I haven't seen The Lone Ranger so I can't comment on it's quality. But I must say that Depp's costume really,really turned me off. I thought it looked like a crazy Indian stereotype.

@1: You are closer to the film's spoiler than you think. SO spent money to watch it in theaters and told me. I think I'll wait for it on Netflix.

You need a link to the Sherman Alexie story.

Mike McGinn poses for a "victory" photo op in The City:

http://theseattlesalmon.com/wp-content/u…

Disney + ActionAdventure = flop

... That can sometimes be salvaged by the right cast...(e.g. Depp) but even that trick only works so many times. (Pirates I,II,III,IV...)

Avengers was smart to put Disney's distribution credit way at the end of the flick.

Disney's John Carter... mega-flop.

Planes will tank.. big time.

Star Wars... could be salvaged if (i) Disney does not have any artisitc input and (ii) they don't slap their name on the front.

Disney's Star Wars
Episode Seven:
Ewok's Jamboree

#1

Bury my career at Wounded Knee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ6RjP7Ml…

The Lone Ranger is not a bad movie. This is mob mentality and the sheeple of 'Murica have simply perpetuated a rumor that it sucks...When's the last time Johnny Depp disappointed? And director Gore Verbinski gave us 3 Pirates of the Caribbean movies! Rango! The Ring! People are fickle, TLR is the comedy version of Hell on Wheels and ranks with any other Disney film. Rant rover raggy.

@10 nails it. I had hoped that the sheer floppage of TLR would knock some humility into Johnny Depp and make him consider doing something -anything- other than variations on his Jack Sparrow schtick. Depp has talent, but it feels like he's gotten lazy about picking roles and playing them.

@11: not to mention that criminally shit-tastic Alice in Wonderland remake he did with Burton. Johnny Depp has been playing the same character for the last 10 years, and it looks like H-wood has finally beaten that horse to death.

On the same day that Obama cancelled his meeting with Putin, John Lewis just praised Edward Snowden. Ouch! That is going to leave a mark.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/au…

@12: You do realize that Johnny Depp has received 3 Oscar noms for Leading Actor in the last 10 years, and only one of them was for the Jack Sparrow character. So while it is true that he does have a stock character, he also has quite a bit of range outside of that.

Know why Obama didn't mention Russian law? Because sovereign nations have the right to regulate themselves as they like. Russians may object to so called gay marriage in the US, but even I'd say it wasn't their business if a Russian head of state made public comments on the issue.

Apart from that outside of the 'gays are privileged citizens with the right to dictate terms to everyone else' movement (apparently now you believe you can do this globally) nobody cares. I'm not planning to travel to Russia or to break their laws if I did, so it really isn't my problem. Or that of anyone else really...

@15: Fuck off Seattleblues. You've said this bullshit 100 times over and have yet to give a logical and ethical reason why a person SHOULD ignore human rights violations. All you do is try to dress your bigotry in pseudo-legalese to obfuscate the ethics.

@16

In the US homosexuals have more rights not fewer. If a gay 'man' is assaulted the offender is punished more severely than if his victim was normal. You get to decide for %97 of the population to destroy marriage and family. Get over yourself and your sense of persecution already, will you?

As for how other nations deal with those same attacks on morality, marriage and family I already gave you the reason it ain't your business. They are sovereign nations. Don't like their policy, don't buy their exports or travel there. But if you do go there obey their laws or expect to pay for your criminal behavior.

Oh and you can call names all you like. Bigot and the marvelously infantile 'hater' and all the rest say more about your inability to understand English than they do about me.

@ 18, refusing to accept gays as being born that way (as affirmed by science) and condemning healthy gay sex as "wrong" or " bad" (as contrindicated by science) does make you a bigot. Your positions are rooted in internal hate, not external facts.

BTW, a plurality of "normal" people support same sex marriage now. Republican democracy!

@19

For all I know (or care) the sexual inclination to homosexual behavior is innate. So, I assume, is pedophilia. So for that matter is cancer or Alzheimers.

Having an inclination doesn't inherently justify behaving on it. The consequences of doing so are what we judge the behavior on.

So homosexuals experience mental illness at high rates. Suicide is far more common for gay identified people than others. Life expectancy is lower.

Hardly healthy behavior, I'd say...

@21, none of that is supported by science. Especially the notion that there's mental illness or dire consequences. Why do you suppose that is?

@19

Hate is another word you apparently don't use as it's defined. I feel some pity and a lot of blank incomprehension for the homosexual impulse.

I feel exasperated at the sense of childish entitlement gays seem to feel.

I feel appropriate anger at the attacks on family, sexual morality and marriage gays are orchestrating.

But hate? Nah. I'll leave that to the likes of Daniel Savage.

@ 23, your comment history speaks more your hate than your occasional politeness does.

Are you willing to consider my comment @23v

Make that @ 22. And keep in mind that your reticence is as revealing as your participation.

Oh, well if gay identified youth don't commit suicide at higher rates Savage can cancel his attempts at evangelizing homosexual promiscuity in It Gets Better.

As for the rest, they're facts. Depression and other anxiety disorders are far more common among self identified homosexuals than those with healthier sexual expressions. Risky sexual behavior among gays, with the attendant STDs, are also far more common than among heterosexuals. And life expectancy for gays is lower than straight men.

Not liking facts isn't the same as untrue facts. Or didn't you know that?

@ 26, they're facts, but do they mean what you say? All the studies conclude that himosexuality is normal, and gay sex is healthy when safe (just like straight sex is risky when unsafe), so why these facts?

These things ate the result if the neurosis inflicted upon them by a discriminatory society. Think if African Americans. Discrimination used to make them neurotic too, what with hair straightening, skin bleaching, and passing as white. Depression, despair, and suicide resulted too. All because of the general ignorance and discrimination at the hands of the majority.

So, the facts have an external cause - discrimination. Just as black people began accepting who they are, and white society realized how unfair they had been, so too will LGBT youth be happier as the truth about homosexuality is embraced by the straight majority.

@26 Gay people have higher rates of mental illness and suicide because fuckers like you abuse them from the time they're young children.
Rant and cry all you want, though. Your hateful type of person is thankfully a dying minority now. Crawl back under your bridge.

Bigot says he's not a bigot because he says he isn't. Believes that if he says things, they're true. Claims a persecuted class has more rights them him by attempting to restrict the rights they have. Consistently conveys a lack of morals and a severe dislike of family values. Kills kids and other people while claiming he's saving them.

Did I miss anything?

@30
Aww, isn't that cute? Little Pridge learned how to type!

Now when he learns what his words mean, he'll be a big boy!

Kills kids is probably my favorite of your wildly hyperbolic statements.

If you'll excuse me I'm taking my son fishing. Or drowning him in the fascinating mind of Little Pridge.

@ 32, you must still have time to respond to my comment @ 27.

@ 32, I guess not. Well, I'll just note that you must have read @ 27. As I said earlier, your reticence is as revealing as what you say, and in this case your silence indicates that you don't know how to respond to @ 27. The indeniable parallels between racism and homophobia* throw you off all the time.

* And spare us a semantics argument against this word. Prejudice against gay people has this word for its name, for better or worse.

@32 - You really should answer Matt's comment @27. My comment was totally the low hanging fruit, I'm guesstimating that it either struck a nerve or it was simply an easy way to use your random activity with family member x escape again, which you've been using for years everytime you want to slink away pretending you won.

P.S. - Everything about you seems lightly coated with slime. Gross.

@34 That would be wrong. While it would seem to leave Slog a little more drama-free, in the larger picture we just cant leave his ignorant statements unchallenged.

For every commenter, dozens or more read without commenting. By fighting back against the ignorance we keep it from spreading.

Who knows- sb's alleged kid may exist. Someday he may find the internet. He may find Slog, or some other place where ignorance is regularly corrected. That's why we mustnt let sb's ignorance go unchallenged.

And thank you to Matt in Denver for articulating it so well today.

Also notice how with only a little provokation sb's ill-concealed and un-christian hate spills forth. He is his own worst enemy and people should see that side of him. Letting him comment and then go unchallenged would not allow that to happen.

Sorry it brings down Slog but seeing how easily a True Christian (tm) is provoked into very un Christ-like behavior is very illuminating.

Thanks for the kind words, @ 37.

@ 34, I would add that SB appears to get a cathartic charge out of his "participation" at Slog. Yes, it's probably all that he has, but I find it intolerable to let him have it on his own terms. On a conscious level he seems to believe he's proving something; knowing that he isn't, I simply feel the need to show him that he isn't.

SB isn't a typical troll; he'll probably be more nourished if we ignore him, because he would likely tell himself we aren't answering because we can't. OTOH, he always abandons threads where someone like venomlash or Lissa prove he's wrong. I'll be very surprised if he returns and actually addresses my points (the ones I made, as opposed to the things I didn't say but he wishes I did).

@ 40, I disagree. If we ignore him, he'll claim victory, and possibly become more obnoxious.

@ 42, I know of no such history. In the past, he only stopped posting because of major defeats for his side in the political arena. He has not been simply ignored on Slog.

@42 - Out of our resident trolls, that hasn't worked for SRotU, Will in Seattle, sgt_doom, or the various Alleged clones. Why are you confident this strategy would work with SB?

Also, what Dr Awesome and Matt and Denver have said.

@41 and 44,

Just tell him to fuck off. Done and done.

@ 47, that should have been Disraeli's response to Gladstone.

thank you for posting the story about erin macgregor. a lot of people who knew and loved her have been waiting a very long time for an answer. i know this doesn't answer everything, they still don't know how she died or why, but at least her family won't have to wait for the phone call any more.

sending huge hugs and wishes for peace to her family and friends.

@27

First, comparing homosexuality to ethnic physical traits is, as always, flawed on its face.

