Here are 12 of Saul Alinksy's rules for radicals, full list is available if you click on the title...
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
money and people, $600 million rasied during the campaign and 2+ million people registered online not counting moveon.org and dailykos kooks. All the more reason to go to grassfire.org and sign up people.
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
Just look at his cabinet, enough said...
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
can you say terrorist attack? People were concerned about "flase-flag" terrorism under Bush... I'm not saying Obama is even that competant to pull shit like that off but if he just lets a terrorist attack happen is that not just as bad? Also, kiss the 2nd amendment goodbye if his people have their way, and once that happens expect the 1st to go soon after.
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
Ok now this is just getting creepy. Remember the election cycle?
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
Does he carry a copy of this book around like some people carry the Bible? I'm starting to think he does...
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
...
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
again, really? Why has no one in the MSM analyzed this? Oh right their too busy sucking on his cock...
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
He doesn't even have to do this, he's got his mindless supporters to do it for him
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
Ok one where he's not really following it, to our knowledge that is.
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
see: Inaguration speech
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
He's got people already doing this. But this could be a problem for him, he doesn't have many solutions
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Wait, didn't this just happen like yesterday? Yeah it did, and no one outside of Michael Savage noticed. Great, people we need an opposition. Messages to all conservatives out there GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND START CALLING DC, YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD EVEN IF YOUR CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR IS A DEM, LET THEM KNOW WERE NOT GOING TO ROLL OVER LIKE THE "REPUBLICANS" IN DC ARE. STAND UP AND FIGHT PEOPLE!!!!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Barack Obama... America you elected this man, you reap what you sow
I think I posted this during the primares when there was still hope that Hillary would be the nominee, and honestly I can say this now; I would have pulled the lever for Hillary over McCain. Yeah I know, but I believe that Hillary actually wants whats best for this country. Now he says that "you can’t just listen Rush Limbaugh and expect things to get done”. that's a word for word quote yesterday, in a minute I will do an informative post about Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals and how Obama has already started to implement some of them in his first week in office.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
There may be justice after all
With Franken's blatent attempt to steal this Senate election the only thing we may be able to do in this state is a simple (but probably very painful) re-vote. It can (and hopefully will) happen. I got this from the RCP website and its from the Wall Street Journal. If you haven't been following events lately in the recount you can get a brief synopsis from the article here. This could also prove valuable for my next book if/when I get around to doing it.
You would think people would learn. The recount in the contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken for a seat in the U.S. Senate isn't just embarrassing. It is unconstitutional.This is Florida 2000 all over again, but with colder weather. Like that fiasco, Minnesota's muck of a process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the controlling Supreme Court decision is none other than Bush v. Gore.
Remember Florida? Local officials conducting recounts could not decide what counted as a legal vote. Hanging chads? Dimpled chads? Should "undervotes" count (where a machine failed to read an incompletely-punched card)? What about "overvotes" (where voters punched more than one hole)? Different counties used different standards; different precincts within counties were inconsistent.
The Florida Supreme Court intervened and made things worse, ordering a statewide recount of some types of rejected ballots but not others. It specified no standards for what should count as a valid vote, leaving the judgment to each county. And it ordered partial recounts already conducted in some counties (but not others) included in the final tabulation. The result was chaos.
By a vote of 7-2, Bush v. Gore (2000) ruled that Florida's recount violated the principle that all votes must be treated uniformly. Applying precedents dating to the 1960s, the Court found that the Equal Protection Clause meant that ballots must be treated so as to give every vote equal weight. A state may not, by "arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Florida's lack of standards produced "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respects." The state's supreme court "ratified this uneven treatment" and created more of its own, and was unconstitutional.
Bush v. Gore is rightly regarded as controversial -- but not because of its holding regarding the Equal Protection Clause, which commanded broad agreement among the justices. The controversy arose because of the remedy the Court chose for Florida's violation, which was to end the recount entirely. The majority thought that time was up under Florida law requiring that its results be submitted in time to be included in the Electoral College count. That aspect of Bush v. Gore commanded only five votes. Two justices thought Florida should get more time and another chance.
