Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer CafeSociety CafeSociety CafeSociety  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports STEM
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Jodie Foster!!!

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 143 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jan 25, 2013 7:26:55 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 25, 2013 7:27:39 AM PST
SPSP: You really are a case study in obsession, aren't you?

Let me, for the benefit of your slowing moving synapses, repeat the main elements of the argument here:

1. Any critique of Ms. Foster's work should be that. Ms. Leigh has nothing whatsoever to do with Ms. Foster's work. You are obsessed with Ms. Leigh. How nice for you. But any praises accorded to Ms. Foster are not denigrations of Ms. Leigh.
2. To state that Ms. Foster's reputation is attributable to some mysterious Hollywood cabal of ten or twelve people is pure lunacy.
3. I am certainly not some mindless acolyte in a Cult of Jodie, as should be apparent to anyone who can read. Neither do I have any animus towards Ms. Leigh. Did I at any point call Ms. Foster "grand"? I think the highest praise I may have accorded was "ferocious intelligence."
4. Quite over and above that--your critical judgment in a larger sense is highly suspect, viz: your reaction to Fargo.

But I must thank you for one thing. It's not often that you get to observe a full-on, raving specimen of a completely obsessive fan--nicely demonstrating the derivation of "fan" from "fanatic".

Back to your shrine. And write another letter to JJL. I might make you feel better.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 24, 2013 5:53:36 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 24, 2013 6:00:45 PM PST
And on and on you go. You are loving this aren't you. I can see you boxed into some little glass cube hooked up to the screen tinkering joyfully every time someone responds to your nonsense. Telling other people they're wrong here too about other things. Is anybody right about anything they say, or are you the first and last word on everything? Manners clearly not passed out at your birth then, which we already knew. Pitiful how you can't stand the thought of anyone liking something you don't or disliking something you think they shouldn't and acting like it's against nature.

You really need help-and off this forum might be a start, not least cos you seem to be betraying symptoms of a split personality; pretending to now not even like Foster, when you spent so long chewing me out for finding her nowhere near as breathtakingly grand as you do/did. Whatever?Do you even know what you say and why you say it and then why you go back on it again?

You're way more obsessed with this imaginary shine to Jennifer J Leigh than I am. You are a strange little fellow and I do worry what you are like the few times you're able to temporarily unhook from the Jodie Foster network connected to your every orifice. As for bad grammar, I think you'll find it's a necessary failing when one can't truly be bothered wasting more words on an idiot than one has to. And I don't see how that's any worse than your complete and utterly contradictory and entirely wearisome presence here. But then, that's your whole non-point, isn't it, being right at the expense of anyone else.

Posted on Jan 24, 2013 9:17:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 24, 2013 9:19:12 AM PST
DL: As usual, you are wrong. And don't have the effrontery to try and tell me what argument I should be using.

The healthcare debate isn't insoluble; there are numerous solutions, depending on what assumptions you make.

It makes as little sense to do a transplant on someone with a poor prognosis--and make no mistake, that is part of the current system--as it does for a couple to resort to five or six rounds of fertility treatments. Beside which--you fail to see that not being able to have a child is not a life-threatening condition. Comparing that to transplants is a complete non-starter.

Your emergency room argument is pure sentimentality. Cost will always be weighed against the probability of a favorable outcome.

And what's your alternative to logic? Feeling? Emotions?


Posted on Jan 24, 2013 8:38:04 AM PST
D. Larson says:
See, here's the argument you should be using: Infertility is a signifier of genetic weakness; thus, enabling infertile people to reproduce technologically is decreasing the viability of our gne pool going forward. Passing on the genes of people who would "naturally" be selected out of future populations short-circuits evolution's process of eliminating the less adapted.

And, you can see why the health care debate is insoluble. Assuming there is a limit to resources we can spend on health care, it makes no logical sense to provide enormously expensive procedures on those who cannot be helped. But nobody brings their kid to the emergency room with the system's budget in mind. If a person can't afford a BMW, he can and will settle for a used Buick. But nobody with a sick kid ever says, "Well, do as much as you can for four hundred bucks."

We want the best, everything that can be done and any possible experimental treatments. Health care is logically constrained by economics, but we don't make these decisions resorting to mere logic.

Posted on Jan 24, 2013 6:54:28 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 24, 2013 6:55:19 AM PST
SPSP: Your splenetic temperament leads you into the thickets of bad grammar.

"my reaction to 'Fargo' is one of individualism and taste-it isn't good, it's boring and ineffective."

"One of individualism"? And I might add that you seem to be asserting that your taste--that the film is boring and ineffective--is the only possible taste. Reasonable people differ on this.

