There's a lot of stuff going around at the moment about how the Vatican said some very harsh words about gay marriages.
The Vatican's opinion isn't surprising.
And I don't mind that much that some people think gay marriages are inappropriate.
But I am surprised (though I shouldn't be) at the total dumbness of what John Howard has said about it. I'm not surprised that he's opposed to gay marriages, just how he's chosen to justify his opposition.
What the hell is he talking about the survival of the species for? Should marriages between impotent people be nullified? Are couples who choose not to have children to be forcibly split up by the state? Does the PM know something about the imminent demise of the species that he hasn't told us? Does he consider 6 billion humans a dangerously low number? Does he not mind that he sounds like a complete idiot?
from today's PM program on the ABC:
Today in Darwin, Australia's Prime Minister was asked to state his position on gay marriage. This is what he said.
JOHN HOWARD: Well, this is not in any way an attack on gay people, quite the reverse, but it's just a strong statement in support of the central role of traditional marriage in our society.
Traditional marriage is one of the bedrock institutions of our society, and I don't want anything to occur that further weakens it. Marriage as we understand it in our society is about children, having children, raising them, providing for the survival of the species.
And I think if the same status is given in our society to gay unions as are given to traditional marriage we will weaken that bedrock institution. That's why I've expressed the views I have.
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Friday, June 13, 2003
Lynn says: "I can't just vote on a picture of a guy sitting in a chair!"
Matthew says: "Oh yes you can!"
The Hot Or Not site is for people to vote on whether they think a bunch of
strangers are 'HOT' or 'NOT'. People put up their photos, and then later on
they go on and see what rating they got. So when you're voting it's a
challenge to A) be true to your opinions and vote appropriately, and B) not
be too harsh on the 'NOT' guys & gals. Nobody wants to find they get a 0.03
out of 10 rating.
So you look at the photo and choose what rating you are going them. Then
click on the number (1 to 10) at the top. The game will then show you what
the average vote for that person is so far, and will take you on to the next
photo.
It's kind of cheap and degrading. And amusing. And a little addictive.
So go back and have another go.
I dare you.
www.hotornot.com
Matthew says: "Oh yes you can!"
The Hot Or Not site is for people to vote on whether they think a bunch of
strangers are 'HOT' or 'NOT'. People put up their photos, and then later on
they go on and see what rating they got. So when you're voting it's a
challenge to A) be true to your opinions and vote appropriately, and B) not
be too harsh on the 'NOT' guys & gals. Nobody wants to find they get a 0.03
out of 10 rating.
So you look at the photo and choose what rating you are going them. Then
click on the number (1 to 10) at the top. The game will then show you what
the average vote for that person is so far, and will take you on to the next
photo.
It's kind of cheap and degrading. And amusing. And a little addictive.
So go back and have another go.
I dare you.
www.hotornot.com
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Why do I like Sydney?
Sydney has Gowings.
The staff at Gowings know how to leave a window shopping man (and window shopping ladies) alone when required.
Brisbane does not have Gowings. This is a sad fact.
At times like today, when I decide to go have a look at some clothes and try things on, I find myself in change rooms with shop assistants outside demanding that I talk to them. Nasty young women and fancy boys.
Are you okay in there? (this question I don't mind. If I'd collapsed and
needed first aid it's nice to think that someone would check on my
well-being at some stage of the evening).
Is everything all right? (Yes)
Do you need anything in a different size? (No)
Do you want to come out and show us how it looks? (No)
Can you please let us in so we can ooh and aah about how wonderful you look
in our over-priced, ill-fitting and too-trendy clothing, leaving you both
uncomfortably flattered and too embarrassed to bring yourself to deflate our
happiness by not buying our clothes? (They don't always actually say this
out loud)
Clothing store assistants suck.
Just not in Gowings.
_____________
matthew
2003 - Brisbane
Sydney has Gowings.
The staff at Gowings know how to leave a window shopping man (and window shopping ladies) alone when required.
Brisbane does not have Gowings. This is a sad fact.
At times like today, when I decide to go have a look at some clothes and try things on, I find myself in change rooms with shop assistants outside demanding that I talk to them. Nasty young women and fancy boys.
