“Exactly. I have no idea why or how a professional reviewer could miss something so huge like that. Walt was even crying during the call. did she watch this in a bar or something?”
SansSouci572 on Sep 16, 2013 at 10:32:52
“She also missed the barrel of money sitting next to him on the curb. And thought he was trying to control his family when he was asking them to high tail it out of there.”
Myke Myers on Sep 16, 2013 at 09:18:41
“Yea, the whole thing was obvious. Even Skylar's attitude changed and she got that look on her face like she always has in the past when she's.. playing along. She doesn't have a poker face AT ALL. That's part of her character. Walt was also clearly talking with his "i'm lying" voice. To not pick up on it means you not only failed to recognize from the dialog, but you don't even understand the characters... It's subtle but it's been repeated so many times throughout the series - it should be obvious by now.”
“I uh... don't think you have any sense of proportion. Walt didn't just make and sell drugs; he's killed multiple people as well.”
Ceezorg on Sep 17, 2013 at 00:55:51
“what? Other more violent drug dealers? Pillar so society these people were. Let's see small time meth dealers. A psychotic unable speed freak who tried to kill them. Street dealers who were moments away from killing Jesse. The biggest drug lord in southwest who threatened to kill his whole family. Mike? Gus' enforcer who was ready to Walt and Jesse. Who else am I missing?”
carbec on Sep 16, 2013 at 13:00:43
“Walt only killed people that threatened his life. Gale was killed because Gus planned to replace Walt with Gale. He was the most sympathetic of all those killed, but it was a case of Gale or Walt. Otherwise, who did Walt, or Jesse for that matter, kill for other reasons? He allowed Jane to die, yes, but she was going to kill herself eventually with all the meth that money could buy. He poisoned Brock, horrible, but he was smart enough to insure Brock wouldn't die.”
Thaddeus Jude on Sep 16, 2013 at 12:33:02
“Hank was willing to have Jesse killed after pretending to be his friend and trying to help him JUST to make his case against Walt better. His case against a guy that he only knows one thing about: He manufactures and sells drugs. He has no proof of anything else, but he wants to nail this guy for drug dealing so bad that he is willing to let somebody die after convincing them to help him.
Meanwhile, who has Walt killed? Some guys that got a kid to kill someone, then killed that kid after their boss told them not to use kids anymore... That same boss who might've told them to kill the kid, but was definitely planning on turning Walt over to other people... Tuco, who was going to kill him and Jesse, and who beat the hell out of Jesse and stole his product when they were simply trying to make a deal. He had Gale killed because he thought Gus was trying to kill him. The most horrible thing Walt's ever done was poison Brock. Everybody else pretty much had it coming.
Hank and Walt are just as bad of people, just on opposite ends of the law. In a DND world, they'd both be evil, just one would be closer to lawful and the other closer to chaotic at this point.”
darkness9512 on Sep 16, 2013 at 10:17:00
“Hank was willing to have Jesse killed just to get Walt.”
jjolla on Sep 16, 2013 at 09:40:43
“Walt has only ever killed in self-defence (or the defence of Jesse).
Except for letting Jane die ... although you could argue that if he wasnt there she would have died anyway. Jesse killed Jane with is drug habit”
“that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. you can't "jump the shark" with a series that ends in two episodes. jumping the shark is a phrase that describes an act in a show that serves as the high point, but the show continues well past its shelf life.”
Jul 16, 2012 at 18:52:50
“I wouldn't put too much stock in what she has to say, honestly. I question the abilities of a film critic who praised the plot-hole ridden, existential nonsense of "Prometheus" and gave a high review of freakin' "Battleship," and Brett Ratner's "This Means War."
In short, her opinion doesn't matter. It reminds me of one critic I read when the Dark Knight came out who hated the film, but in the next review, highly praised the very stupid, "Mama Mia."”
