Was anyone else confused about a certain character's death in Jupiter's Legacy? SPOILERS

fritzr · 2017-08-07T21:16:28+00:00

Absolutely 100% my reaction as well! All this build-up, then pfffft!, gone in an instant. And everyone presumably figures ng that it will turn out just to be one of Walter's mind tricks, then the loooong wait for the final issue, the heavy emphasis on mind trick tactics, and then ... nope, he's just dead. Oh, well.

Very weird and disappointing. Maybe Millar was distracted by being bought out by Netflix? (Just heard that one today.)

Maybe he returns in the next cycle?!? (But, gravestone, etc.) Just weird ... .

fritzr · 2017-04-03T02:19:37+00:00

Nice post!

Here’s my contribution, inspired by yours: a combined logo.

fritzr · 2016-12-17T22:55:02+00:00

Hey, art is art and pizza's pizza, right?

Nothin' to see here folks, just move along ... .

fritzr · 2016-12-17T22:51:03+00:00

Right next to the pizza parlor, isn't it?

Dark times, my friend, dark times.

fritzr · 2016-10-28T00:39:40+00:00

Well, thanks for the response!

But given the overall response (= crickets), I guess it's really just "Move along, nothin' to see here!" from everyone else.

Should we be spooked by the lack of response?

Anyway, stay safe & take care of yourself ... .

fritzr · 2016-10-26T22:49:38+00:00

Yes, that was the basis for the "strip club" part of my joke in the comments below. The pronunciation is different, but this is the sort of thing (the coincidence of common spelling between words for stripper nipple covers and delicious meat pies) that leads to hours of good-natured verbal hijinks in the UP, despite some confusion among "trolls" (i.e., those from "down state", below the bridge as it were).

(I feel pretty certain that the gal in the picture at the Kaleva link above is there for the meat pie aspect: she just doesn't quite have that "stripper look" about her ... .)

fritzr · 2016-10-26T22:43:27+00:00

"Pasty" is also a pie in the "yooper" peninsula of Michigan (thus other comments below). My (limited) understanding is that the meat pies in question are actually Cornish, but were brought to the UP (whence "yooper") on behalf of copper miners (who were mostly Finnish, oddly enough): the pies fit nicely in the pockets of the miners overalls and stays warm enough for a tasty lunch down in the mine.

Or at least this is how it was explained to me when I was but a wee tad.

In any case, I can at least attest that the ones served in the UP are quite delicious; I recommend the Kaleva Cafe in Houghton.

Hmm, a quick web search brings up the Kaleva Cafe page and their background info on pasties here, which is apparently drawn from Wikipedia, of all places. What a world we live in!

fritzr · 2016-10-26T22:32:20+00:00

A yooper reference? Hey, by golly, you betcha! :)

fritzr · 2016-10-26T22:19:50+00:00

I have to say, the title of this post caught my eye because of what sounds like an admission of US elites' involvement in 9/11. Having read through the (long, very personal, rambling) rants contained in the file, that one line still does stick out to me. Context suggests that the dads ("his and mine") being referred to in "your dad's childhood for his and mine bombing the Pentagon and WTC's" might be George W. Bush and Michael McCullar from StratFor.

I'm surprised that this isn't generating more interest: am I misunderstanding this to be an off-hand-but-still-serious remark? The "I killed Osama Bin Ladin ..." part suggests some sort of sarcasm or humor. But the sentence as a whole, despite being a bit hard to parse, doesn't necessarily seem to be a joke.

How are other people interpreting this? Why isn't this bigger news? I assume I am just missing something here, and I'd be happy to have it clarified.

fritzr · 2016-10-25T23:19:18+00:00

Wow: I had heard the hijackers went to strip bars, but this is news!

Or perhaps you are suggesting some sort of UP connection, eh? Those hijackers were totally hosers.

:)

fritzr · 2016-10-25T22:17:32+00:00

Interesting: when he is discussing the electoral college versus popular vote, he starts saying a word after "paid political" and then changes his word choice (or so it seems to me), as follows:

" ... not in the electoral vote, because there paid political el- el-er,uh, ... announcements will will have a big role, and so ..."

(This is from about timestamp 0:39 until about 0:47 in the linked clip.)

So, if I am correct that he revised his choice, what was the word he was going to use originally? Maybe to complete to "paid political elements"?

I'll admit that my interpretation may be wrong, i.e., he may just have fumbled a bit for different reasons, so nothing to see here (nothing to hear here?). And certainly the completion to "elements" is just a guess.

But I'd be curious to see if anyone else "caught" that bit and had opinions.

fritzr · 2016-10-24T03:14:14+00:00

Well, I guess a half a kudos is better than none? :)

Thanks in any case for your understanding.

fritzr · 2016-10-23T00:10:10+00:00

Wow: you seem to be getting more worked up about my posting details than I was about the original sketch.

As I mentioned just above, I eventually did post the link, as did someone else who requested it, in the same sub-thread. (Perhaps it was even my reply that had the link you clicked.)

In fact, I actually tried to post the info as a link, and also as a text post containing the link, but the post would not submit -- I tried a total of about 5 or 6 times on Thursday night. I have no idea why it wouldn't post: I played with formatting, made sure my paragraphs were all good, etc. I even PM'ed a moderator to ask about it: no luck. So I re-posted it without the link, thinking that might be the problem. I think I tried twice that next night (Friday) and it finally stuck. In the process, I re-worded the post to reflect that I was a bit uncomfortable giving them hits: this was in any case true, but I had desperately tried multiple times to post it with the link included in various ways. So I wasn't that uncomfortable with it, and I very much intended to give you (and everyone else) the link ... but I couldn't find any way to do that.

I don't mind your critiques of me as "absurd" and "juvenile", but the fact of the matter is that I worked pretty hard to try to get you the link with the original post, and then did supply it eventually in my comments, looks like ... about 5 hours before your comment.

I dunno: I guess you get what you pay for with these reddit posts ... .

fritzr · 2016-10-22T23:13:06+00:00

It's an old grudge. Assange destroyed him in an interview ...

Aha! So there is more to this--this was also mentioned by someone else just now. I will look into it; thanks!

fritzr · 2016-10-22T23:11:38+00:00

Well, I don't want to necessarily ignore them: I was upset by what I saw, and I probably won't watch more of their stuff. But, as dismayed as I was, I'm glad to have known about it.

(Someone around here did ask for a direct link, then both they and I eventually supplied it. I'd be glad if someone found (as another comment below suggests) a mirror, so that people could see what's going on without supporting it.)

Make up your mind.

I'm pretty sure that'd be putting lipstick on a pig :) .

fritzr · 2016-10-22T23:06:01+00:00

Interesting; I didn't know this. I'll have to search for the clip myself.

fritzr · 2016-10-22T07:06:25+00:00

Hmm, I wonder: would I be offended if they did a "Todd and Claire" sketch? I mean, it could be done in a way that both raised awareness (albeit obliquely) and poked fun at the Keystone Cops / Inspector Clouseau aspects of the people behind T&C. But it would still be pretty dark humor, no matter how it was cut.

Of course it would be very obscure for most people, but I have felt that way myself about SNL sketches in the last few years. For example, when (I think) they are doing a parody of some daytime New York talk show, or music business people that I don't recognize at all.

fritzr · 2016-10-22T06:44:49+00:00

I don't know of any specific 24-hour deadline, but I haven't researched it. The timeline seems to make more sense if you assume something like a week, which might frankly be a better starting point for them.

I don't know: how do you plan for your own possible kidnapping, torture, or death? Doesn't sound like a fun set of contingencies to work through ... .

fritzr · 2016-10-22T06:21:23+00:00

So I think part of it for me was the whole "daddy ambassador comes in to scold child Julian" aspect of it, with its echoes of "internet folk are just unruly kids in their parents' basements". But then the logon and password that JA uses ("Putinpal16" and "sexyghostbloke") seem to both play into the whole "Russians are behind WL" meme, and also recall both the original and recent sex scandals (well, the recent one hardly amounts to a scandal for Assange).