The problem with the remedy was that it arguably violated the same principle that led the Court to invalidate the recount: the need to treat all votes equally. It had the practical effect of awarding the election to Bush (though subsequent media counts confirmed that Bush won anyway, under any uniform standard). This has led to enduring partisan criticism of the case, some fair and some unfair.
But no matter: Bush v. Gore is the law of the land. On the question of how the Equal Protection Clause applies to state recounts, the ruling, which reflected a 7-2 majority, controls.
Minnesota is Bush v. Gore reloaded. The details differ, but not in terms of arbitrariness, lack of uniform standards, inconsistency in how local recounts were conducted and counted, and strange state court decisions.
Consider the inconsistencies: One county "found" 100 new votes for Mr. Franken, due to an asserted clerical error. Decision? Add them. Ramsey County (St. Paul) ended up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted -- once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines' tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.
Then there's Minnesota's (first, so far) state Supreme Court decision, Coleman v. Ritchie, decided by a vote of 3-2 on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused themselves because they were members of the state canvassing board.) While not as bad as Florida's interventions, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered local boards to count some previously excluded absentee ballots but not others. Astonishingly, the court left the decision as to which votes to count to the two competing campaigns and forbade local election officials to correct errors on their own.
If Messrs. Franken and Coleman agreed, an absentee ballot could be counted. Either campaign could veto a vote. Dean Barkley of the Independence Party, who ran third, was not included in this process.
Thus, citizens' right to vote -- the right to vote! -- was made subject to political parties' gaming strategies. Insiders agree that Mr. Franken's team played a far more savvy game than Mr. Coleman's. The margin of Mr. Franken's current lead is partly the product of a successful what's-mine-is-mine-what's-yours-is-vetoed strategy, and of the Coleman team's failure to counter it.
The process is not over yet, since the state court decision in effect kicked the can down the road. The candidates can revisit these issues by contesting the legal validity of the election under state law -- which Mr. Coleman's team did last week.
But as matters stand now, the Minnesota recount is a legal train wreck. The result, a narrow Franken lead, is plainly invalid. Just as in Bush v. Gore, the recount has involved "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respect" and failed to provide "minimal procedural safeguards" of equal treatment of all ballots. Legally, it does not matter which candidate benefited from all these differences in treatment. (Mr. Franken did.) The different treatment makes the results not only unreliable (and suspicious), but unconstitutional.
What is the remedy? Unlike Bush v. Gore, there is no looming national deadline. Minnesota can take its time and do things right.
This means two things: First, the process must conform to Minnesota election law. Second, it must conform to Bush v. Gore. Whatever standards Minnesota uses must be applied uniformly, consistently, and under clear standards not admitting of local variation. Discrepancies between machine counts and hand recounts, and between numbers of recorded votes and signed-in voters, however resolved, must be resolved the same way throughout the state.
The standards for evaluating rejected absentee ballots likewise must be uniform, with decisions made according to legal standards, not by partisan campaigns. If the Minnesota Supreme Court fails to assure these things, the matter could go right up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And what if there is no reliable way to determine in a recount who won, consistent with Bush v. Gore's requirements?
The Constitution's answer is a do-over. The 17th Amendment provides: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
In a sense, a vacancy has already "happened." The U.S. Senate convened on Jan. 6 with only one senator from Minnesota. Still, the seat is perhaps not "vacant," just unfilled. But if the contest proceeding does not produce a clear winner that passes constitutional muster, a special election -- and a temporary appointment by Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- may be the only answer.
For now, the only thing certain is that the present "certified" result -- which is that Mr. Franken won by 225 votes out of more than 2.9 million cast -- is an obvious, embarrassing violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Paulsen is professor of law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minn. He is formerly associate dean of the University of Minnesota Law School.
Dang I need to talk to some of my St.Thomas friends, they may have had this guy as a teacher.
You would think people would learn. The recount in the contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken for a seat in the U.S. Senate isn't just embarrassing. It is unconstitutional.This is Florida 2000 all over again, but with colder weather. Like that fiasco, Minnesota's muck of a process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the controlling Supreme Court decision is none other than Bush v. Gore.