Are you okay in there? (this question I don't mind. If I'd collapsed and
needed first aid it's nice to think that someone would check on my
well-being at some stage of the evening).
Is everything all right? (Yes)
Do you need anything in a different size? (No)
Do you want to come out and show us how it looks? (No)
Can you please let us in so we can ooh and aah about how wonderful you look
in our over-priced, ill-fitting and too-trendy clothing, leaving you both
uncomfortably flattered and too embarrassed to bring yourself to deflate our
happiness by not buying our clothes? (They don't always actually say this
out loud)
Clothing store assistants suck.
Just not in Gowings.
_____________
matthew
2003 - Brisbane
Am annoyed.
The Sydney Film Festival has just lost an appeal to show one of their films.
It's been banned.
A few decades ago the SFF (under David Stratton) made a fight to be able to
show what they wanted to show without the censors interferring. The film
festivals won special concessions, which is why nobody under 18 is allowed
to attend any of the film festival movies.
The people who go to the film festival are generally fairly mature people
with a serious interest in films, and I'm pretty pissed that some censor
reckons he can tell them what they can & can't show. It's only sex for
goodness sakes.
I should try to get not too upset, as it's probably a crap film (Romance was
crap, Lolita was good, Baise Moi was probably crap though I never saw it).
But when I get home to my computer in Sydney, I think I'll have to send off
a complaining email to the ratings board.
____________________
matthew - in brisbane
The Sydney Film Festival has just lost an appeal to show one of their films.
It's been banned.
A few decades ago the SFF (under David Stratton) made a fight to be able to
show what they wanted to show without the censors interferring. The film
festivals won special concessions, which is why nobody under 18 is allowed
to attend any of the film festival movies.
The people who go to the film festival are generally fairly mature people
with a serious interest in films, and I'm pretty pissed that some censor
reckons he can tell them what they can & can't show. It's only sex for
goodness sakes.
I should try to get not too upset, as it's probably a crap film (Romance was
crap, Lolita was good, Baise Moi was probably crap though I never saw it).
But when I get home to my computer in Sydney, I think I'll have to send off
a complaining email to the ratings board.
____________________
matthew - in brisbane
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
Okay, I have to have one final full-on spit about Matrix Reloaded. To get
it all out.
I am going to go a bit overboard with it, so I apologise once again if you
ain't interested in my rants. Just delete this if that's case.
I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT A LOT OF THE PLOT, SO DON'T READ THIS IF YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE THE MOVIE.
BETTER YET, DON'T SEE THE MOVIE AT ALL!
*** Firstly, why I need to have this spit.
* Nobody I know of approves of Matrix 2.
* Despite the above fact, it has made $200US million at the american
box-office already! Garbage has won the box office battle, this time.
* This lousy film was expensive. They've spent over $300US million on
Matrix 2 and 3.
* The film critics were far too easy on this film. The trashy film critics
(with Hollywood stars in their eyes) said it'd be fantastic. The serious
film critics said "not as good as the first film/great special effects/the
fans will like it". But the fans DON'T like it. Serious film critics
should never be trusted when reviewing sci-fi/action films.
* I don't have the Wachowski brothers' email address, so I can't write to
them to give them scriptwriting tips, or to ask for my money back.
*** Secondly, my best guess as to why things went wrong.
The Matrix was a huge hit. A good action film with nifty gimmicks: cool &
stylish heroes; original special effects; effective action scenes; paranoid
futuristic plot (which was nicely timed for the end of the millenium).
Everyone told the Wachowski brothers that they were super imaginative guys
who could do anything. So they got bigger budgets and thought that if
people liked the gimmicks of Matrix 1, then they'd surely have even bigger
success multiplying those gimmicks by 3 for the next films. Bigger special
effects! Cooler heros! More techno-pyscho-babble dialogue!
But they failed to remember that the Matrix was basically a sci-fi/action
film with fancy trimmings, which needed a workable sci-fi/action film plot,
and appropriate sci-fi/action film dialogue.
They got their minds stuck on the trimmings.
*** Thirdly, my main gripes.
* The love affair!? Keanu & Carrie have three main scenes together.
1) Carrie and Keanu have sex - they're naked and he has a pained look on his
face, so I guess that's sex. But it doesn't show them being in love.