Second, even if it weren't I know of nothing suggesting that people of African origin suffered mental illness as a consequence of discrimination. For that matter, if it were true your socialist paradise of southern Europe is rife with overt racism, so you should be able to shore your argument there. But you know, you can't since data doesn't support your contention.

As to homosexuality as naturally occurring I already noted this isn't compelling or indicative of homosexuality as benign. Heart disease, cancer, and many mental disorders are innate. But here's the thing- we don't ask people to celebrate a cancer diagnosis or triple bypass.

There is a possibility the PC police vigorously stifling dissent on homosexuality make impossible to study.

Homosexuality as a mental disorder has as symptoms conditions like an unhealthy attraction to the same sex, inability to resist risky sexual behavior with the attendant STDs, and various anxiety or depression problems.

But that would require unbiased examination of facts. And that is something liberals generally and 'gays are privileged citizens' lobbyists can't do since it bring down their whole worldview.

@36

Low hanging fruit works, and seems to be about all you can handle. But if you hold up an orange and claim it came off yonder apple tree be prepared for others to call BS.

PS- You're confused. Probably a flashback to the mens room stall at your local gay bar while you were taking on whoever stepped in... Gross.

@51

Actually I owe Pridge an apology. Pity for your unhealthy appetites and the attendant problems is what you're owed as a fellow human being. Sorry for the snarky comment

@ 50, why do you think African Americans used to try to be white? If it wasn't the neurotic effects of being told en masse that they were worthless, then what caused it? (Neurotic self loathing caused by discrimination isn't a "mental illness" btw.)

Is homosexuality a mental illness? Since no science demonstrates that, upon what do you base that conclusion?

Is homosexuality harmful? No unbiased study has concluded the answer is yes. The effects you cite aren't caused by being gay. If they did, all gay people would suffer. As it is, they are caused only by unsafe practices which all straights are also subject to risk. (BTW, the low instance of STD's among lesbians balances out the higher rate that afflicts gay men, to the point that when viewed as a whole, gay people don't have a higher STD rate than straights.)

When people are born a certain way, those trait are all competable. Thus being gay is comparable to being any race. But in America, it's most comperable to being black, because if the unique nature of our rights and how certain Americans gave been denied them by ignorant members if the majority.

Unbiased facts are only derived via the scientific method, and they all support my position and not yours.

@50: I'm going to ignore your (erroneous) assumption that homosexuality is deleterious/maladaptive/unhealthy and instead beat you over the head with your even MORE boneheaded argument that, assuming that homosexuality is unhealthy, we need to discourage it.
Being physically disabled is by definition unhealthy; people with physical disabilities cannot, depending on the nature of the injury or malformation, move about, manipulate objects, and/or sense their environment nearly as well as the population at large can. Some such disabilities (such as congenital heart defects) can lead to a shortened lifespan, some (such as paralysis) can leave their victims dependent on the care of others, and some (such as a missing finger) are relatively benign. Some can be easily remedied (such as the use of prosthetics for amputees), and some are devilishly hard to treat (blind or deaf people who have had their sight or hearing restored often find themselves tortured by the wash of sensation).
According to you, we should take pains to denounce any validation of the disabled lifestyle, avoid giving the disabled any special treatment, and make it clear that able-bodied people are better than the disabled. If the disabled agenda starts whining about how it's not fair, well, that's their problem for trying to force 95% of the population to go along with the disabled agenda.
But we don't do that. We give disabled people preferential treatment on public transit, fund the development of better prosthetic limbs and sensory implants, mandate that businesses have signs in Braille and ramps or elevators as alternatives to stairs, and generally go out of our way to allow them to live normal and happy lives. We don't worry about people deciding to become disabled, since nobody chooses that. We don't worry about the disabled taking over our country with their PC mumbo-jumbo, even though nearly any middle-school textbook with a picture of students on the cover will inevitably depict a student in a wheelchair.

So what gives, Seattleblues? Why do you feel we need to hate on homosexuals but not disabled people? Any answer?

@ 54, nice, but it took SB almost an entire day to think up something to answer my post @ 27, and he has no intention of returning here to be stymied further. He's even avoiding all of Slog so as not to give in to the temptation of visiting this page.

Many years ago I used to silently inhabit a Usenet forum to discuss Scientology. One character there was a woman, pretty high up in Scientology, and obviously tasked with trolling the discussion group to defend Scientology.

She was immune to facts, repeated references to studies and case reports, and the huge mountain of evidence damning Scientology.

But people persisted in calling her out, and people persisted in showing the dark side of Scientology.

Then something magical happened- she turned! It was stunning, and it made the news. An odd case where something happening on the internet intersected with real life (and thus also proved that she was a real person, it wasn't faked in any way). She flipped completely, realized what a tool she'd been, and stayed on as a participant in the Usenet group, on the side of the anti-Scientologists.

Someday maybe sb will flip. Whatever Eureka moment he may have, it may be helped by the constant repetition here on Slog. That is why I don't think he should be given a pass to post his ignorant bullshit without countering it with facts, with reality, and with truth.