Remember Florida? Local officials conducting recounts could not decide what counted as a legal vote. Hanging chads? Dimpled chads? Should "undervotes" count (where a machine failed to read an incompletely-punched card)? What about "overvotes" (where voters punched more than one hole)? Different counties used different standards; different precincts within counties were inconsistent.
The Florida Supreme Court intervened and made things worse, ordering a statewide recount of some types of rejected ballots but not others. It specified no standards for what should count as a valid vote, leaving the judgment to each county. And it ordered partial recounts already conducted in some counties (but not others) included in the final tabulation. The result was chaos.
By a vote of 7-2, Bush v. Gore (2000) ruled that Florida's recount violated the principle that all votes must be treated uniformly. Applying precedents dating to the 1960s, the Court found that the Equal Protection Clause meant that ballots must be treated so as to give every vote equal weight. A state may not, by "arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Florida's lack of standards produced "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respects." The state's supreme court "ratified this uneven treatment" and created more of its own, and was unconstitutional.
Bush v. Gore is rightly regarded as controversial -- but not because of its holding regarding the Equal Protection Clause, which commanded broad agreement among the justices. The controversy arose because of the remedy the Court chose for Florida's violation, which was to end the recount entirely. The majority thought that time was up under Florida law requiring that its results be submitted in time to be included in the Electoral College count. That aspect of Bush v. Gore commanded only five votes. Two justices thought Florida should get more time and another chance.
The problem with the remedy was that it arguably violated the same principle that led the Court to invalidate the recount: the need to treat all votes equally. It had the practical effect of awarding the election to Bush (though subsequent media counts confirmed that Bush won anyway, under any uniform standard). This has led to enduring partisan criticism of the case, some fair and some unfair.
But no matter: Bush v. Gore is the law of the land. On the question of how the Equal Protection Clause applies to state recounts, the ruling, which reflected a 7-2 majority, controls.
Minnesota is Bush v. Gore reloaded. The details differ, but not in terms of arbitrariness, lack of uniform standards, inconsistency in how local recounts were conducted and counted, and strange state court decisions.
Consider the inconsistencies: One county "found" 100 new votes for Mr. Franken, due to an asserted clerical error. Decision? Add them. Ramsey County (St. Paul) ended up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted -- once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines' tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.
Then there's Minnesota's (first, so far) state Supreme Court decision, Coleman v. Ritchie, decided by a vote of 3-2 on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused themselves because they were members of the state canvassing board.) While not as bad as Florida's interventions, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered local boards to count some previously excluded absentee ballots but not others. Astonishingly, the court left the decision as to which votes to count to the two competing campaigns and forbade local election officials to correct errors on their own.
If Messrs. Franken and Coleman agreed, an absentee ballot could be counted. Either campaign could veto a vote. Dean Barkley of the Independence Party, who ran third, was not included in this process.
Thus, citizens' right to vote -- the right to vote! -- was made subject to political parties' gaming strategies. Insiders agree that Mr. Franken's team played a far more savvy game than Mr. Coleman's. The margin of Mr. Franken's current lead is partly the product of a successful what's-mine-is-mine-what's-yours-is-vetoed strategy, and of the Coleman team's failure to counter it.
The process is not over yet, since the state court decision in effect kicked the can down the road. The candidates can revisit these issues by contesting the legal validity of the election under state law -- which Mr. Coleman's team did last week.
But as matters stand now, the Minnesota recount is a legal train wreck. The result, a narrow Franken lead, is plainly invalid. Just as in Bush v. Gore, the recount has involved "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respect" and failed to provide "minimal procedural safeguards" of equal treatment of all ballots. Legally, it does not matter which candidate benefited from all these differences in treatment. (Mr. Franken did.) The different treatment makes the results not only unreliable (and suspicious), but unconstitutional.
What is the remedy? Unlike Bush v. Gore, there is no looming national deadline. Minnesota can take its time and do things right.
