Lady Britannia

now that cruise is going to be in this movie, now i know im as sure as hell am not going to see this movie...the last thing trek needs a psycho, christan bale look a like, scienctalogest (however you spell it) family conceling, contract binding, manic. i'd go on, but i fear that the US Goverment will hunt me down to no extent.

 

I'm pretty certain they won't give Mr. Cruise a chance in the movie where he preaches the word of Hubbard.

 

And don't be absurd. Of course you'll see the movie. You'll see it multiple times in the cinema then buy the DVD.

 

 

it'll be a cold day in hell if i found out that he'll be in the damn movie. i wouldn't even buy the damn dvd. i'd probably use the dvd as targeting practice, the same way i did to nemisis.

Yeah, sure you will.

now that cruise is going to be in this movie, now i know im as sure as hell am not going to see this movie...the last thing trek needs a psycho, christan bale look a like, scienctalogest (however you spell it) family conceling, contract binding, manic. i'd go on, but i fear that the US Goverment will hunt me down to no extent.

I'm pretty certain they won't give Mr. Cruise a chance in the movie where he preaches the word of Hubbard.

And don't be absurd. Of course you'll see the movie. You'll see it multiple times in the cinema then buy the DVD.

Double tragedy.

The act itself and the circumstances (if true) that led to it.

A cameo role would be fine.

There is no justification for such a project. All indications are that the franchise is moving onto other things. There's no reason to go back to Star Trek Enterprise.

Justification is irrelevant. If the fans want it, then they should continue to ask for it. Your dislike of the show is duly noted.

 

Justification is not irrelevant, since no significant demand for a project of this sort exists. If the demand isn't there, then that is a "justification" for the project never being produced. Besides, if fans ask for it, other fans will inevitably oppose such calls.

Gee...you mean fans such as yourself?

Yes I do.

I doubt they'd be able to get him to do it, but Russell Crowe would be good in a villain role, if it was well written. "Romper Stomper" shows clearly how menacing he can be.

There is no justification for such a project. All indications are that the franchise is moving onto other things. There's no reason to go back to Star Trek Enterprise.

Justification is irrelevant. If the fans want it, then they should continue to ask for it. Your dislike of the show is duly noted.

Justification is not irrelevant, since no significant demand for a project of this sort exists. If the demand isn't there, then that is a "justification" for the project never being produced. Besides, if fans ask for it, other fans will inevitably oppose such calls.

There is no justification for such a project. All indications are that the franchise is moving onto other things. There's no reason to go back to Star Trek Enterprise.

Sounds like a good idea. Some of the early TNG episodes in terms of special effects haven't dated well.

I'm not certain what Greengrass and Damon seem to be implying.

Do they wish James Bond movies to become Jason Bourne clones?

There is a definite envy going on here IMO.

Call me arogant or stupid but I hate the thought of becoming the meal of an animal I feel superior too.

Maybe it's nature's way of humbling you?

"Unadopted Angelic"

Okay so who really didn't see this one coming at 150mph down the highway really? I love the reviews where they say 'Britain's call them posh and becks we call them who?' But really it shows that the reviewers are American cause we mainly call them 'those tossers' really.

No "we" don't. For the most part the Beckhams are quite popular here in the UK. It's not surprising that Americans aren't familiar with David and Victoria Beckham. If they don't follow the Premiership, international football and La Liga, then they wouldn't have a clue who he was. Just as I wouldn't know who some NFL player is. With Victoria, she was mainly part of a larger group, so chances are most Americans would have heard of the Spice Girls, if not Victoria specifically.

Victoria Beckham is a precocious, vapid, air-headed, narcissistic, rich wannabe something,

Precocious (“Developed or matured too soon“) - Not sure how this applies to Victoria Beckham. At what rate should she, by your standards, have matured?

Vapid (“Lacking character, dull”) - What standards do you consider not to be dull? Why should another person conform to them?

Air-headed = Why? How has she demonstrated this?

Narcissistic (“Abnormal love and admiration for oneself”)- She is in the entertainment world and has interests with fashion designers. So looks and appearance are simply a part of the life. Even if she takes pride in herself and her appearance, it doesn’t seem to be harmful. Would we rather she is self-loathing?

Rich - What’s wrong with being rich?

Wannabe something - How do you know what she wants to be? Maybe she wanted to be a married mother who is wealthy enough to provide her family with financial security?

though her acting is non existant

Aside from the Spice Girls movie made many years ago, she doesn’t appear to have expressed any serious interest in acting. Neither has David Beckham, aside from the football-based “Goal” movies.

her singing is much the same

Different strokes for different folks. What you and I consider bad singing, others may love. Good for them.

and is known only for being so slim she could fit into her own children's clothing (I suppose it must cut costs down a little).

