Can't you ever get your mind out of the hellmouth?

Buffy ,'Touched'


Natter 33 1/3  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


Jesse - Mar 04, 2005 6:50:38 am PST #3916 of 10002
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

Good luck, Kat.

I swear, their current rounds of being on every single talk show on the air this week is making me love both The Rock and Vin Diesel EVEN MORE THAN EVER. Although I think we're getting more Mark Vincent and less Dwayne Johnson. If you see what I'm saying.


bon bon - Mar 04, 2005 6:51:48 am PST #3917 of 10002
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.

For the first time, I am watching Survivor.

I have to know what you think!

Me! Crazy Bobby Jon's love-on for Tom during tribal council last night was hysterical. Not that he's wrong. Love Tom, and Ian is such a cool tough geek-boy.

Love Tom! Tom & Ian: the new Troy & Kwame. Not sure what to think of Bobby Jon-- he was an ass last week and was made to look ok this week.

Thank you, bon bon. I feel like I'm on the right side of the law when I have your approval.

!!!! Hysterical.


Matt the Bruins fan - Mar 04, 2005 6:52:38 am PST #3918 of 10002
"I remember when they eventually introduced that drug kingpin who murdered people and smuggled drugs inside snakes and I was like 'Finally. A normal person.'” —RahvinDragand

Health~ma to Kat.

ita, Impressionist artists painters tended to have blurred background effects that mimicked the limited focus of photography, though I doubt that they specifically had that rationale for employing it. I've seen dates starting in 1860 for the style, which would have been after the invention of daguerrotype photography but before it became commonplace among the masses.


§ ita § - Mar 04, 2005 6:54:00 am PST #3919 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I think we're getting more Mark Vincent and less Dwayne Johnson. If you see what I'm saying.

I kind of agree. I think Mr. Vincent needs to push his "real guy" image to get away from the meathead issue. Dwayne, OTOH, is at the time where crafting another persona useful. He only has to be realer than The Rock to win. And that ain't hard.


§ ita § - Mar 04, 2005 6:54:47 am PST #3920 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

before it became commonplace among the masses

Do you think it would be something that the artists were exposed to, if not their audience?


bon bon - Mar 04, 2005 6:55:28 am PST #3921 of 10002
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.

Also, another benefit to Survivor: Miss Alli does the kickin' recaps, and she rules so hard. She is what all recappers should aspire to be.

The Rock & Vin Diesel: Two Stars, One Slot. I need to figure out why he kept his wrestling name-- he's probably still associated with the WWE.


Jesse - Mar 04, 2005 6:56:13 am PST #3922 of 10002
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

I think Mr. Vincent needs to push his "real guy" image to get away from the meathead issue. Dwayne, OTOH, is at the time where crafting another persona useful. He only has to be realer than The Rock to win. And that ain't hard.

Yeah, like that. Vin's being all Mr. Working Actor Guy.


Jesse - Mar 04, 2005 6:57:37 am PST #3923 of 10002
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

The Rock & Vin Diesel: Two Stars, One Slot.

Have you missed ALL of Vin Diesel's recent press?? The entire point is that this is NOT AT ALL TRUE!!1!!!eleven!


§ ita § - Mar 04, 2005 6:57:50 am PST #3924 of 10002
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I need to figure out why he kept his wrestling name-- he's probably still associated with the WWE.

Nope.

The Rock & Vin Diesel: Two Stars, One Slot.

Thank you, Ms. Fametracker. No, I think they can work it. If Bruce Willis, Arnie and Sly all had careers at the same time, with Van Damme picking up some cash and hos, they can work it.


Matt the Bruins fan - Mar 04, 2005 6:58:36 am PST #3925 of 10002
"I remember when they eventually introduced that drug kingpin who murdered people and smuggled drugs inside snakes and I was like 'Finally. A normal person.'” —RahvinDragand

Do you think it would be something that the artists were exposed to, if not their audience?

Probably so, but if I remember correctly almost all photography back then was used for posed portraits, because the film took so long to expose. Assuming those were generally taken indoors or against the facade of a building, there probably wouldn't have been that much depth apparent in the photos they'd have had exposure to. I don't recall seeing much photography with people in the context of the natural environment until Eakins, years later.

I think before the Impressionists' holistic approach, painters would have created limitless (or nearly so) depth of field because any particular part of the environment they looked at at a given time would have been in focus.