This means two things: First, the process must conform to Minnesota election law. Second, it must conform to Bush v. Gore. Whatever standards Minnesota uses must be applied uniformly, consistently, and under clear standards not admitting of local variation. Discrepancies between machine counts and hand recounts, and between numbers of recorded votes and signed-in voters, however resolved, must be resolved the same way throughout the state.
The standards for evaluating rejected absentee ballots likewise must be uniform, with decisions made according to legal standards, not by partisan campaigns. If the Minnesota Supreme Court fails to assure these things, the matter could go right up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And what if there is no reliable way to determine in a recount who won, consistent with Bush v. Gore's requirements?
The Constitution's answer is a do-over. The 17th Amendment provides: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
In a sense, a vacancy has already "happened." The U.S. Senate convened on Jan. 6 with only one senator from Minnesota. Still, the seat is perhaps not "vacant," just unfilled. But if the contest proceeding does not produce a clear winner that passes constitutional muster, a special election -- and a temporary appointment by Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- may be the only answer.
For now, the only thing certain is that the present "certified" result -- which is that Mr. Franken won by 225 votes out of more than 2.9 million cast -- is an obvious, embarrassing violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Paulsen is professor of law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minn. He is formerly associate dean of the University of Minnesota Law School.
Dang I need to talk to some of my St.Thomas friends, they may have had this guy as a teacher.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
movies...
For those of you who don't know I'm a big movie geek (along with being a huge sports geek, book geek, videogame geek, music geek, well just basically an all around geek I guess) there are some movies that I cannot wait for this year. The two on the top of the list would be Terminator: Salvation (aka Terminator 4, they don't know when to give up but at least they dumped Ahhnold) and Transformers 2. The only sad part about T2 is that its probably going to pull a PG-13 which means no Megan Fox goodies (If you don't know who I'm talking about and were friends, were not anymore). Here is an old post from nearly a year ago from the appropriately named Den of the Geek. I will give it a 1-5 tongue rating on how excited I am to see it (1 maybe on video/DVD 5 I'm either buying tickets to the midnight show or will be in line to buy tickets for the midnight show an hour or two before the first showing)
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/56182/the_big_blockbusters_of_2009.html
If you think summer of 2008 is jam-packed with blockbuster movies, just you wait to see what's queuing up next year already: starring Transformers, Wolverine, The A-Team and a whole lot more...
The summer blockbuster season may already be under way, with Iron Man currently the leading critical and commercial champion, but that doesn’t mean we can’t look even further ahead. Because while you may be planning your trip to Indiana Jones, The Dark Knight or The Incredible Hulk, there’s still this lot coming next year to make sure you won’t go without in twelve months’ time…
This is what’s currently scheduled (and these are UK timescales – occasionally the US version comes out first)…
April
THE WOLF MAN
Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Jurassic Park 3) gathers Anthony Hopkins, Benicio Del Toro, Hugo Weaving and Emily Blunt to revisit a cinematic monster of old. As long as it avoids the Van Helsing problems, it might be half decent, too. I have to say I haven't even heard of this until I pulled up the article so I give it 2.5 tongues.
May
X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE
We’ve got high hopes for this one. The choice of Gavin (Tsotsi) Hood to direct seems inspired, and it’ll be great to have an X-men film without them somehow trying to shoehorn Halle Berry in. This is the Hugh Jackman-focussed tale that we’ve been looking forward to since the first X-men film hit big, and it could be one of 2009’s biggest. The Magneto movie will then follow. I LOVED the first 2 X-Men movies (III I could have done without) and I did see a preview for it when I saw The Day The Earth Stood Still (please, save your money and don't go to that one) and it looks interesting. I'm not totally sold, yet, that being said 3 tongues.
STAR TREK XI
Or whatever the title turns out to be. Perhaps the most eagerly awaited reboot on the planet, JJ Abrams’ new Star Trek has been shunted back to next summer, which can only heighten the anticipation surrounding it. It’s been a long time since a really, really good Trek film (First Contact, probably), and this is one of Geek’s 2009 big hopes. Here's the thing before you say, "Oh brother, not another Star Trek movie, haven't they already beat that franchise into the ground?" Yes they have, but they got Gene Rodenberry (sp?) to sign off on it, a major coup on JJ Abrams part. This gives me hope for the movie but being a geek and yet not a Trekkie (yeah, I know one in the same, but were not damnit!) I give it 2.75 tongues.
