I refuse to feed into what bullshitters & they're scumbag lawyers try to do.*. I see too many times (through work) where people file bullshit claims & get free money.
M
"First, we kill the lawyers." - Bill Shakespeare
If you will indulge me a nerdy sidebar for a moment (that no one asked for, but I can't help it when I see that quote).
That quote is not really a Shakespeare *quote*. It is a fun line. And I am not surprised to have seen it on t-shirts and see it get treated like a quote. It is not really something Shakespeare said about lawyers, in the same way that we have pithy things that Mark Twain said about things.
Rather, that is a line of dialogue that Shakespeare wrote for a character who is written to be an ignorant buffoon who is part of a rebellion that fails. The character suggests killing the lawyers as part of a plan that also includes abolishing all money, setting up the rebel leader to be worshipped, and a few lines later, not only should all the lawyers be killed, but actually anyone found to be literate should be killed, too.
CADE I thank you, good people: there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.
DICK The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
CADE Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since. How now! who's there?
Enter some, bringing forward the Clerk of Chatham
SMITH The clerk of Chatham: he can write and read and cast accompt.
CADE O monstrous!
SMITH We took him setting of boys' copies.
CADE Here's a villain!
SMITH Has a book in his pocket with red letters in't.
CADE Nay, then, he is a conjurer.
So the line comes from an idiot, in a scene of historical and semi-historical characters that Shakespeare- as he is wont to do in his very propaganda-heavy history plays- writes as a crude cartoon.
So attributing the line like it is a Shakespeare quote would be like attributing other lines from his characters as if they were Shakespeare's own beliefs, you know what I mean? It would be like a quote reading:
"I am a villain."
- William Shakespeare
As opposed to
"I am a villain."
-Richard III, King Richard III by William Shakespeare.
Okay. As you were.
(Sorry, I can't help it. I have been teaching and doing Shakespeare for a lot of years now.)
So is Singer the most successful out of that group? Where was his parents? They moved to LA with him? Not sure what the 'gaydar' was in reference to. So that elite school was a front for this group? Should they be brought into the suit? The accusations fell on deaf ears? Was Singer 'Singer' at that time? He wasn't concerned about 'deaf ears' now? What other kids were there? How long was he there for? Any communication with his parents during that time? Did he remain with that elite school that lead to this incident? Is the police agency his mom reported it to involved in the suit? Describe what Singer's unit looks like. What about the other people there.
These are a fraction of the questions I'd be asking if I was investigating this.
Truthfully, have more questions then answers to satisfy a notion that Singer is any more guilty then before. This guy could just be lashing out because his acting career went nowhere...which led to the drinking.
As mentioned above; I'm at this movie opening weekend.
M
I had many the same questions as you after watching that. A lot of that kids story isn't ringing true with me. Wouldn't be surprised if he was a completely willing participant at the time and this is purely a statutory rape situation. Yes, yes, yes ... and that's not a good thing, of course, but clearly distinct from a forced rape situation in my mind. I'm guessing we never find out though as, with the movie releasing soon, this thing will get settled ASAP and will include the mother of confidentiality agreements. Among other things, it will give Singer an easy out during the publicity tour, as he can just claim that he's not allowed to discuss the matter.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
I'm sure Fatty Arbuckle would agree.
Keep your righteousness and history listen to yourself. The insinuation that somebody supports that sort of crime because they want to see a movie is insulting and just a little ridiculous. I often come to a comic book forum for my morality lesson.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
I'm sure Fatty Arbuckle would agree.
Keep your righteousness and history listen to yourself. The insinuation that somebody supports that sort of crime because they want to see a movie is insulting and just a little ridiculous. I often come to a comic book forum for my morality lesson.
Relax. @WetRats is not citing history to judge you, he is actually citing a piece of history that agrees with you. Just look at the Arbuckle story.
The history around Fatty Arbuckle is actually about the public rushing to judgment based on shoddy facts, leading to the ruination of a career and infamy that stuck with him the rest of his life. Arbuckle was eventually cleared of all criminal charges, but it was too late to save his reputation and career. The Arbuckle story is actually an example of when people couldn't stick to the subject matter and instead ran wild with tabloid accusation and speculation.
Not every response to you is someone disagreeing with you. Or judging you.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
I'm sure Fatty Arbuckle would agree.
Keep your righteousness and history listen to yourself. The insinuation that somebody supports that sort of crime because they want to see a movie is insulting and just a little ridiculous. I often come to a comic book forum for my morality lesson.
Relax. @WetRats is not citing history to judge you, he is actually citing a piece of history that agrees with you. Just look at the Arbuckle story.