They're just two thin people who have slightly uncomfortable sex.
2) A strange & beautiful woman tells Keanu she'll give him some help (which
will enable him to save the human race) if he kisses her. Seems a pretty
good deal to me. But not to Carrie. She pulls a gun on the woman. This
gets a laugh from the audience, which would make the Wachowski's happy, but
it turns Carrie's character from a tough action heroine (in Matrix 1) into a
jealous psycho bitch. Not looking good.
3) At the end, Keanu has to chose between saving the world and saving
Carrie. He goes for Carrie. Why? I have no idea! If he saves Carrie,
then she'll die anyway when they all die. And she's such a cold & inhuman
piece of work, it's unbelievable that Keanu could actual be in LOVE with
her. Lust yes, love no.
Romances don't have to be very deep in sci-fi/action films, but there needs
to be at least a little spark there. Most effecient example I can think of:
The Empire Strikes Back. Han Solo is about to be frozen by baddies. Leia
says "I love you!". There's a pause. Han is about to get the freeze, and
may never breath again. Han looks at Leia as he gets the freeze and says "I
know". Cue dramatic & emotional musical climax!
* The action scenes.
How can such expensive action scenes be so BORING!?
1) The first scene has Keanu against 100 Hugo Weavings. Keanu is close to
invincible, since the normal laws of physics don't affect him. And Hugo's
character can replicate himself endlessly. The scene goes on forever.
Hugos are thrown everywhere. But nobody gets as much as a scratch. There
is no point to this fight! Nobody is going to get hurt. Since there is no
tension, the mind wanders, and you notice that some of the Hugos in the shot
you're watching are obviously unconvincing computer graphics, while in the
next scene they are extras wearing Hugo faces (or maybe their faces were
digitally altered - I guess the dvd will explain).
2) The second fight pits Keanu against a stranger. When the fight is over
the stranger turns out to be a friend. He explains why he fought Keanu.
Apparently 'You don't fully know someone until you fight them'.
So now there have been two fights and all they've done is show that there is
no point to these people fighing. None whatsoever! The audience is not
exactly going to be waiting breathlessly for the next exciting showdown!
3) Then Keanu fights off a number of people and yes he gets a scratch, to
show he's still human. However, one scratch does not lead to dramatic
tension.
4) It ends with the car chase, by which time I was craving for it to be over
fast, which it wasn't. There is lots of destruction, but none of it
thrilling. I read that the car chase scene cost $40US million. They had to
build the road it was shot on, which went for a mile & a half. The cheap
cheap Mad Max II was much more exciting.
And finally.
* Laurence Fishbourne was embarrassing. I so wanted his character to die a
tragic death, just so he'd shut up.
* The hippy humans living underground & dancing in a big cave were like from
some cheap 70's sci-fi flick (though I usually quite enjoy cheap 70's sci-fi
flicks).
* Each time they used some of that fancy slow-motion, I sighed. I wanted
everything to go in fast motion instead. Anything to get through the film
more quickly! Please!
* Every shot looked so damn expensive. And when a film is this
dissappointing, it hurts.
The next time Hollywood has a spare $300 million, please please please can
they give it to me!!
The only possible bright spot: if Matrix 3 is very very very brilliant, it
might partly make up for this one. Maybe the studio should consider taking
it out of the Wachowski's hands before they make another shit-fest?
Phew.
Am done now.
PS. If anyone knows the Wachowski's email address, please forward this on
to them. Thanks.
PPS. To make up for this shit film, I watched Thunderball on tv on the
weekend. So nice to see classy dialogue. You only have to wait 15 minutes
into the film before you get a busty blonde procliaming "Behave yourself, Mr
Bond!". Love it.
_____________
matthew
it all out.
I am going to go a bit overboard with it, so I apologise once again if you
ain't interested in my rants. Just delete this if that's case.
I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT A LOT OF THE PLOT, SO DON'T READ THIS IF YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE THE MOVIE.
BETTER YET, DON'T SEE THE MOVIE AT ALL!
*** Firstly, why I need to have this spit.
* Nobody I know of approves of Matrix 2.
* Despite the above fact, it has made $200US million at the american
box-office already! Garbage has won the box office battle, this time.
* This lousy film was expensive. They've spent over $300US million on
Matrix 2 and 3.