THE HANNAH MONTANA MOVIE
We never want to see this ever in our lives. Or our next life. Or the one after that. Next year’s equivalent of the Sex & The City movie for any self-respecting geek. Couldn't get me in there on a bet, maybe if a girl dragged me there and I got to make out with her half of the movie but even then it would be a tough sale.
-100 tongues
NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2
Hmmm, we weren’t really that impressed with the first one, but it sure did help pay Ben Stiller’s mortgage for him. He’s back for the sequel, which moves from the original’s winter release slot to prime blockbuster time. It will make lots of money, too. See above review
June
TERMINATOR SALVATION
The risk. A Terminator film with no Arnie. A Terminator film where they’ve allowed McG to play with the cameras, seemingly without watching, well, his earlier films. On the plus side, Christian Bale is good casting, but playing for a PG-13 rating in the States is very bad news indeed. Sigh. What next? Die Hard Disney? As a side commentary T3 was PG-13 (it did kinda suck though) and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles have done a good job without the gruesome bloodletting and nasty language. Rumor also has it that TS will have a story line thats based off of what the Terminator TSCC is doing right now for the show. Enough babbling, 5 tongues baby I can't wait!
THE A-TEAM
John Singleton is behind the camera for the big screen version of the 80s’ most iconic television show. Rumours persist that Bruce Willis may sign on to play Hannibal, and Ice Cube to be BA. But, er, as it’s out in a year, they may want to get a crack on… yeah, no... 0 tongues
THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS 4
Featuring cars that go really, really FAST! Even FASTER than before! Paul Walker and Vin Diesel both return to the franchise that helped make them both, both once more in search of a career. Interesting, haven't seen the last 2 so my mind hasn't been wrecked by the franchise. Now that Vin is back I'm at least interested, 4 tongues.
TRANSFORMERS 2
Our early bet for the biggest hit of the year, even if Transformers 1 was still a bit messy. That said, letting Michael Bay play with his computer graphics sure does guarantee bangs for your buck, and the fighting starts again on June 26th 2009. I am almost literally counting down the days, were close to 120, I think. 5 tongues of course.
NOWHERELAND
2009’s crap Eddie Murphy comedy. nope...
July
ICE AGE III
Fox can’t make enough of these now, seeing as Ice Age is the first non-Disney or Dreamworks animated franchise that consistently delivers the cash. Oblivious to the fact that the second one wasn’t much cop, this will no doubt make enough money to warrant Ice Age 4. And 5. And 6. Etc. Why must Fox, Diz-nee, and anyone else who gets a succesfull franchise going not know to quit when they're ahead. 3? Really? The first one was ok and I thought they were pushing it with 2 but apparently I was wrong. 0 tongues...
YEAR ONE
A new Harold Ramis comedy, starring one of the men-of-the-moment Michael Cera, with man looking for a hit Jack Black. Judd Apatow produces. Need to hear more about this first before I have an opinion, Tongues TBD.
LAND OF THE LOST
From the director of Casper, a family-esque movie with Will Ferrell. It’s a mix of comedy, sci-fi and adventure, apparently, and could prove to be a bit of a sleeper. Will Ferrell is the ultimate hit or miss actor, just like he was on SNL. When he's on he's freaking on (Think George W. Bush, Elf, Rickey Bobby, Ron Burgundy ), but when he's off look out box office bomb (almost any other SNL sketch he was in, Kicking & Screaming, Bewitched, Semi-Pro) and I do remember the original TV show, sort of. I think I was like 6 or 7 when it went off the air. 2 tongues
UP 3D
This is the 2009 Pixar release. That’s pretty much all you need to know. 3 tongues, Pixar is gold.