She’s known for a great deal more than just being slim. Even if not, her body size is her choice. As long as it’s not causing health problems I see no problem with it. It would be nice if we could judge people on something more substantial than appearance.

What I really want to know is why must the world become hyper-saturated with this woman,

Maybe because people create message board threads about her?

she lacks any real sense of style,

What you regard as a "real" sense of style could be drastically different from other people. Doesn't mean you are right and she is wrong.

she lacks any personality

Again, what do you regard as being "personality?" And why should your standards be applied to another individual?

and is now becoming so used to the unnatural fishbowl of celebrity that she is recreating it in her own personal life.

The public get to see a "part" of her personal life. The deepest most private aspects most likely would not be shared. Of course she's getting used to it. It's been part of her life for years now. For her, this IS natural.

Is this the behavior of a woman with any sanity at all.

What's so insane about it? What behaviour do you personally consider "sane?" Why would that apply to other people?

Understanding that she needs to make money

What‘s wrong with making money? As long as no one is being harmed and no laws are being broken, what‘s the harm?

(heaven knows her marriage is unlikely to survive the transition point of David's retirement)

How do you know this? Are you privy to the most private aspects of their marriage? Have you ever met them and talked about the state of their marriage?

and that she lacks any personality

See earlier "personality" point.

or talent

She’s got a talent for getting people talking about her at least. Like her or not, she’s sucked you in too.

she is into exploiting her own life,

How can a person exploit their own life? If her life IS a life of fame, then it’s not exploitation but rather doing what is normal for her.

but really how much more media saturation at the hands of a self publicist are we the viewers of many different media publications are we going to have to endure?

Again, it’s very simple to avoid such “enduring”.

Don’t buy magazines about her. Don’t read articles about her. Don’t watch her TV show. Don’t listen to her music. Don’t watch news stories about her. Don’t create message board threads around her.

No one is forcing anyone to think about Victoria Beckham

"Odie"

I can't understand why Paris Hilton who has done nothing with her life that is even news worthy get any attention from the country.

It's the idea of the wealthy socialite who has a lived a life of luxury being put into a police car then taken to jail that attracts the initial "shock value" because when one thinks of the cliche image of jails being tough and hard filled with hardened criminals, it's such a contrast to imagine someone like Paris Hilton in the middle of it.

She has one CD that is being sued for copy right violations. He cable TV show the Simple Life is a joke. The remote is too slow when I need to change the channel when she pops up in the news. She was born into a wealth family, which is nothing wrong by itself, but there are many who have much better with the position that was given to them at birth.

Her TV show appeals to certain people. Tastes vary. That in itself isn't a bad thing. It's supposed to be I believe a joke. Something not to be taken seriously. As for her position in life, it is after all her life and she's free to do with it as she wishes. Plus, she's relatively young, so she has time to do something more meaningful (whatever that means) with her later life.

Now, you're flat out insulting me - I would never waste my money on celebrity trash mags and I can't find the remote fast enough when that pathetic, whining little Paris pops onto the screen. But sometimes it would be nice if real news were available.

You mean to tell me that in the United States, you cannot find any serious news?

In the UK, they do cover celebrity stories, but it's relatively tiny in proportion to "real" news.

For example, they do include stories relating to the Beckhams in the UK, but it hasn't stopped me from hearing about the Russia/UK diplomatic troubles.

Buying stuff isn't spoiled - thinking you're the only person that matters (like driving drunk) is spoiled.

That relates to my point about Paris Hilton and the application of the law.

Well, if making money makes a person "useful" we should be singing the praises of a lot of criminals because some of them make lots of money.

No we shouldn't, because they are breaking the law. If Paris Hilton and Victoria Beckham are making money through legal methods, I don't see what the problem is. Sorry, I will amend my previous post to make it clear and avoid misunderstandings:

"Useless" depends on what one considers "usefulness". Paris Hilton, like her or not does make a great deal of money through non-criminal means and is obviously valuable to some law-abiding companies (including the very media who pretend to detest her). In Victoria's case, she CAN sing songs, not very well, but her group sells records lawfully so good for her. Fashion designers and jewellers like her to wear their stuff legally because it brings publicity to them. So she does serve a non-crime related purpose. David Beckham's purpose is obvious as a footballer and endorser of products unrelated to criminal activities.

I can't see any reason why Shatner shouldn't be in the new movie. Perhaps he wants an unreasonable amount of money. Thats the only thing I can think of. However, Shatner appears to really want to be in this movie so I can't see him holding out for a lot of money.