Dec 29, 2011 at 16:04:59
“Bill Finger was the true architect of Batman. Frank Miller was just a dramatic reimagining of the character during the twilight of his life.”
cdub1991 on Dec 29, 2011 at 17:05:35
“Took me a second to parse that last sentence. "The twilight of" Batman's life you mean. My problem with the Dark Knight Returns is that it was extremely influential work and encouraged the increased popularity of characters like the Punisher, Lobo and samurai Logan (as I like to call him) and a type of violence that simple wasn't any fun to read. The creators couldn't tell the difference between adult, explicit storytelling and just plain disgusting. (And my tolerance levels are pretty high.) By the early 90s, you had characters being gutted on page and having body parts torn off and whatnot. That's when the industry lost me as a customer.”
Dec 29, 2011 at 16:02:06
“are you kidding me? you're seriously comparing the burton/schumacher abortions to nolan's films? The suit changed from "begins" to "dark knight" because he wanted to turn his head. as far as "rises" goes, the suit hasn't changed (according to the released photos).”
AmericanItalian on Dec 29, 2011 at 16:26:52
“I'm not comparing the films. just the suits. The look of the suit has changed a little from the Dark Knight to Rises. in Rises the suit is more shiny and plastic looking making it more cheesy. As well as the bat insignia on the chest is smaller (which is a good thing). I don't know just fearfull they're going to screw things up again.”
Apr 26, 2011 at 09:27:26
“People don't like Paul Reiser. I don't know how to make this clearer. He's not funny. You can't just take a comedian who was somewhat popular 20 years ago and expect him to still churn out something akin to gold. That's not how comedy works. It updates itself. The people who STILL DO like Reiser from his "Mad About You" days have moved on to cable programming.”
“Come on now. Police don't make laws, they just enforce them. And as far as a revenue stream, I have to point out that Colorado has AWESOME public transport, so you can use that if you're high. You're going to have to accept that there are a lot of people who cannot drive while on pot. Which means that we need to figure out what exactly constitutes being "impaired" on pot, in quantitative terms.”
ben616 on Apr 18, 2011 at 22:07:04
“You need to accept that most people drive just fine on pot.
It is no different than any other med and one gets tolerant quickly.
These tests do nothing to test impairment. The test is for the presence of something that has BROKEN DOWN! It is like testing for alcohol that has evaporated. So do not tell me this is a test of impairment.
Are cannabis users not already subjugated enough that they should be forced to use public transportation? I have been driving after smoking for over fifteen years and the only moving violations have come from police harassment.
The POLICE are one of the biggest reasons the illegal war on drugs persists in this country. If we did the constitutional thing and decriminalized drugs we would not need most of them.”
“Look, Boulder has PHENOMENAL public transportation. If you're smoking pot, there are alternative, cheap methods to travel, which is the REAL bane to police departments seeking revenue from intoxication.
This is something we have to deal with. If you want to have freely available pot, you're going to have to cut through the anecdotes and realize that there are a good deal of people who cannot drive while stoned. That means establishing what exactly IS "stoned" in objectively measurable terms.”
stfuman on Apr 18, 2011 at 22:52:51
“LOL people have smoked well above the level and driven for years. That will continue. The gestapo doesn't need more reason to pull people over, especially when it's based on junk science and politics. If Boulder wants to enact such laws, I would appreciate they keep it up there and allow the rest of us here in this wonderful state to live our freaking lives. It's already illegal to be high and drive. Enough, with the regulations.
Where are all the statistics about accidents and what not involving 'stoned' drivers and the harm they cause? Do you really think this is going to change anything?”
“Okay, granted, YOU might be able to be clear and obey all the traffic laws, but the fact is, there are people who cannot. That means that we have to establish a proper level of so called "intoxication." If you are obeying all the laws, you cannot be stopped by the police to be tested for intoxication.”
LLLou on Apr 19, 2011 at 11:29:40
“If there is going to be a level set it had better be the best science we have not some arbitrary level like 5ng/ml, has ANYONE seen the research studies that led to this 5ng/ml level ??? No ,because there are NO studies that can claim that 5ng/ml indicates impairment. This is just another grab at our freedoms by the out of control government.
