or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Crowley

For the last time can you put a name of one single example down in writing so I know what you're talking about. It's a simple request. Calm down, stop swearing and give an example.Of course every life event doesn't need to be captured, but this is an important one for both Dre and NWA. Crying racism is ridiculous in a discussion of the completeness of a biopic.
 No, I don't think they needed to be centre stage, but an acknowledgement would be in order; it was important in the 80s, and it's important now.  Ignoring major events that had obvious reflections in the music, for what is a music biopic, is an omission. I don't believe anything else that you'd bet I believe. Please, just tell me what biopics you're referencing that do not make mention of non-music-related personal artefacts.  And calm the **** down.
Should have been set in Myriad.
Calm down dude.   Just wondering what biopics you had in mind.   In this case I think it's a major slip, Dre's issues with women are well known and noted, and NWAs lyrics have been controversial for their treatment of women since their heyday.
"Domestic issues" of violence towards women that resulted in legal action would seem to fall within the remit of "significant personal aspect".  Especially when so much of the lyrical content of NWA songs was gender inflected. I guess it's all relative and contextual, but I'd put that as a significant omission in a biopic.  You seemed to be saying otherwise, and I'm not quite sure of your reasoning, so I was wondering what band biopics you were referencing.
  I can't think of many biopics about a band/group where the focus of the film is the formation of the band without a significant personal aspect, they always detour into personal issues, usually of the lead singer or creative force.  The ones that spring to mind to me are Control or The Runaways from a few years back, or The Doors from further back. Do you have anything in mind?
Edit: deleted, since the point had already been made (but hasn't loaded in my browser)
I have a hard time believing that. Insider traders can hawk their information but there's no impropriety until someone uses it? Any release of information to anyone is ok until some scallywag uses it for personal gain?If that's truly the case then that's stupid. I doubt it's the case.
I don't think whether he did or didn't act on it is the point. Did Tim Cook have a reasonable expectation that Cramer wouldn't act on it, and was it an appropriate thing to do in the circumstance. If no, then SEC.
Since when? Apple give lots of interviews and scoops to individual media outlets. Phil Schiller getting on stage with John Gruber for example.
New Posts  All Forums: