or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Don't wanna come across TOO cynical (Affleck and Lopez...), but...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Don't wanna come across TOO cynical (Affleck and Lopez...), but...

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
I just checked out the trailer for Daredevil at Apple's site and noticed that the opening date was 2/14/03...Valentine's Day.

Isn't that the weekend Ben Affleck and J Lo are supposed to get hitched?

Am I bad to think that people look months ahead, in the Hollywood circles, and think "maximum impact and exposure"?

I don't know...I'm asking.

I know, Valentine's Day is a natural, expected day for some to get married, so that's why I think I might be coming across a bit cynical and doubting.

On the OTHER hand...



Just seems like February 14 is going to be Ben Affleck National Recognition and Hype Day, doesn't it?

I'm sure that's not lost on anyone at the studio OR with Ben's and J Lo's "handlers", agents, PR reps, etc.

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Granted, there's a very strong chance the marriage will never even happen to begin with, so it might just be a movie opening weekend for Mr. Affleck.

Still, if everything goes off as planned, I have a sneaking feeling we're all going to OD on ol' Ben by mid-February (J Lo too).
post #2 of 29
Their "marriage" is nothing but hype.

I bet they will break up even before Valentine's Day
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #3 of 29
Ah, Leonis, THERE is the argument Pscates tried to make. I knew it was there somewhere.
post #4 of 29
Thread Starter 
Whether they make it to Valentine's Day is not what I was trying to convey. I'm quite able to write what I mean/think/feel without any hidden, labored efforts. Or veiled hints and references.

:confused:

Whether they do or don't ultimately get married wasn't the point...nor do I give two flying damns one way or the other.

I'm saying that since Affleck is going to be neck deep in Leno/E!/Access Hollywood/press junkets, etc. for Daredevil during this time, wouldn't a big splashy marriage at the same time help, or push things a bit. A two-sided, "double-headed attack" for the press and PR.

These days, with marketing and PR and celebrities being as calculating and shrewd as they are, I don't put it past anyone. Actually, I don't put anyone past anything at this point.

Which was kinda the point of this thread, I guess...

Basically, it's going to be impossible to get through February 2003 without choking on "Ben and J Lo" coverage, in one form or another.

Think I'll set my TV in the driveway for the month and bring it back inside in March.

post #5 of 29
[quote]I'm quite able to write what I mean/think/feel without any hidden, labored efforts. Or veiled hints and references. <hr></blockquote>

Not here, Pscates. You don't really make any strong claims in your first post. Rather you just seem to muddle through a set of circumstances with an air of skepticism.

[quote]Their "marriage" is nothing but hype. <hr></blockquote>

That is just a clearer version of what you said. Granted, one shouldn't take that statement literally, but it more or less conveys the fact that their marriage date is scheduled to coincide with the release date of Ben Affleck's "Daredevil" movie.

I was just winking at the original post because I understood your point about marriage hype vs. movie hype. That's why it's not a big deal.




[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #6 of 29
Thread Starter 
double post

[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
post #7 of 29
Thread Starter 
Okay, their marriage is hype. Happy?
post #8 of 29
ShawnPatrickJoyce,

You're an asshole.
post #9 of 29
No, I try to be respectful when I disagree with someone, really.
post #10 of 29
Anyway, I don't see too much wrong with scheduling things to coincide with each other for maximum benefit. i guess you can say it may cheapen the sanctity of marriage, but I don't really agree. They're just using the attention of their marriage to further enrich their lives.. (ha! literally).
post #11 of 29
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>No, I try to be respectful when I disagree with someone, really.</strong><hr></blockquote>

yet you always make sure to go out of the way for certain people, most notably pscates.

it's tiring and it truly makes you look like an asshole who has nothing better to than pick a fight whenever he posts something.
post #12 of 29
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

yet you always make sure to go out of the way for certain people, most notably pscates.

it's tiring and it truly makes you look like an asshole who has nothing better to than pick a fight whenever he posts something.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe it's tiring. You're right. I suppose I do argue with the more conservative members of this board as well. But there's nothing wrong with that, really. Pscates has his views that he expresses in his threads, I have mine. I don't get angry over it.
post #13 of 29
Thread Starter 
Yeah, but so much of this constant stuff has NOTHING to do with my "conservative" nature (or whatever you want to label it. You just like following me around and remarking on EVERYTHING I say. And you do it in a graceless, arrogant "little professor" tone that NO ONE else here does that is especially annoying and tiresome.

We've been through this all before. Why can't you just chill some?

Applenut is right in his assessment, the mean name notwithstanding. I recall groverat and murbot saying something along these lines as well a few weeks back.

It IS me, Shawn. Always.

You know damn well that if I said "the sky is blue", you'd come back and find some way to get on the other side of it and point out how it's truly not, and that I don't get it and so forth.



Whatever "leanings" I may have (or you may ASSUME I have...and you do A LOT of that lately) don't warrant or justify this CONSTANT thing you seem to do.

