<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Episode 27: Pwnerthinking It</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/</link>
	<description>Overthinking It subjects the popular culture to a level of scrutiny it probably doesn&#039;t deserve.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:53:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Gab</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/#comment-4465</link>
		<dc:creator>Gab</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:02:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=4056#comment-4465</guid>
		<description>Oh, I disagree a bit, Fenzel, in that Bush&#039;s policy has been QUITE favorable to emerging and foreign economies- but through the backdoor.  Our relationships with the OPEC countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Dubai, for example.  I don&#039;t know the exact number, but I know the U.S. owes something grotesquely large to China.  And we&#039;ve been practicing extraordinary rendition with the cooperation of the Egyptian government since the program first started (admittedly under Clinton, but it certainly hasn&#039;t been STOPPED by the Bush Administration).  The twist is how it doesn&#039;t get talked about much because the Republicans want it that way (as in for the business to continue and to be kept secret) and the Democrats are a bunch of pansies.  Openly, yes, American exceptionalism is the mantra, but under that is a layer of inclusion involving shady bedfellows and allies.  

Would the recent hotel bombings have any impact on the votes?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, I disagree a bit, Fenzel, in that Bush&#8217;s policy has been QUITE favorable to emerging and foreign economies- but through the backdoor.  Our relationships with the OPEC countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Dubai, for example.  I don&#8217;t know the exact number, but I know the U.S. owes something grotesquely large to China.  And we&#8217;ve been practicing extraordinary rendition with the cooperation of the Egyptian government since the program first started (admittedly under Clinton, but it certainly hasn&#8217;t been STOPPED by the Bush Administration).  The twist is how it doesn&#8217;t get talked about much because the Republicans want it that way (as in for the business to continue and to be kept secret) and the Democrats are a bunch of pansies.  Openly, yes, American exceptionalism is the mantra, but under that is a layer of inclusion involving shady bedfellows and allies.  </p>
<p>Would the recent hotel bombings have any impact on the votes?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fenzel</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/#comment-4451</link>
		<dc:creator>fenzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=4056#comment-4451</guid>
		<description>I have not seen _Slumdog Millionaire_, but giving prestigious awards to movies from emerging economies is antagonistic to Bush because so much of Bush&#039;s cultural cache comes from American exceptionalism, and Bush&#039;s legacy and core support is pretty hostile to the idea of deferring to foreigners on most things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have not seen _Slumdog Millionaire_, but giving prestigious awards to movies from emerging economies is antagonistic to Bush because so much of Bush&#8217;s cultural cache comes from American exceptionalism, and Bush&#8217;s legacy and core support is pretty hostile to the idea of deferring to foreigners on most things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gab</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/#comment-4414</link>
		<dc:creator>Gab</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:42:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=4056#comment-4414</guid>
		<description>Fenzel: Penn getting it for _Milk_ would also be a slap in the face to the people in California, Arizona, and Florida that voted for their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman, too.  Is it just a coincidence the movie came out this year, or is that irony?

_Slumdog Millionaire_ I suppose had Dev Patel, but again, the SAG gave him a best SUPPORTING nomination, and I don&#039;t really know the &quot;criteria&quot; for the Academy and how it differentiates between a lead and a supporting role versus how the SAG does.  I mean, Judi Dench WON Best Supporting Actress for _Shakespeare in Love_, and she was onscreen for what, only eight minutes total?  Is eight minutes REALLY worth a whole nomination (especially when it was for the kind of role she&#039;s often cast as, a caricature of herself almost)?  Dev was onscreen for more than eight minutes, yes, but most of the movie is flashbacks, so if you&#039;re going by screentime and hours of work put in, he probably had less to do than the two kids playing his younger self.