The history around Fatty Arbuckle is actually about the public rushing to judgment based on shoddy facts, leading to the ruination of a career and infamy that stuck with him the rest of his life. Arbuckle was eventually cleared of all criminal charges, but it was too late to save his reputation and career. The Arbuckle story is actually an example of when people couldn't stick to the subject matter and instead ran wild with tabloid accusation and speculation.
Not every response to you is someone disagreeing with you.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
I'm sure Fatty Arbuckle would agree.
Keep your righteousness and history listen to yourself. The insinuation that somebody supports that sort of crime because they want to see a movie is insulting and just a little ridiculous. I often come to a comic book forum for my morality lesson.
Relax. @WetRats is not citing history to judge you, he is actually citing a piece of history that agrees with you. Just look at the Arbuckle story.
The history around Fatty Arbuckle is actually about the public rushing to judgment based on shoddy facts, leading to the ruination of a career and infamy that stuck with him the rest of his life. Arbuckle was eventually cleared of all criminal charges, but it was too late to save his reputation and career. The Arbuckle story is actually an example of when people couldn't stick to the subject matter and instead ran wild with tabloid accusation and speculation.
Not every response to you is someone disagreeing with you.
For the record, though, I don't plan to keep my righteousness or my history lessons to myself.
If I think they're appropriate to a conversation, I will share them unhesitatingly.
Even if @WetRats was'nt being self righteous, there still is an air of it in alot of these posts concerning this particular topic. Why the rush to defend other members but I cant be reactionary in my response? I'm not even particularly agitated or involved though being told to "relax" rarely has that effect.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
I'm sure Fatty Arbuckle would agree.
Keep your righteousness and history listen to yourself. The insinuation that somebody supports that sort of crime because they want to see a movie is insulting and just a little ridiculous. I often come to a comic book forum for my morality lesson.
Relax. @WetRats is not citing history to judge you, he is actually citing a piece of history that agrees with you. Just look at the Arbuckle story.
The history around Fatty Arbuckle is actually about the public rushing to judgment based on shoddy facts, leading to the ruination of a career and infamy that stuck with him the rest of his life. Arbuckle was eventually cleared of all criminal charges, but it was too late to save his reputation and career. The Arbuckle story is actually an example of when people couldn't stick to the subject matter and instead ran wild with tabloid accusation and speculation.
Not every response to you is someone disagreeing with you.
For the record, though, I don't plan to keep my righteousness or my history lessons to myself.
If I think they're appropriate to a conversation, I will share them unhesitatingly.
Even if @WetRats was'nt being self righteous, there still is an air of it in alot of these posts concerning this particular topic. Why the rush to defend other members but I cant be reactionary in my response? I'm not even particularly agitated or involved though being told to "relax" rarely has that effect.
It wasn't a rush to defend another member. It was pointing out some context that seemed to be getting missed before things got personal, that's all.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
I'm sure Fatty Arbuckle would agree.
Keep your righteousness and history listen to yourself. The insinuation that somebody supports that sort of crime because they want to see a movie is insulting and just a little ridiculous. I often come to a comic book forum for my morality lesson.
Relax. @WetRats is not citing history to judge you, he is actually citing a piece of history that agrees with you. Just look at the Arbuckle story.
The history around Fatty Arbuckle is actually about the public rushing to judgment based on shoddy facts, leading to the ruination of a career and infamy that stuck with him the rest of his life. Arbuckle was eventually cleared of all criminal charges, but it was too late to save his reputation and career. The Arbuckle story is actually an example of when people couldn't stick to the subject matter and instead ran wild with tabloid accusation and speculation.
Not every response to you is someone disagreeing with you.
For the record, though, I don't plan to keep my righteousness or my history lessons to myself.
If I think they're appropriate to a conversation, I will share them unhesitatingly.
Even if @WetRats was'nt being self righteous, there still is an air of it in alot of these posts concerning this particular topic. Why the rush to defend other members but I cant be reactionary in my response? I'm not even particularly agitated or involved though being told to "relax" rarely has that effect.
It wasn't a rush to defend another member. It was pointing out some context that seemed to be getting missed, that's all.
I get it but what I have never understood about this forum is why some get a free pass but others get scolded and/or condescended to. I'm no troll, I am an intermittent poster at best. Being told to "relax" just irks me as did @WetRats' reply. Can't I register annoyance? I'm not picking a fight, I just felt a certain way about the topic and felt chided in kind. And I got the Fatty Arbuckle comment as well without the commentary.
I wonder if Logan will have the Adamantium claws. Also, any cameos by the initial group? Jean? Scott?
M
A young Cyclops played by a lesser known actor would be easy to fit in. I feel like there should be a chance for a James Marsden appearance, giving all the times that he and Singer have worked together.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
I'm sure Fatty Arbuckle would agree.