But you are far from reasonable.

A reasonable person would, for instance, note that there is not a trace of idolatry in what I have said about Ms. Foster. Quite the contrary--in case you were too exercised to notice, I said that I didn't particularly like many of her films--but I admire her. Scarcely a lap dog.

And you really are obsessed with this notion of a pro-Foster Hollywood cabal of ten or twelve people. Please. Do you realize how utterly silly that is?

But do go on. You illustrate the points I have made far more effectively that I could at considerably greater length.

How's that JJL shrine coming along? Here's a link to a photo gallery. You can put your computer in the shrine, dial up the site, and enjoy--in whatever way you you like.

What you might do doesn't bear extended contemplation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 4:34:35 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013 4:40:13 PM PST
William A.S my reaction to 'Fargo' is one of individualism and taste-it isn't good, it's boring and ineffective. I still crack up at that daft cow tangling herself in the shower curtain and falling backwards down the stairs. For God's sake there's been teen horrors that have opened with more crackle and shock. I have plenty of black comedies at home, and this isn't one, so you seem to be entanging film genres-your problem, not mine. Of the more serious non 'Very Bad Things' approach to black comedy, 'Shallow Grave' is a perfect example, and probably 'Kill Bill' (though less perfect, obviously, and maybe 'Blood Simple' which predates 'Fargo'.

The whole point of Hollywood elitism is that excludes the great majority not deemed to be good/famous/worthy enough to open movies and/or get respect for furrowing their own path but doing it so we're all aware of it every time they do or get something and we know every time Foster makes a movie so she falls into this category, just in a better way than the usual ten or twelve people that Hollywood keep bashing us over the head with as she is rather better than them. If you don't know this, what do you know?

"I need not go on" you splutter-yet on and on you DO go! Clearly you love it, the sound of your righteousness, even if I'm at least spared your voice. Don't give me guff about reviews, discussion history or whatever, as you would pay scant attention anyway. Criticise, fault, insult, moan, contradict to the point of exhaustion, it's all you want to do, Jodie's lap dog.

In short, you're pretty mad yourself, and you love that 'fanatic' word-another word, of course, you use without understanding the definition at all, but then again, when did an insulting and nosy twit like you need dictionary terms to utilise a word you like the look of. You really need to get off this thread and get yourself a life cos Jodie Foster just does NOT care about you, and I'm wondering why anyone would.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 1:49:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013 1:50:36 PM PST
DL: Faulty logic again: you are arguing from two individual, extreme cases, to a generality. Note, too, that I did not advance an absolute argument against in vitro by any means.

It is by no means generally the case that a transplant keeps someone alive only for a short time; nor is it the case that a new birth will have a long and productive life.

All I can say is that I would not want you making any decisions concerning my health care. Or, for the matter, any aspect of my life.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 1:43:41 PM PST
D. Larson says:
Quite the contrary; my logic should be obvious. It's downright Spock-worthy!

A dear friend of mine died last year with renal cell carcinoma. During that last year of her life, Blue Cross/Blue Shield spent well over a million dollars on surgery, therapy, experimental (and dangerous) advanced chemotherapy and radiation. That million dollars bought perhaps a week or two of extended life. Those weeks were spent nearly comatose, and then comatose. The last week of CCU added on several hundred thousand more, with ventilator and dialysis keeping her "alive" for a few more days.

None of it changed the prognosis or the outcome, which was sadly predictable the day she was diagnosed. But, the machineries of our health care system still extracted a million dollars from the treasuries and invested it on futile efforts.

Compared to that, the few thousands my niece and her husband spent on Clomid and egg harvesting (which was out of pocket money, by the way, not covered by Blue Cross) that created a living human being seems like the bargain of the century. Which seems like the more logical investment, from a moral, societal or economic point of view? Keep a dying person alive for a few more days or weeks? Or bring a whole new person into being? A person with a long and productive life ahead of her, at that.

We are all terminal cases, after all. You can earn and spend money on luxury cars (the cost of in vitro is about what you'd pay for a mid-range Lexus) or you can pass your genes on into the future, which is, after all, the whole point of being a living organism. We die; our genes live on. It might not be pretty, but it's worked for the last couple billion years, and will keep on working long after we're dust.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 12:46:23 PM PST
DL: Same logical error--confusing the life-threatening with the not life-threatening. Your logic is defective.