But how is _Slumdog Millionaire_ antagonistic to Bush?  I can see why, but I&#039;m curious why YOU think- political commentary is not the first, second, or even third kind of commentary popping into my head when I think of the movie.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fenzel: Penn getting it for _Milk_ would also be a slap in the face to the people in California, Arizona, and Florida that voted for their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman, too.  Is it just a coincidence the movie came out this year, or is that irony?</p>
<p>_Slumdog Millionaire_ I suppose had Dev Patel, but again, the SAG gave him a best SUPPORTING nomination, and I don&#8217;t really know the &#8220;criteria&#8221; for the Academy and how it differentiates between a lead and a supporting role versus how the SAG does.  I mean, Judi Dench WON Best Supporting Actress for _Shakespeare in Love_, and she was onscreen for what, only eight minutes total?  Is eight minutes REALLY worth a whole nomination (especially when it was for the kind of role she&#8217;s often cast as, a caricature of herself almost)?  Dev was onscreen for more than eight minutes, yes, but most of the movie is flashbacks, so if you&#8217;re going by screentime and hours of work put in, he probably had less to do than the two kids playing his younger self.</p>
<p>But how is _Slumdog Millionaire_ antagonistic to Bush?  I can see why, but I&#8217;m curious why YOU think- political commentary is not the first, second, or even third kind of commentary popping into my head when I think of the movie.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fenzel</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/#comment-4403</link>
		<dc:creator>fenzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:13:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=4056#comment-4403</guid>
		<description>Also, I&#039;m calling it right now -- Phillip Seymour Hoffman is the new Tommy Lee Jones. If ever there&#039;s a year where you can&#039;t fill out five solid best supporting actor nominations, PSH gets the nomination for something he did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, I&#8217;m calling it right now &#8212; Phillip Seymour Hoffman is the new Tommy Lee Jones. If ever there&#8217;s a year where you can&#8217;t fill out five solid best supporting actor nominations, PSH gets the nomination for something he did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fenzel</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/#comment-4402</link>
		<dc:creator>fenzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:10:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=4056#comment-4402</guid>
		<description>Oh, sorry, I haven&#039;t seen Frost/Nixon, but that&#039;s obviously also politics. From what I hear about it, that might be the dark horse. If I were a betting man, I&#039;d put some money on Frost/Nixon in various Oscar categories, if largely because you&#039;d probably get good odds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, sorry, I haven&#8217;t seen Frost/Nixon, but that&#8217;s obviously also politics. From what I hear about it, that might be the dark horse. If I were a betting man, I&#8217;d put some money on Frost/Nixon in various Oscar categories, if largely because you&#8217;d probably get good odds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fenzel</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/#comment-4401</link>
		<dc:creator>fenzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=4056#comment-4401</guid>
		<description>I think Mickey Rourke is a good chance best actor at this point - if only because his acting performance specifically has drawn such huge critical acclaim - even people who haven&#039;t really judged it as a great acting performance will have internalized some of the hype to vote for him.

And I loved _The Wrestler_, so I wouldn&#039;t mind that,

but Sean Penn has a better chance, I think, if only because the part he played is so closely politically aligned with most of Hollywood, and Hollywood has been really really politically minded for a few years now - like, to a kind of bonkers degree. 

I mean, if Rourke wins, it&#039;ll be mostly about acting but somewhat about hype. If RDJ wins, it&#039;ll be mostly about acting but somewhat about good business. But if Sean Penn wins or the Slumdog Millionaire guy wins (is there a Slumdog Millionaire guy worth nominating?), it&#039;s mostly about acting, but somewhat because of politics - Hollywood trying to reinforce to the world that it is antagonistic to President and the cultural presumptions he represents.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Mickey Rourke is a good chance best actor at this point &#8211; if only because his acting performance specifically has drawn such huge critical acclaim &#8211; even people who haven&#8217;t really judged it as a great acting performance will have internalized some of the hype to vote for him.</p>
<p>And I loved _The Wrestler_, so I wouldn&#8217;t mind that,</p>
<p>but Sean Penn has a better chance, I think, if only because the part he played is so closely politically aligned with most of Hollywood, and Hollywood has been really really politically minded for a few years now &#8211; like, to a kind of bonkers degree. </p>
<p>I mean, if Rourke wins, it&#8217;ll be mostly about acting but somewhat about hype. If RDJ wins, it&#8217;ll be mostly about acting but somewhat about good business. But if Sean Penn wins or the Slumdog Millionaire guy wins (is there a Slumdog Millionaire guy worth nominating?), it&#8217;s mostly about acting, but somewhat because of politics &#8211; Hollywood trying to reinforce to the world that it is antagonistic to President and the cultural presumptions he represents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gab</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/#comment-4400</link>
		<dc:creator>Gab</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:55:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=4056#comment-4400</guid>
		<description>Fenzel: Who else would RDJ be competing with for Best Actor, then?  Langella, Pitt, and Penn?  Oh, and Rourke?  If what you say is accurate, which I don&#039;t doubt it is, I&#039;m sorry to say he probably won&#039;t win anything this year- but then he&#039;ll get some token win next year for something that isn&#039;t as good.  (Re: Russel Crowe and _The Insider_ v. _Gladiator_) And really, given the genre of his own performance, as well as the strength I&#039;m hearing about with the performances I haven&#039;t personally seen, yet (all of the men I mentioned except Langella&#039;s, which I DID see) (and his was AMAZING), I don&#039;t think the Academy would nominate RDJ for _Iron Man_.  Politics, politics, politics.  