August
PRINCE OF PERSIA
Mike Newell is helming the big screen version of the videogame of the same name. It’s got potential, too, and if done properly could be an Indiana Jones-lite of sorts, and certainly better than the ropey Tomb Raider films. A movie based on a videogame, yeah that hasn't been tried before... (Tomb Riader, Doom, Mortal Kombat, and many, many others) I smell a turd, or possibly bomb (great now the FBI is going to be tracking this blog.) .5 tongues.
G I JOE
We’re guessing this is the reason why Stephen Sommers didn’t helm the third Mummy film, as instead he’s brought together The Rock, Sienna Miller, Dennis Quaid, Christopher Eccleston and possibly even Brendan Fraser for his G.I. Joe movie. Time will tell if that’s a good choice. I don't know, I'm skeptical at best, like the possible concept though. 3 tongues.
That's all for now folks, be back later for preview postings from youtube and the all important reviews that will be posted ASAP once I'm out of the theater.
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/56182/the_big_blockbusters_of_2009.html
If you think summer of 2008 is jam-packed with blockbuster movies, just you wait to see what's queuing up next year already: starring Transformers, Wolverine, The A-Team and a whole lot more...
The summer blockbuster season may already be under way, with Iron Man currently the leading critical and commercial champion, but that doesn’t mean we can’t look even further ahead. Because while you may be planning your trip to Indiana Jones, The Dark Knight or The Incredible Hulk, there’s still this lot coming next year to make sure you won’t go without in twelve months’ time…
This is what’s currently scheduled (and these are UK timescales – occasionally the US version comes out first)…
April
THE WOLF MAN
Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Jurassic Park 3) gathers Anthony Hopkins, Benicio Del Toro, Hugo Weaving and Emily Blunt to revisit a cinematic monster of old. As long as it avoids the Van Helsing problems, it might be half decent, too. I have to say I haven't even heard of this until I pulled up the article so I give it 2.5 tongues.
May
X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE
We’ve got high hopes for this one. The choice of Gavin (Tsotsi) Hood to direct seems inspired, and it’ll be great to have an X-men film without them somehow trying to shoehorn Halle Berry in. This is the Hugh Jackman-focussed tale that we’ve been looking forward to since the first X-men film hit big, and it could be one of 2009’s biggest. The Magneto movie will then follow. I LOVED the first 2 X-Men movies (III I could have done without) and I did see a preview for it when I saw The Day The Earth Stood Still (please, save your money and don't go to that one) and it looks interesting. I'm not totally sold, yet, that being said 3 tongues.
STAR TREK XI
Or whatever the title turns out to be. Perhaps the most eagerly awaited reboot on the planet, JJ Abrams’ new Star Trek has been shunted back to next summer, which can only heighten the anticipation surrounding it. It’s been a long time since a really, really good Trek film (First Contact, probably), and this is one of Geek’s 2009 big hopes. Here's the thing before you say, "Oh brother, not another Star Trek movie, haven't they already beat that franchise into the ground?" Yes they have, but they got Gene Rodenberry (sp?) to sign off on it, a major coup on JJ Abrams part. This gives me hope for the movie but being a geek and yet not a Trekkie (yeah, I know one in the same, but were not damnit!) I give it 2.75 tongues.
THE HANNAH MONTANA MOVIE
We never want to see this ever in our lives. Or our next life. Or the one after that. Next year’s equivalent of the Sex & The City movie for any self-respecting geek. Couldn't get me in there on a bet, maybe if a girl dragged me there and I got to make out with her half of the movie but even then it would be a tough sale.
-100 tongues
NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2
Hmmm, we weren’t really that impressed with the first one, but it sure did help pay Ben Stiller’s mortgage for him. He’s back for the sequel, which moves from the original’s winter release slot to prime blockbuster time. It will make lots of money, too. See above review
June
TERMINATOR SALVATION
The risk. A Terminator film with no Arnie. A Terminator film where they’ve allowed McG to play with the cameras, seemingly without watching, well, his earlier films. On the plus side, Christian Bale is good casting, but playing for a PG-13 rating in the States is very bad news indeed. Sigh. What next? Die Hard Disney? As a side commentary T3 was PG-13 (it did kinda suck though) and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles have done a good job without the gruesome bloodletting and nasty language. Rumor also has it that TS will have a story line thats based off of what the Terminator TSCC is doing right now for the show. Enough babbling, 5 tongues baby I can't wait!