Agreed...

 

 

he just thinks just because he's been in 2 TOS series (and yes, im inculding the animated version) and 7 movies, he thinks he deserves and is intitled to be in this new TOS movie.

I think that Shatner would be totally justified in thinking that.

 

 

im not against the man in anyway, im just saying that for just once, him crying wolf, not to mention throwing a hissy fit won't work no matter what your age. so he wasn't asked to be in it, big deal. michael keaton wasn't asked to play batman in batman forever or batman and robin.

Michael Keaton was asked to play Batman in "BATMAN FOREVER" but left the role during the negotiating process when he learned that Joel Schumacher would be directing it and the Burton-esque dark and gothic tone would be scrapped in favour of the campy and gaudy Schumacher style.

Maybe we could send Paris Hilton to Britain as sort of an exchange program. :biggrin:

 

There are plenty of celebrities who live outside the limelight and public ire. Those that are detested are those that are spoiled, useless, constantly in our face and the one that bugs me is they believe they somehow have the right to live by a different set of rules.

"Spoiled" doesn't bother me. They are wealthy, they can buy stuff, but it's their money, so be it.

"Useless" depends on what one considers "usefulness". Paris Hilton, like her or not does make a great deal of money and is obviously valuable to some companies (including the very media who pretend to detest her). In Victoria's case, she CAN sing, not very well, but her group sells records so good for her. Fashion designers and jewellers like her to wear their stuff because it brings publicity to them. So she does serve a purpose. David Beckham's purpose is obvious.

"In your face" can be dealt with very simply. Don't buy the magazines, don't watch celebrity TV shows and if they pop up on the news, go make a cup of tea when they appear, or switch over onto something else, or just bear it until they disappear.

"Living by a different set of rules" is the only valid criticism IMO. If for example Paris Hilton got special treatment after committing a crime then yes she and the authorities should rightly take the heat for that.

It's only a friendly. What's important is that he is fit for league duty.

The hostility towards Victoria Beckham from the American media and from people on message boards is as bewildering as the vile and venomous hate expressed towards Paris Hilton recently.

If people spent more time trying to get their own lives in order, instead of critiquing and scrutinising the lives of "celebrities" they may be happier and more fulfilled.

The first two movies were way too light in tone, probably due to the insipid director they had and Warner Bros. trying to attract VERY young children.

"The Prisoner Of Azkaban" finally got them on the right track.

Dark and sinister. The way they should be.

Barring extreme circumstances, when you have more children than you can provide for and raise properly, that's too many.

"Odie"

I only said just for United States. I did not state in football terms.

Yes, but it's important to place things in a wider context.

No, there is Pan-American Games that is held every four years since 1959. Pan-American Games

They have been to every match in the Pan-Am games with little media attention since 1959.

They still wouldn't be necessarily playing against the best, since many top teams simply enter their Under-20 and Under-23 teams in that tournament, although it is at least a positive step. They need to test themselves against stronger opposition though, because at the 2006 World Cup in particular, they were average at best, which is disappointing because at the 2002 World Cup they were excellent and were only eliminated by losing narrowly to the eventual finalists Germany.

I never said reject. I only said it will not be popular like it is in Europe and rest of North and South America.

I don't believe anyone has seriously suggested it will be.

The fact that has resurrect over and over again does speck of lack of support from most American population.

There is no problem with encouraging football in United States. I have no problem what so ever. Football has very much survived with United States and will so in the future. I do not see in the future football taking hold in United States like in Europe and the rest North and South America. The games receive little coverage from the media, and most game is looked down upon when compare to other mainstream games in United States.

Again, I doubt anyone would think football would be accepted by the mainstream. It will be a niche sport at the most. That's where it needs to market itself. I understand it's played among children when they are younger, but they drift away when in their teen years, so that is where the grassroot effort needs to be made and a strong college system needs development too. The best thing IMO for the Beckhams to do is to go on Oprah and get Oprah to encourage her viewership (women, mothers in particular) to let their children play soccer. She should give the studio audience that day free football kits ("uniforms"), balls, nets etc...

The rest of the mainstream sports in America has never organized themselves into nineteen different leagues. It is not really amazing, because it tells me of failure of the rest of 18.

What's amazing is the fact that the game cannot be killed in America. It keeps coming back again and again. That impresses me. Dogged determination from America's football fans. I admire that.

"Odie"

For United States that is awhile.

In football terms, it is nothing.

Plus North America and South America have played against each outside Copa America for awhile. United States has no problems playing against Mexico, but when it comes South American countries they still struggle.