If one wants to make the argument--spending marginal dollars on transplants and extending life makes a heck of a lot more sense than the obsessive pursuit of pregnancy.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 12:43:19 PM PST
H: in re: your paragraph one: of course I understand that. You will pardon me for being perhaps a little less sanguine about human nature than some, and perhaps a bit more tired of hearing about the obsessive pursuit of pregnancy. And as I hope I made clear, I certainly made no imputations about your sister and her husband.

I'll stick with cats, and enjoy having a charming goddaughter.

Posted on Jan 23, 2013 12:09:55 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013 12:41:36 PM PST
Every time i see the word Foster it just makes me want a Foster FreeZe ice cream cone!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 12:08:09 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013 12:09:45 PM PST
Hikari says:
>>>having a child is about a great deal more than the experience of having a child. Heck, having a pet is about more than the experience of having a pet.

My sis and b-i-l are well aware of this, and not just on some quixotic quest to have a "parenthood experience". But you may be able to understand that for the majority of married couples who are able, having their own children together is the ideal scenario. Which is not to say that children brought into a family by other means aren't just as legitimately children of that family. Being pregnant and giving birth may be overrated actually, but never having done either, I can't say firsthand.

My b-i-l was a teenage father the first time around, and so he very early had marriage and family life and responsibilies to support a family at an age when most guys his age were in their first year of college, making plans for the weekend kegger. By the time he met and married my sister, he was already the father of two teenagers, and he was still in his 30s. He's done the walking the floor during midnight feedings/potty training, etc., twice. I think he would be perfectly content to have no more children, but he has always known that my sister wanted to be a mom. All of this, the surgery, the foster care classes, the heartache with the courts . . he has done for her, though I think having small children in the house again has shown him that not only is he good at being a dad, he'd likely be even better a second time around, with the benefit of maturity. For his boys' entire childhoods, he worked swing shift in a factory; now he works from home & has complete freedom in his work schedule to be more involved in day-to-day family life.

Now they are just waiting for the adoptive child that will be theirs to keep. They've refitted their house to accomodate up to four children in a family group. When it rains, it might pour, but they've got their umbrella ready. As ready as they can be. There is no guarantee that they would have ever been able to have a natural child, but it will always be a 'what if.'

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 11:02:19 AM PST
D. Larson says:
OK, how about heart transplants, then? Clearly, if you have sever cardiomyopathy, nature is telling you that you need to be dead.

But, we can take extreme measures. Is the enormous expense, bourne by all Blue Cross payers, worth the three or four extra years of life your average transplantee will garner?

That depends on who you ask, the insurance company or the man with the new heart. I personally know one heart recipient, one liver recipient, and two people with borrowed kidneys. And, it says on my driver's license that I'm an organ donor.

Now, is it economic or moral to use much less extreme and much less expensive measures to bring a child to a couple with difficulties conceiving?

I'd say so. My niece and her husband would certainly say so; their little girl was a petric dish baby, and she's six years old now, and as bright and happy and loved as any begat in the "usual" way. Plus, she'll be a contributing member of society for the next seventy years or so. While the heart transplant guy will, if he's lucky, have eight or ten years, and most of that as a patient, on a regimen of expensive anti-rejection drugs. Economics-wise, I'd say that the in-vitro is miles ahead.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 10:18:39 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013 10:19:52 AM PST
H: To the second post--do not assume that I reflexively oppose in vitro. I merely note that there are issues there that can make one uncomfortable. It does sound like one try would not be an invalid option in this case--nor would adoption.

This may sound somewhat callous, and I do apologize for that in advance, and I recognize--of course--that these are deeply personal issues. But having a child is about a great deal more than the experience of having a child. Heck, having a pet is about more than the experience of having a pet. I get very queasy about motivations where I hear about people who become obsessed with having children--either naturally, or by mass adoption (are you listening, Angie?). Put it down to the dean going harumph, harumph, and to a deep distrust of relying on so-called emotional rationales for important decisions. And of course--this may not be the situation with your sister at all.

There is also the issue of age. Having children when one is over the age of 40 has always struck me as not being the very best idea, in general.

Posted on Jan 23, 2013 9:37:43 AM PST
H: I can certainly agree with all of those sentiments.

When you hear stories like that about the adoption system--and they appear to be all too common--you realize that there are some deep dysfunctions in our system of family law. There certainly are lingering notions that children are chattel to the biological parents.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 9:35:25 AM PST
Hikari says:
>>>There is, of course, a different argument. In economics, there is a concept called sunk cost. If I build a manufacturing plant, let us say, and it turns out that it doesn't perform up to par, obviously I will want to fix it. But the cost of building it is already spent, and is irrelevant to any future decisions. If i can't find a way to fix it that has a positive return--then I should just write it off.