It really, really doesn't.

Very odd.

If "conservative views" are truly the reason, I can think of about 5 or 6 other members right off the bat who are WAY more to the right than I ever thought about being.

Somehow you've got me pegged as G. Gordon Liddy and Ann Coulter's bastard son. You couldn't be more wrong.
post #14 of 29
I know it's a pain, pscates, but at least while ShawnPatrickJoyce is stalking you here, he's not out stealing underwear and sniffing the saddles of exercise bikes.
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #15 of 29
No, Pscates. I believe in what I argue. I'm not out to "**** up" your fun here for "****ing up" fun's sake, but I will challenge commonly held false perceptions such as labeling J.Lo a skank.

You may be contempt with just emphatically stating what you believe and moving on, but I will call you and others on those views.

It's never been personal for me.
It's always been about issues.
Remember, you're the one who freaked out when I challenged your racist views about the Denny's situation.

It's issues, my friend. I'll try to make that clearer through more selective criticisms.. (yes lol, that does mean i'll chill)

Cool?
post #16 of 29
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>I know it's a pain, pscates, but at least while ShawnPatrickJoyce is stalking you here, he's not out stealing underwear and sniffing the saddles of exercise bikes. </strong><hr></blockquote>

If only my ex-girlfriend could say the same
post #17 of 29
wow.. someone's dick is WAY up their own ass.
post #18 of 29
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>
I suppose I do argue with the more conservative members of this board as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's true if you use the word "argue" very loosely.

Meaning that sometimes "argument" would be a generous way to describe the comments.

[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
post #19 of 29
applenut: I suppose. :confused:
finboy: You're baiting me.

Perhaps the two responses are interchangeable.

[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #20 of 29
Mebbe I'm just wrong, but the categorization of "J-Lo" qualifies as an issue? Um-K.

PS, Belle, sniffing bicycle seats? HAHAHA, thanks for the mental picture, keep 'em coming.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #21 of 29
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=002246" target="_blank">Yes</a>. But thank you for being the first person to actually question the validity of my arguments rather than the frequency of them. Anyway, this is from MiMac in Pscates' thread; "Member most likely to debate intelligently - ShawnPatrickJoyce." I will continue to do so, but more selectively as Pscates requested. There's really nothing further to discuss.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #22 of 29
Sure it's fun to distract one's self with celebrity foibles, but why is it important to you to, in a sense, defend Lopez's honor?
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #23 of 29
It's not so much defending Jennifer Lopez as it is defending what she represents. For instance:

1. The clothing issue (as explained by roo)
2. The messages in lyrics vs. other popular contemporary pop artists (as explained by me)

Those two issues covered a lot of ground. You could see there that Pscates posts were a bit reactionary, accusatory, and emotional when he really had substantial things in which to respond. In this thread we have an emotional overreaction to a wink smiley post- something not very substantial in which to respond. I would like to claim now that if anything, it's Pscates' reactions to my posts that are the problem. I suspect a cool and collected person would handle those two latter situations appropriately. I will do my part in more selectively responding to Pscates' posts. Will he do his?

[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #24 of 29
Adding a smily face at the end of your posts doesn't save you from looking like a tool, SPJ.

"But I put a smiley at the end of my posts, and I um, use big words and stuff!" <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

Your first post had no point other than to stir things up.

[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
post #25 of 29
Not really. There wasn't much to it to stir anything up. Plus, a smiley indicates a happy, joking kind of post. Really nothing substantial and look at the reaction.

BUT i think murbot your post has more to do with throwing stones than it does with actually resolving any conflict. You're adding to the conflict here. What's YOUR argument in the context of my reply to which you refer?

[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]

[ 11-24-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
post #26 of 29
[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
[QB]Not really. There wasn't much to it to stir anything up. Plus, a smiley indicates a happy, joking kind of post. Really nothing substantial and look at the reaction.<hr></blockquote>

Normally yes, but when it's you following Paul around, it's a different story. I don't know what the obsession is... is this like little boys pulling ponytails? Tell him you have a crush on him and get it over with. Even if he doesn't have the same feelings for you, at least you'll know.

post #27 of 29
I get your point. I'll chill. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #28 of 29
Following around? haha, funny note on the spatial rhetoric that creeps into e-communities. Just made me think of something half way productive, so now I've got to do some work I guess? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #29 of 29
Ok...time for a former comic book fanboy to debunk all this...

In the Daredevil storyline the female character Elektra and Daredevil had a love affair...which in the comic book ended when she was killed...of course though she came back from the dead...

I don't know how played up this is in the movie we'll have to see...because Daredevil's alter ego Matt Murdoch had a relationship for a long time with a regular girl...until she was killed off by Bullseye...

Yeah, I guess he has a problem with relationships... You would too if you were a blind lawyer/superhero... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Don't wanna come across TOO cynical (Affleck and Lopez...), but...