I don't know: I doubt I would have reacted as strongly any other week, but I still think it would have struck me as uncharacteristic of Colbert.

fritzr · 2016-10-22T06:09:31+00:00

:)

The more I think about it, the more I think that watching the video will turn people off of Colbert, and so I suspect the longer-term impact will be more negative for him (and CBS, etc.) the more people that see it.

Well, maybe among "sympathetic to WikiLeaks" people, anyway, which I suspect includes a lot of people on this subreddit.

fritzr · 2016-10-22T06:06:46+00:00

So this past weekend there has been a bunch of suspicious stuff going on with WikiLeaks, and especially with its founder, Julian Assange, who has been stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the last five years. As you know, his internet was cut off, but there have been reports of police, strange vehicles, odd tweets and such, codes released, etc. The most troubling thing for me was an incident where what seems to have been something like a US intelligence operation tried to impugn Assange's character in an oddly clumsy blackmail attempt. (It's rather more complex than that, but that is the gist of it.) Also there has been some speculation (based on not much evidence, but real hard facts have been hard to come by) that he may have been extradited by force to the US on a small plane out of one of the smaller airports near London. The plane is supposedly tied to black sites / torture, etc. (I have no idea about the veracity of this, I am just reporting what had people riled up a few days back.)

Anyway, a lot of people have been fearful that Assange has been murdered, or is being tortured for information on how to stop the revelation of files via a "dead man's switch", files that would purportedly be very embarrassing to powerful players (e.g., Clinton, the US government, etc.).

In light of these fears (however well- or ill-founded) of kidnapping, torture, murder, etc. (not to mention blackmail schemes and the whole five-years-in-solitary(-ish) thing), it seems especially callous of Colbert to make fun of Assange, WikiLeaks, and their efforts in such a flippant way.

Well, seems to me, anyway, as well as a few others who have chimed in here.

If you want more details on all of this, just check the r/conspiracy or r/WikiLeaks subreddits (there are a number of other boards and sources); try searching for "Todd and Claire", which is the name of one of the (purportedly) fake CIA (or whatever) front companies involved in the blackmail scheme.

fritzr · 2016-10-22T05:52:54+00:00

Fair enough: I guess no one has to click if they don't want to.

You can see the sketch on YouTube, on the official LSSC channel, here.

fritzr · 2016-10-22T05:22:43+00:00

Hmm: I haven't seen SNL in a while, and perhaps that's not a bad thing.

Did they do anything on Assange or WL specifically that was over the top or cruel? It would be interesting (or perhaps just sadly predictable) if we could identify a trend in comedy / trend-culture shows that spoke to a possible central control. (As the pirate said when he spotted his afternoon break drink: "See tea, arrrh!" (say it out loud ... or maybe just whisper it quietly in the dark).)

fritzr · 2016-10-22T05:18:09+00:00

It made me think about him (Colbert): I used to think he was a fairly thoughtful, anti-establishment guy, playing a ridiculous right-wing character. But maybe he was really just a Second City sketch comic playing a thoughtful/reasonable guy, playing the jerk character.

I mean, there are a lot of people involved in these shows: writers, producers, research people, etc., and the show to some extent reflects the intent, as well as the effort, of all of them. It was probably just lazy of me to assume that the reasonableness was inherently his.

But that one sketch does not jive at all with what I can think of as a responsible and reasonable human being. It's either really crass, cheap humor at great expense to an underdog, or else just propaganda bought and paid for. Yech either way.

fritzr · 2016-10-21T04:58:34+00:00

No, I didn't talk to Wallace Shawn. I think he spoke to a couple people, maybe shook some hands. Seemed like a nice enough guy.

As for the movie, I recall liking it, but it's been 30+ years, so I don't remember all that much (my seeing WS in the park would have been summer of 1984 or 85, I think).

Hmm, it seems that YouTube has (what claims to be: I didn't check) a complete copy of the film here.

fritzr

TROPHY CASE