Human fertility does have economic consequences, not to mention the physical and emotional ones, so that's one way of looking at it. Couples that have endured several rounds of very expensive-and-not-covered-by-insurance fertility treatments need to accept that it is not in their cards to conceive their own children & need to look for alternative ways to become parents. But this does not describe my family couple. One partner has had a procedure, but my sister has not tried in-vitro. I was making the case that, since it's a bit late to raise objections about 'unnatural intervention', they could at least try this one last possibility. If that also fails, then God and nature have spoken, and adoption will have to be their route. Surrogacy would be out of the question, and I'd have to concur there. Way too much potential emotional and legal mess.

>>>It is unclear if your brother in law has attempted two reversals or one. Particularly if he has tried twice, it would seem to be to be unnecessary risk to attempt a third. Nature in this case is saying adopt.

I was unaware that any reputable surgeon would attempt more than one reversal; my b-i-l had one vasectomy over 20 years ago during his first marriage, and one attempt to reverse it in his current marriage. They have decided that all medical intervention to conceive stops there; since that did not work, they regard in vitro as 'too much meddling' with nature. Or, I should say, this is my b-i-l's view which is now my sister's, because since they've gotten married, she seems to have abdicated any divergent opinions from his. Of course, a couple should be in agreement about such an important issue . . my (unsolicited and uninvolved) opinion is that, having come this far, since both of them are healthy & there is no biological impediment to their conceiving, apart from the medical meddling that has already occurred . . .it'd be worth one try, just so they can say they've duly explored that option, turned over that rock.

It's a private matter between them. My sis would make an awesome mom, though, so one way or another, I hope she can become one.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 9:21:39 AM PST
Hikari says:
Apologies to everyone if that was TMI, but it was germane to the topic.

Well, any surgical procedure can be life-threatening. My dad had a client who actually died during a vasectomy, believe it or not. The reattachment procedure is much more invasive and lengthy--it is major surgery with the patient under general anesthesia. In my b-i-l's case, the procedure took longer than normal, probably due to scar tissue buildup, and he was under for a really long time. It took 6 hours or something like that, and he took a long time to come out of it.

Given that he wasn't so young and that the initial procedure had taken place more than 20 years before (his youngest child is now in college), I think he should have been advised against doing it. Reversals are possible, but for a variety of reasons--his age and the length of time that had gone by--he was not a good candidate. It can certainly be said that his first doctor did top-notch work, though. I think my sister (and perhaps he) had just assumed that reversal would be easy and automatic. Not so.

Now they are navigating the foster to adopt system . . .in vitro would be a piece of cake. We've already experienced the dread of a protracted case--for 9 months, they cared for a brother and sister, 2 years and 1 year . . who had been removed from their parents for severe neglect. They were encouraged in the belief that these children's release for adoption was just a formality. Long story short--these children are now back with their neglectful, crackhead parents. 'Family reunification' at all costs, don't you know--regardless of what kind of family the children are going back to.

It's been a heartbreaking exercise for my sister, and she's no doubt in for more. The upshot is, do not get sterilized unless you are REALLY sure that there is NO chance you'll ever have cause to change your mind in your lifetime. This makes getting a tattoo seem like fingerpainting. In the same vein, do not *expect* that you will get to have biological children with someone who has been sterilized without some kind of superhuman intervention, because otherwise it's just self-delusional.

Posted on Jan 23, 2013 8:30:19 AM PST
H: There is, of course, a different argument. In economics, there is a concept called sunk cost. If I build a manufacturing plant, let us say, and it turns out that it doesn't perform up to par, obviously I will want to fix it. But the cost of building it is already spent, and is irrelevant to any future decisions. If i can't find a way to fix it that has a positive return--then I should just write it off.

It is unclear if your brother in law has attempted two reversals or one. Particularly if he has tried twice, it would seem to be to be unnecessary risk to attempt a third. Nature in this case is saying adopt.

Posted on Jan 23, 2013 8:26:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013 8:26:52 AM PST
Cavaradossi says:

I've never heard that vasectomy reversals could be life threatening. That's an alarming statement and I wonder what you meant be it.

I think it's a shame that adoption takes such a long time. I understand an agency's need to be sure about the would-be parents, but meanwhile the children are waiting. Of course, infants can't know, but I'm sure they would benefit much more by being in the arms of loving adoptive parents than in the care of, what, orphanages? Where are babies housed and cared for until the adoption process is completed.

For older children, even toddlers, who are likely to know they are being considered, the suspense during a protracted case must be dreadful.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 8:02:53 AM PST
Hikari says:
>>>It's more akin to, say, trying to be a NBA star if you are 5' 0".