And YES the Police can pull you over for ANY reason they choose, they can say they smell Cannabis, do their dog tricks and if you have used Cannabis within the last 24 hours you get screwed.
What happened to the old standard of actually testing for impairment with a roadside sobriety test ?”
Buzzby1949 on Apr 18, 2011 at 23:02:12
“The point is that a blood level of a certain chemical does not establish a level of intoxication. People with that blood level might be very intoxicated or not intoxicated at all. Since the purpose of the law is to keep intoxicated drivers off the roads, punishing those who aren't intoxicated is pointless, unnecessary, and unfair.”
mcostello on Apr 18, 2011 at 22:32:44
“Drive an Escalade and wear a brimmed hat and see if that's true.”
“Seriously? I live in Missouri. I was from Illinois. Anyone with cash that flees Illinois for some fabled tax haven is going to quickly realize that our schools are terrible, our police force is a joke, we have no public transport, our crime is terrible, our jobs are lacking, and our public services (such as snow removal) are dangerously lacking. The common denominator of all these things?
Lack of taxes.”
StuffMoreStuff on Jan 24, 2011 at 16:12:40
“I am sorry, increased taxes bring more jobs? Well why don't we all just work in the public sector then? I can't believe there are people this silly...
Not sure if you noticed while you were in IL, but some of our schools ain't so hot, and basically every weekend somebody( or more) gets shot, many of them kids. Besides schools are LARGELY funded by property taxes.”
drwtsn on Jan 23, 2011 at 20:55:38
“Plus the 6 hour commute to get to work will get tiresome after a few months.”
JStading on Jan 23, 2011 at 13:05:15
“I live in MO too. Guess what - I don't have kids, so I don't care about schools or even children.
"our police force is a joke"
Depends where you live. Our local police force is fine and I live in an area with low crim.
"we have no public transport"
I've got a car. I moved here from the SF bay area. Yes, they have a nice transit system (BART), but it oftentimes costs $7+ per trip. It doesn't save that much money to take it, so it's pointless. If you want a heavily subsidized metro system to function like DC's METRO, I'd agree that such a system provides a great service, but few places outside of DC have that kind of system.
"our crime is terrible"
Good, I'm taking the Feb. bar exam and work as a criminal defense attorney.
The lack of taxes is not only why I'm here, but why our family opened up a number of businesses in the state. We fled California specifically because (1) commercial real estate was 300% more expensive than it is here and (2) state payroll/employee taxes are oppressive. The result? We created 15 jobs per location (and have a number of locations) plus all of the construction jobs needed to build out and outfit the locations. High taxes = we won't be there.”
“Were you in public, private school, or home schooled? Because if you were in private school, this conversation is moot. If you were home schooled, this conversation is still moot. If you were in public, it's still moot because you have to be of greater intelligence than the normal student body to be in those Advanced Placement classes that you took to graduate early. "Greater intelligence" signifies that you are the exception to the rule. So good for you, but not for the rest of the class.”
Jan 3, 2011 at 12:04:10
“It wasn't a critical year, though. I for one, felt like everything put out there was old hat, even the so-called audience pleasing films. The one thing that I hope that executives learned this year is that you can't rely on star-power alone for a movie; with all the gossip/instantaneous celebrity websites, seeing these people on the big screen doesn't have the allure that it used to.”
“I think you're confusing "hazing" with "pulling pranks." In hazing, you're forced to do something against your will/face being ostercized by the the team. Hazing is always wrong; I think you mean to say Pranks are ok.”
“The people they voted for that come from among them ARE the government. French people prefer to vote to pool their resources to ensure certain things for all people (health, work benefits, retirement, etc) rather than each person do it for themselves or use different companies for it.
Think of it as being able to handle your health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. through one single company that can't go under. If you have a problem with the way this "company" works or budgets, you vote, rather than move your money. The trade-off is remaining vigilant and informed at all times (to strike, sacrifice) to make sure it stays honest. It's kind of like a "free market,' only with political policies, the currency being the maintenance of standard benefits for all of the populace.
I'm not saying it's better or worse, but it's hardly pathetic and childish.”