They have playing against each other longer than 1993, and so has United States.

Playing outside the Copa America means that they play outside a competitive environment, since the United States and Mexico tend to sail through their qualifying campaigns in the World Cup due to the fact they are part of CONCACAF. That's why the United States struggles against the far stronger CONMEBOL nations. Friendly matches outside a tournament between the United States and Mexico are generally meaningless in comparison to serious competitive matches.

It really does not matter how long they play in Copa they games do not get media attention.

Regular participation in the Copa America will lead to improved performances. When the team starts getting better, they will probably get more media attention. It's a slow process. No one ever claimed it would be quick or easy.

Soccer/football has been working progress for the last 94 years.

Soccer/football never will be popular in the United States. The last 94 years proved it.

It actually proves that there is an element in American sporting society throughout history that IS in fact interested in football. If Americans seriously rejected football, they would not keep trying to resurrect it over and over again. From 1884 to the present day (minus the MLS) there have been at least nineteen organised leagues in the United States which is amazing considering that football in the United States is in an already competitive sporting market and is outside mainstream culture. I don't see the problem with trying to encourage football in America. If it doesn't work, then it's not a big loss since football can survive without America. If it DOES work, then that's good, I hope it does work.

My posts in BOLD

Quotes in Italics.

"Odie"

America has been in Copa America for a very long time. The games got little coverage from the media.

The United States has only participated in three.

1993, 1995 and 2007. The first two were too early in the modern history of U.S. soccer/football to attract any attention in America I'm sure.

Interesting not: America has beat Mexico for many years, but unable to compete in South America. While Mexico is very competitive in South America

Mexico is competitive in South America because they take part more regularly in the Copa America. They have participated in the 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004, and finished third place in 2007

The last World Cup no one in America really cared if they where in it and how they played during torment. The games where poorly covered in the states.

Soccer/football is very much a work in progress in the United States. No one doubts that.

"jadziaezri"

Lady Britannia, you sound like a united fan.

I support no football team.

The two forwards you mentioned are both united players. They are most definitely the GREATEST FOOTBALL TEAM IN THE WORLD!!!

Depends what criteria you base that opinion upon.

Though I do firmly believe that Beckham has sold out and should have stayed with Real Madrid, I am starting to think that maybe this is not such a bad idea.

He's getting enormous amounts of money to do what he loves to do, that being play football, so I'm not certain why that means he has "sold out". From what I understand he wanted to stay but Real Madrid with its notoriously unstable and fickle management structure delayed offered him a new contract and he made a decision to go. It was only after that that Real Madrid realised their mistake. By then it was too late.

About two years ago Australia decided to create an A-League. We paid Dwight York to come and raise the profile of the league. He left last year and due to our relative success at the World Cup (we were knocked out by the eventual world champions, the Diving Italians) the A-League is thriving.

Yes, I understand that the A-League is doing well. That is very good news, especially for a sporting nation such as Australia who are very much starting to be taken seriously as a footballing nation now. As for the World Cup, Australia's treatment was a travesty. They were essentially cheated out of the World Cup in that match and the absurd penalty awarded in the last minute.

I doubt anyone has any expectations of soccer becoming as big as basketball or gridiron. As for America becoming a serious contender in the world of soccer, that will only come when the United States through its national team and clubs compete against the stronger nations and clubs of South America. Regular participation in the Copa America and the Copa Libertadores would be a wise decision and would beneficial in the long term.

The only reason why Beckham is playing in the MLS is because the european leagues didn't want him anymore. He is too old. He is treating the MLS as the retirement community for the older players. I see this a publicity stunt more than anything. I do have to disclose that I am still bitter about the Earthquakes leaving San Jose. And I hate the LA galaxy because of the normal NorCal SoCal rivalry.

His club Real Madrid did in fact want him. One of the reasons they sacked their manager Fabio Capello was because they blamed him in part for Beckham leaving the club. On June 10th the Real Madrid president Ramon Calderon revealed that the club wanted him to stay. If Real Madrid could have kept Beckham, they almost certainly would have done so. As for being "too old" Beckham is only 32 years of age. Around the same age as Manchester United's midfielders Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs who are widely regarded as still two of the best players in the Premiership. His move to LA Galaxy has little to do with "retirement" but more as a lucrative boost for both Beckham's personal finances and the LA Galaxy and MLS too. He is the "marquee player" at LA Galaxy, like the Australian A-League, where each team is permitted one big name player who exceeds the wage cap. A superstar player who can still make a valuable contribution on the pitch is essential for a developing league like the MLS.