THE A-TEAM
John Singleton is behind the camera for the big screen version of the 80s’ most iconic television show. Rumours persist that Bruce Willis may sign on to play Hannibal, and Ice Cube to be BA. But, er, as it’s out in a year, they may want to get a crack on… yeah, no... 0 tongues
THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS 4
Featuring cars that go really, really FAST! Even FASTER than before! Paul Walker and Vin Diesel both return to the franchise that helped make them both, both once more in search of a career. Interesting, haven't seen the last 2 so my mind hasn't been wrecked by the franchise. Now that Vin is back I'm at least interested, 4 tongues.
TRANSFORMERS 2
Our early bet for the biggest hit of the year, even if Transformers 1 was still a bit messy. That said, letting Michael Bay play with his computer graphics sure does guarantee bangs for your buck, and the fighting starts again on June 26th 2009. I am almost literally counting down the days, were close to 120, I think. 5 tongues of course.
NOWHERELAND
2009’s crap Eddie Murphy comedy. nope...
July
ICE AGE III
Fox can’t make enough of these now, seeing as Ice Age is the first non-Disney or Dreamworks animated franchise that consistently delivers the cash. Oblivious to the fact that the second one wasn’t much cop, this will no doubt make enough money to warrant Ice Age 4. And 5. And 6. Etc. Why must Fox, Diz-nee, and anyone else who gets a succesfull franchise going not know to quit when they're ahead. 3? Really? The first one was ok and I thought they were pushing it with 2 but apparently I was wrong. 0 tongues...
YEAR ONE
A new Harold Ramis comedy, starring one of the men-of-the-moment Michael Cera, with man looking for a hit Jack Black. Judd Apatow produces. Need to hear more about this first before I have an opinion, Tongues TBD.
LAND OF THE LOST
From the director of Casper, a family-esque movie with Will Ferrell. It’s a mix of comedy, sci-fi and adventure, apparently, and could prove to be a bit of a sleeper. Will Ferrell is the ultimate hit or miss actor, just like he was on SNL. When he's on he's freaking on (Think George W. Bush, Elf, Rickey Bobby, Ron Burgundy ), but when he's off look out box office bomb (almost any other SNL sketch he was in, Kicking & Screaming, Bewitched, Semi-Pro) and I do remember the original TV show, sort of. I think I was like 6 or 7 when it went off the air. 2 tongues
UP 3D
This is the 2009 Pixar release. That’s pretty much all you need to know. 3 tongues, Pixar is gold.
August
PRINCE OF PERSIA
Mike Newell is helming the big screen version of the videogame of the same name. It’s got potential, too, and if done properly could be an Indiana Jones-lite of sorts, and certainly better than the ropey Tomb Raider films. A movie based on a videogame, yeah that hasn't been tried before... (Tomb Riader, Doom, Mortal Kombat, and many, many others) I smell a turd, or possibly bomb (great now the FBI is going to be tracking this blog.) .5 tongues.
G I JOE
We’re guessing this is the reason why Stephen Sommers didn’t helm the third Mummy film, as instead he’s brought together The Rock, Sienna Miller, Dennis Quaid, Christopher Eccleston and possibly even Brendan Fraser for his G.I. Joe movie. Time will tell if that’s a good choice. I don't know, I'm skeptical at best, like the possible concept though. 3 tongues.
That's all for now folks, be back later for preview postings from youtube and the all important reviews that will be posted ASAP once I'm out of the theater.
update...
Sorry I haven't been updating my blog lately but I have been busy lately with my writings and school. Not only that but I might even start writing for something called Parcbench popculture. You can check them out at http://www.parcbench.com/. Apparently they haven't launched yet but I sent them an e-mail letting them know I'm interested in offering my services as a writer. If you want to see my comments and such lately I usually do it 3-5 times a day over at Anti-Strib. Well that's all for now readers (if I even have any left at this point). I should be on later in the week with some posts about the Senate race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