* The film critics were far too easy on this film. The trashy film critics
(with Hollywood stars in their eyes) said it'd be fantastic. The serious
film critics said "not as good as the first film/great special effects/the
fans will like it". But the fans DON'T like it. Serious film critics
should never be trusted when reviewing sci-fi/action films.
* I don't have the Wachowski brothers' email address, so I can't write to
them to give them scriptwriting tips, or to ask for my money back.
*** Secondly, my best guess as to why things went wrong.
The Matrix was a huge hit. A good action film with nifty gimmicks: cool &
stylish heroes; original special effects; effective action scenes; paranoid
futuristic plot (which was nicely timed for the end of the millenium).
Everyone told the Wachowski brothers that they were super imaginative guys
who could do anything. So they got bigger budgets and thought that if
people liked the gimmicks of Matrix 1, then they'd surely have even bigger
success multiplying those gimmicks by 3 for the next films. Bigger special
effects! Cooler heros! More techno-pyscho-babble dialogue!
But they failed to remember that the Matrix was basically a sci-fi/action
film with fancy trimmings, which needed a workable sci-fi/action film plot,
and appropriate sci-fi/action film dialogue.
They got their minds stuck on the trimmings.
*** Thirdly, my main gripes.
* The love affair!? Keanu & Carrie have three main scenes together.
1) Carrie and Keanu have sex - they're naked and he has a pained look on his
face, so I guess that's sex. But it doesn't show them being in love.
They're just two thin people who have slightly uncomfortable sex.
2) A strange & beautiful woman tells Keanu she'll give him some help (which
will enable him to save the human race) if he kisses her. Seems a pretty
good deal to me. But not to Carrie. She pulls a gun on the woman. This
gets a laugh from the audience, which would make the Wachowski's happy, but
it turns Carrie's character from a tough action heroine (in Matrix 1) into a
jealous psycho bitch. Not looking good.
3) At the end, Keanu has to chose between saving the world and saving
Carrie. He goes for Carrie. Why? I have no idea! If he saves Carrie,
then she'll die anyway when they all die. And she's such a cold & inhuman
piece of work, it's unbelievable that Keanu could actual be in LOVE with
her. Lust yes, love no.
Romances don't have to be very deep in sci-fi/action films, but there needs
to be at least a little spark there. Most effecient example I can think of:
The Empire Strikes Back. Han Solo is about to be frozen by baddies. Leia
says "I love you!". There's a pause. Han is about to get the freeze, and
may never breath again. Han looks at Leia as he gets the freeze and says "I
know". Cue dramatic & emotional musical climax!
* The action scenes.
How can such expensive action scenes be so BORING!?
1) The first scene has Keanu against 100 Hugo Weavings. Keanu is close to
invincible, since the normal laws of physics don't affect him. And Hugo's
character can replicate himself endlessly. The scene goes on forever.
Hugos are thrown everywhere. But nobody gets as much as a scratch. There
is no point to this fight! Nobody is going to get hurt. Since there is no
tension, the mind wanders, and you notice that some of the Hugos in the shot
you're watching are obviously unconvincing computer graphics, while in the
next scene they are extras wearing Hugo faces (or maybe their faces were
digitally altered - I guess the dvd will explain).
2) The second fight pits Keanu against a stranger. When the fight is over
the stranger turns out to be a friend. He explains why he fought Keanu.
Apparently 'You don't fully know someone until you fight them'.
So now there have been two fights and all they've done is show that there is
no point to these people fighing. None whatsoever! The audience is not
exactly going to be waiting breathlessly for the next exciting showdown!
3) Then Keanu fights off a number of people and yes he gets a scratch, to
show he's still human. However, one scratch does not lead to dramatic
tension.
4) It ends with the car chase, by which time I was craving for it to be over
fast, which it wasn't. There is lots of destruction, but none of it
thrilling. I read that the car chase scene cost $40US million. They had to
build the road it was shot on, which went for a mile & a half. The cheap
cheap Mad Max II was much more exciting.
And finally.
* Laurence Fishbourne was embarrassing. I so wanted his character to die a
tragic death, just so he'd shut up.
