images that we see. Again as explained, Donald in this short has a nightmare that he lives in a world run by The Nazis. It was an interesting take on this idea and again, I like the use of Donald to show what life would have been like if he lived in this world. It would be a very grim and dark life for him.
Music
Der Furher's Face
Folks, I gotta be honest here. I don't know what to make of this song. I get that it's a parody of Hitler and his regime. It's good and I'll take it over that other Nazi song, I talked about. It's not bad and it was a hit during the time and I can see why but I just kinda find it to be meh.
Images
Now I have two images that I want to talk about are coming up.
Now , this is just one of many images that appear that can get my mind going. This one here is pretty funny though because the conveyor belt keeps on coming out with pictures of Hitler and Donald has keep on doing the Heil Hitler.
Now this scene may be covered in too much patriotism but I love it because it's a reminder that while the USA may have it bad, it could always be worse.
My Final Thoughts
This is probably isn't the strongest WWII short but it takes a different approach at handling the subject and it works well. If your someone who is interested in this period of either Disney's or just history in general, track down this short.
This week The Guru compares Stephen King's horrifying tale of a rabid St. Bernard with it's fantastic big screen adaptation. Which comes out on top? Stay tuned to find out!
after re-watching some of Todd's videos again (yeah, call me fanboy somehow) I stumbled across the song "Who'd have known" (again) by Lily Allen. I remembered that it's quiet beginning caught my attention but somehow I didn't dwell on the song... strange, she sings nicely, I can relate to the theme, the producing isn't bad either... and of course, it got a piano! (which is my favourite instrument, mainly because I play it myself)
So, why didn't I fall for this song, had it replayed until I couldn't stand it anymore, just to discover it some months later again? These among under questions crossed my mind - until the chorus began.
"Are you mine?
Are you mine?
Cause I stay here all the time
Watching telly, drinking wine
Who'da known, who'da known
When you flash up on my phone
I'd no longer feel alone
No longer feel alone"
Wow. WAY to ruin some intense atmosphere. I mean, don't get me wrong: I like positive music, I like clear and direct words, and I have nothing against some kind of psychotic attitude (though Casper's "Can I keep you?" still is a bit too creepy).
(A fast paced film, but worthy to be a part of its genre)
Horror films can sometimes be a conundrum. The genre that always has numerous films out
in a year’s time tend to be never worth it.
It is on rare occasion that not only is there a horror movie worth
seeing, but it turns out to be a good film. This may in fact be one of those
occasions. Based on the 1983 ghost story, the latest scary movie in theaters is
none other than “The Woman in Black”.
This ghost story is not only a chance to be a good horror films,
but this film marks the first film for Daniel Radcliffe to make a name for
himself outside of Harry Potter. How does Radcliffe fair in the horror genre
and does this film make for a scary time at the movies?
The
story of “TheWoman in Black” stars Daniel Radcliffe as Arthur Kipps, a young
lawyer who recently lost his wife. In order to keep his job, Arthur travels to
a small town to finish the paper work of an old deserted house. However Arthur
soon finds out that not only is the town plague with a supernatural curse, but
he himself begins to be haunted by a woman in black. I will say this much, I
did like the story; however the story is the film’s greatest crutch. The issue
with the story is that it moves at a very quick pace. The movie throws you
right into the story, and before you know it, the haunting begin and you
already on your way to the climax. I will give the movie the benefit of the
doubt as it is based off of a very short book; but I still wish there could
have been more details to the plot.
The star of the film is young Daniel Radcliffe. He plays a man named Arthur Kipps. He heads to a village where fear has a tight grip. The owner of the house holds a dark past; he must figure out what it is quite fast. For if he is unable to uncover the truth of the House on the marsh, his ending to this story, will be quite harsh. Will the movie have a happy end? Not all movies have to end that way my friend.
THE CHARACTERS
Daniel, Misha, and Hinds are memorable. The rest are forgettable. Now this is just wrong. Characters in movies like this should be strong.
ARTHUR KIPPS -
portrayed by Daniel Radcliffe. Kipps is a young lawyer and widower, someone who
lost his wife. He has a four year old son named Joseph whom he loves dearly. He
is solemn, and quiet. However, he seems to be more than willing to help try and
save the townspeople's children from this deadly specter. Radcliffe does a wonderful
job with this role of a young father and lawyer. However at times you can
clearly see that Daniel is expressionless where there SHOULD be emotion. Lots
of it. Even if you’re in shock something other than blank nothingness would
work. You care about his character, and feel immensely sorry for his great
loss. And you sort of understand that pain he is going through in trying to
move on from the death of his wife.
JOSEPH KIPPS -
portrayed by Misha Handley. You can tell right away that for a four year old,
Arthur's son is quite sharp. Always noticing how sad his father is, when he
wants him to be happy. He's a sweet boy, very likable character right from the
start. Yet he is rather sick, and you can't help but feel a sense of foreboding
when it comes to just how long the boy will live.