Here&#039;s my two cents: I don&#039;t think Heath, if he gets nominated, has any chance at losing.   Between his loss for _Brokeback Mountain_ and his death, I find it hard to believe he wouldn&#039;t be given the Oscar.   I think Phillip Seymore-Hoffman could get nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role in _Doubt_; and since he&#039;s already won a Best Actor award, the Academy wouldn&#039;t feel too terrible about snuffing him there in favor of Heath, even though _Doubt_ is definitely in a genre they&#039;re more comfortable with giving awards too.  Michael Sheen MAY get a nod in the category, too, for his role in _Frost/Nixon_- or at least I hope so, since I think that was just an amazing ensemble and it deserves lots of props.  Dev Patel from _Slumdog Millionaire_ got the SAG nomination, but I honestly don&#039;t think he deserves it- I&#039;d rather see John Malkovich for _Changeling_ get nominated.

But, overall, again, I don&#039;t think anyone else has a chance against Heath in that category.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fenzel: Who else would RDJ be competing with for Best Actor, then?  Langella, Pitt, and Penn?  Oh, and Rourke?  If what you say is accurate, which I don&#8217;t doubt it is, I&#8217;m sorry to say he probably won&#8217;t win anything this year- but then he&#8217;ll get some token win next year for something that isn&#8217;t as good.  (Re: Russel Crowe and _The Insider_ v. _Gladiator_) And really, given the genre of his own performance, as well as the strength I&#8217;m hearing about with the performances I haven&#8217;t personally seen, yet (all of the men I mentioned except Langella&#8217;s, which I DID see) (and his was AMAZING), I don&#8217;t think the Academy would nominate RDJ for _Iron Man_.  Politics, politics, politics.  </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s my two cents: I don&#8217;t think Heath, if he gets nominated, has any chance at losing.   Between his loss for _Brokeback Mountain_ and his death, I find it hard to believe he wouldn&#8217;t be given the Oscar.   I think Phillip Seymore-Hoffman could get nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role in _Doubt_; and since he&#8217;s already won a Best Actor award, the Academy wouldn&#8217;t feel too terrible about snuffing him there in favor of Heath, even though _Doubt_ is definitely in a genre they&#8217;re more comfortable with giving awards too.  Michael Sheen MAY get a nod in the category, too, for his role in _Frost/Nixon_- or at least I hope so, since I think that was just an amazing ensemble and it deserves lots of props.  Dev Patel from _Slumdog Millionaire_ got the SAG nomination, but I honestly don&#8217;t think he deserves it- I&#8217;d rather see John Malkovich for _Changeling_ get nominated.</p>
<p>But, overall, again, I don&#8217;t think anyone else has a chance against Heath in that category.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fenzel</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/#comment-4388</link>
		<dc:creator>fenzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:11:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=4056#comment-4388</guid>
		<description>Actually though, he won it for _Shane_.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually though, he won it for _Shane_.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fenzel</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/#comment-4387</link>
		<dc:creator>fenzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:09:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=4056#comment-4387</guid>
		<description>Cyborg 2</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cyborg 2</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Belinkie</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/01/05/episode-27-pwnerthinking-it/#comment-4386</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Belinkie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:02:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=4056#comment-4386</guid>
		<description>What did Jack Palance REALLY win for?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What did Jack Palance REALLY win for?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 1/5 queries in 0.005 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 555/559 objects using memcached

Served from: www.overthinkingit.com @ 2012-02-14 01:40:07 -->