Keep your righteousness and history listen to yourself. The insinuation that somebody supports that sort of crime because they want to see a movie is insulting and just a little ridiculous. I often come to a comic book forum for my morality lesson.
Relax. @WetRats is not citing history to judge you, he is actually citing a piece of history that agrees with you. Just look at the Arbuckle story.
The history around Fatty Arbuckle is actually about the public rushing to judgment based on shoddy facts, leading to the ruination of a career and infamy that stuck with him the rest of his life. Arbuckle was eventually cleared of all criminal charges, but it was too late to save his reputation and career. The Arbuckle story is actually an example of when people couldn't stick to the subject matter and instead ran wild with tabloid accusation and speculation.
Not every response to you is someone disagreeing with you.
For the record, though, I don't plan to keep my righteousness or my history lessons to myself.
If I think they're appropriate to a conversation, I will share them unhesitatingly.
Even if @WetRats was'nt being self righteous, there still is an air of it in alot of these posts concerning this particular topic. Why the rush to defend other members but I cant be reactionary in my response? I'm not even particularly agitated or involved though being told to "relax" rarely has that effect.
It wasn't a rush to defend another member. It was pointing out some context that seemed to be getting missed, that's all.
I get it but what I have never understood about this forum is why some get a free pass but others get scolded and/or condescended to. I'm no troll, I am an intermittent poster at best. Being told to "relax" just irks me as did @WetRats' reply. Can't I register annoyance? I'm not picking a fight, I just felt a certain way about the topic and felt chided in kind. And I got the Fatty Arbuckle comment as well without the commentary.
Yes. Of course you can. But when you basically tell someone to 'shut up' (not in so many words, but that was the tone, whether you intended it or not) when they are actually AGREEING with you (as opposed to trying to antagonize or annoy you) then you might be asked to relax. That is not to condescend to you. It is to ask you to give people a little more of a chance than you tend to give people.
If you think you were being chided by him, you could always have asked him what he meant, rather than jumping to assuming the worst. (And not for the first time. I can remember you once jumping down my throat about something when I was actually agreeing with you, but you took it to be an attack.)
I wonder if Logan will have the Adamantium claws. Also, any cameos by the initial group? Jean? Scott?
M
A young Cyclops played by a lesser known actor would be easy to fit in. I feel like there should be a chance for a James Marsden appearance, giving all the times that he and Singer have worked together.
I'm figuring the same, especially since Cyclops got short changed in X3 (arguable, the whole cast & fan base did.) I'm curious to see how this corrects some timeline issues from all the movies.
I expect we will see some unmentioned cameos, but who knows? Given all of the hub-bub over Rogue's cut and Storm being all-but-cut-out of the final edit, I wonder. I'm anxious to find out if Bishop is going to a likeable character at all in the movie. Hard to tell from the trailers. I liked him in the original series.
Then again, I do see Rogue in the original trailer, which appears to be much more palatable now that I've seen the last two... strange how my impression has altered.
I wonder if Logan will have the Adamantium claws. Also, any cameos by the initial group? Jean? Scott?
M
A young Cyclops played by a lesser known actor would be easy to fit in. I feel like there should be a chance for a James Marsden appearance, giving all the times that he and Singer have worked together.
I'm figuring the same, especially since Cyclops got short changed in X3 (arguable, the whole cast & fan base did.) I'm curious to see how this corrects some timeline issues from all the movies.
M
I'd be game for them to just pretend that X3 never happened.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
I'm sure Fatty Arbuckle would agree.
Keep your righteousness and history listen to yourself. The insinuation that somebody supports that sort of crime because they want to see a movie is insulting and just a little ridiculous. I often come to a comic book forum for my morality lesson.
Relax. @WetRats is not citing history to judge you, he is actually citing a piece of history that agrees with you. Just look at the Arbuckle story.
The history around Fatty Arbuckle is actually about the public rushing to judgment based on shoddy facts, leading to the ruination of a career and infamy that stuck with him the rest of his life. Arbuckle was eventually cleared of all criminal charges, but it was too late to save his reputation and career. The Arbuckle story is actually an example of when people couldn't stick to the subject matter and instead ran wild with tabloid accusation and speculation.
Not every response to you is someone disagreeing with you.
For the record, though, I don't plan to keep my righteousness or my history lessons to myself.
If I think they're appropriate to a conversation, I will share them unhesitatingly.
Even if @WetRats was'nt being self righteous, there still is an air of it in alot of these posts concerning this particular topic. Why the rush to defend other members but I cant be reactionary in my response? I'm not even particularly agitated or involved though being told to "relax" rarely has that effect.
It wasn't a rush to defend another member. It was pointing out some context that seemed to be getting missed, that's all.