* The hippy humans living underground & dancing in a big cave were like from
some cheap 70's sci-fi flick (though I usually quite enjoy cheap 70's sci-fi
flicks).
* Each time they used some of that fancy slow-motion, I sighed. I wanted
everything to go in fast motion instead. Anything to get through the film
more quickly! Please!
* Every shot looked so damn expensive. And when a film is this
dissappointing, it hurts.
The next time Hollywood has a spare $300 million, please please please can
they give it to me!!
The only possible bright spot: if Matrix 3 is very very very brilliant, it
might partly make up for this one. Maybe the studio should consider taking
it out of the Wachowski's hands before they make another shit-fest?
Phew.
Am done now.
PS. If anyone knows the Wachowski's email address, please forward this on
to them. Thanks.
PPS. To make up for this shit film, I watched Thunderball on tv on the
weekend. So nice to see classy dialogue. You only have to wait 15 minutes
into the film before you get a busty blonde procliaming "Behave yourself, Mr
Bond!". Love it.
_____________
matthew
Eurovision 2003
I had a good old fun time with Eurovision this year.
I actually quite liked the song from Belguim. Was not very Eurovisionish.
Was hoping it'd get first. Was on the edge of my couch during the voting.
Was okay to settle for 2nd.
And Turkey's winning song was okay. Sounded like a Holly Valance song. Or
rather, there's a Holly Valance song that sounds just like Turkey's song.
And I always approve of good belly-dancing.
t.A.t.U.'s song was so shit. Each time they hit that high note (or high
notes, since they definitely weren't singing in tune) was painful.
I even enjoyed a couple of those cheesy pop tunes with those big voiced
blondes.
Did not approve of the songs with silly titles, like "NaNaNa". And there
was that freaky happy song which I couldn't quite catch... were they singing
"Let's be happy and let's be friends" or was it "Let's be happy and le'ts be
gay" (as in 'happy' not 'homo', I think)? My 6 year old niece would
probably find it catchy.
Was funny seeing England get no votes.
I asked Tino if he watched it and he didn't even know it was on. So it
can't be too big of an event for Italy!
I think it is probably biggest in smaller countries (like little Latvia).
They can put in a crappy pop song and beat the rest of Europe. I'm sure it
makes them feel big and strong when they beat Germany and France and
England. There was probably lots of Latvian sex going on the night they won
in 2002. 9 months later - hundreds of Eurovision babies!
It appears to me, that the larger countries like England and Italy, well
they just can't be stuffed, and they're probably embarassed by the fuss the
little nations go to over it.
Well, that's my theory, and since there is nobody here at Global Gossip to
challenge me, I'm sticking to it.
_____________
matthew
2003 - Brisbane
I actually quite liked the song from Belguim. Was not very Eurovisionish.
Was hoping it'd get first. Was on the edge of my couch during the voting.
Was okay to settle for 2nd.
And Turkey's winning song was okay. Sounded like a Holly Valance song. Or
rather, there's a Holly Valance song that sounds just like Turkey's song.
And I always approve of good belly-dancing.
t.A.t.U.'s song was so shit. Each time they hit that high note (or high
notes, since they definitely weren't singing in tune) was painful.
I even enjoyed a couple of those cheesy pop tunes with those big voiced
blondes.
Did not approve of the songs with silly titles, like "NaNaNa". And there
was that freaky happy song which I couldn't quite catch... were they singing
"Let's be happy and let's be friends" or was it "Let's be happy and le'ts be
gay" (as in 'happy' not 'homo', I think)? My 6 year old niece would
probably find it catchy.
Was funny seeing England get no votes.
I asked Tino if he watched it and he didn't even know it was on. So it
can't be too big of an event for Italy!
I think it is probably biggest in smaller countries (like little Latvia).
They can put in a crappy pop song and beat the rest of Europe. I'm sure it
makes them feel big and strong when they beat Germany and France and
England. There was probably lots of Latvian sex going on the night they won
in 2002. 9 months later - hundreds of Eurovision babies!
It appears to me, that the larger countries like England and Italy, well
they just can't be stuffed, and they're probably embarassed by the fuss the
little nations go to over it.
Well, that's my theory, and since there is nobody here at Global Gossip to
challenge me, I'm sticking to it.
_____________
matthew
2003 - Brisbane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)