I get it but what I have never understood about this forum is why some get a free pass but others get scolded and/or condescended to. I'm no troll, I am an intermittent poster at best. Being told to "relax" just irks me as did @WetRats' reply. Can't I register annoyance? I'm not picking a fight, I just felt a certain way about the topic and felt chided in kind. And I got the Fatty Arbuckle comment as well without the commentary.
Yes. Of course you can. But when you basically tell someone to 'shut up' (not in so many words, but that was the tone, whether you intended it or not) when they are actually AGREEING with you (as opposed to trying to antagonize or annoy you) then you might be asked to relax. That is not to condescend to you. It is to ask you to give people a little more of a chance than you tend to give people.
If you think you were being chided by him, you could always have asked him what he meant, rather than jumping to assuming the worst. (And not for the first time. I can remember you once jumping down my throat about something when I was actually agreeing with you, but you took it to be an attack.)
Actually I felt chided by you. Which is why I tend to retreat. Despite appearances I do not always like the back and forth. I'd rather keep to the subject at hand if I can gracefully withdraw from this topic.
As for the Singer stuff, I didn't even know about it until today. Wow.
My views on it won't affect my viewing the film. I'm likely not going to spend the money to see this one in theatres, anyway. I'll wait for Blu-Ray or On-Demand.
I wonder if Logan will have the Adamantium claws. Also, any cameos by the initial group? Jean? Scott?
M
A young Cyclops played by a lesser known actor would be easy to fit in. I feel like there should be a chance for a James Marsden appearance, giving all the times that he and Singer have worked together.
I'm figuring the same, especially since Cyclops got short changed in X3 (arguable, the whole cast & fan base did.) I'm curious to see how this corrects some timeline issues from all the movies.
M
I'd be game for them to just pretend that X3 never happened.
Too late for that right? With the wolverine movie and everything
Comments
That quote is not really a Shakespeare *quote*. It is a fun line. And I am not surprised to have seen it on t-shirts and see it get treated like a quote. It is not really something Shakespeare said about lawyers, in the same way that we have pithy things that Mark Twain said about things.
Rather, that is a line of dialogue that Shakespeare wrote for a character who is written to be an ignorant buffoon who is part of a rebellion that fails. The character suggests killing the lawyers as part of a plan that also includes abolishing all money, setting up the rebel leader to be worshipped, and a few lines later, not only should all the lawyers be killed, but actually anyone found to be literate should be killed, too.
Here is the scene if you want to read the whole thing.
And here is the line in context: So the line comes from an idiot, in a scene of historical and semi-historical characters that Shakespeare- as he is wont to do in his very propaganda-heavy history plays- writes as a crude cartoon.
So attributing the line like it is a Shakespeare quote would be like attributing other lines from his characters as if they were Shakespeare's own beliefs, you know what I mean? It would be like a quote reading:
"I am a villain."
- William Shakespeare
As opposed to
"I am a villain."
-Richard III, King Richard III by William Shakespeare.
Okay. As you were.
(Sorry, I can't help it. I have been teaching and doing Shakespeare for a lot of years now.)
Not them, too?
- Any English class student
* Brief definition of a teaching artist: Those that can, teach AND do.
The history around Fatty Arbuckle is actually about the public rushing to judgment based on shoddy facts, leading to the ruination of a career and infamy that stuck with him the rest of his life. Arbuckle was eventually cleared of all criminal charges, but it was too late to save his reputation and career. The Arbuckle story is actually an example of when people couldn't stick to the subject matter and instead ran wild with tabloid accusation and speculation.
Not every response to you is someone disagreeing with you. Or judging you.
For the record, though, I don't plan to keep my righteousness or my history lessons to myself.
If I think they're appropriate to a conversation, I will share them unhesitatingly.
M
If you think you were being chided by him, you could always have asked him what he meant, rather than jumping to assuming the worst. (And not for the first time. I can remember you once jumping down my throat about something when I was actually agreeing with you, but you took it to be an attack.)
M
and admantium claws in the second trailer... (1:38 mark)
I expect we will see some unmentioned cameos, but who knows? Given all of the hub-bub over Rogue's cut and Storm being all-but-cut-out of the final edit, I wonder. I'm anxious to find out if Bishop is going to a likeable character at all in the movie. Hard to tell from the trailers. I liked him in the original series.
Then again, I do see Rogue in the original trailer, which appears to be much more palatable now that I've seen the last two... strange how my impression has altered.
M
Plus Prof X and Cyclops and Phoenix are dead... except for that end scene... what was that about?
M
My views on it won't affect my viewing the film. I'm likely not going to spend the money to see this one in theatres, anyway. I'll wait for Blu-Ray or On-Demand.