D@mn biology! Who knows what I mighta done without being a stumpy 5'5"-on-a-good-day!

I hate basketball, but there are several Olympic sports I would have loved to excel at--supposing I had any athletic ability. Genetics can totally tank one's ambitions, can't they?
My sister married a man who'd had a vasectomy during his first marriage. That was a lot of years ago. 2 or 3 years ago, he underwent a reversal procedure because my sister really would like to have kids. Unfortunately they both underestimated the total effectiveness of 'permanent sterilization'--the 'undo' didn't take, you see. They (primarily he, I wager) has vetoed in-vitro as 'an extraordinary fertility measure', and are now hoping to adopt--a process that moves only slightly faster than a Neolithic era.

In my opinion, by undergoing TWO surgical procedures, the second extremely lengthy and life-threatening, to try to undo what the first surgery did, my b-i-l has already undertaken extreme fertility measures--Twice. What's one more go? Not my call, but having come this far, I think they may as well go all in.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 7:33:23 AM PST
DL: Your reasoning, alas, is faulty. Having children is not a necessary function of life--hence the analogy with a life-threatening disease does not hold.

It's more akin to, say, trying to be a NBA star if you are 5' 0".

If you wish to disagree about both the economic and moral implications about extreme fertility measures, that's fine with me, and I mean that without any irony. One can make a pro and con case, and ultimately it comes down to a set of values.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013 7:24:53 AM PST
stevign says:
re: "Stop shaving our legs sbecause nature is saying that our legs are supposed to be furry?"

Ok that's it, NOW you've gone to far!!

Posted on Jan 23, 2013 7:11:08 AM PST
D. Larson says:
"if a couple can't get pregnant without extraordinary measures, maybe Nature is telling them something."

By that reasoning then, should someone with pneumonia refuse penicllin because "nature is telling them something"? Abjure the chemo because nature is telling you that your bone marrow is shot? Stop shaving our legs sbecause nature is saying that our legs are supposed to be furry?

Actually, that last one sounds pretty good.

Posted on Jan 21, 2013 7:03:20 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 21, 2013 7:04:20 PM PST
SPSP: In re: Fargo: Your reaction amply demonstrates that you have no sense of humor, and no understanding of black comedy.

You in no way demonstrate that Ms. Foster is somehow a product of Hollywood "elitism". If fact, the same argument might be brought against Ms. Leigh--after all, in effect,she was born into the business. Not that I would make it.

But I need not go on. You are clearly a tiresome little whiner with an unhealthy devotion to an unattainable ideal, which in turn generates an animosity against the industry because the object of your obsession is, you perceive, treated unfairly. No review, no history on the discussion threads. just a rant. You make no critical points.

In short, you are a fanatic, and your continued obsessive return only proves it. Either find something constructive to say, or do us all a favor and go back to the little shrine which you have built to JJL with clippings and photos and copies of the 200 unanswered letters you have addressed to her, and have a good cry at the unfairness of the world, and find some people who might care about your pointless idolatry.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2013 6:24:38 PM PST
Ugly and tiresome actively describes your continually even more pointless-than-before replies, and your complete inability to see how oafish and totally off-track you're being. Madonna and FX laden blockbusters are a case in point of something not being very good at all, but generally receiving far more popularity then they deserve, like Clooney's work, when all he is is ER's Doug Ross in anything, and your typical defence of him blinds you to how limited he is, while predictably euxing his so-called virtues for no other reasons than mefind him charmless as an actor and he's a critics darling. I'm sure there's dozens of far better people YOU must ignore as good actors simply cos they're not A-listers.

You-charitable? The laughs keep coming. Nice and now charitable too? There's plenty of people out there with work as good as the Coens', and I'm guessing you wouldn't care about that cos it's uncool to mention it. Snobbery is another name for it. If you came across as a better person, I might forgive your wayward attempts to annoy, but I can't pity you in the way you "pity" me. Ever heard of individual taste? I don't like 'Fargo', a worthless and drawn out and hysterical pretty quickly-I don't care what the popular critical masses you follow so slavishly say, and it came across more an absurd kidnap drama than a black comedy, and dull with it. Loads of better films out there, not that I'd expect you to get that.

Your final line proves how you went wrong from the start. I was totally right to state she's a 'poor man's Jen J Leigh', cos that's the impressions she gives me, and still does. The comparison is not only fully understandable because their dramatic characters-with-problem niches are so similar, but shows up my disapproval with Hollywood's stifling elitism that only one should be elevated above another in their eyes, especially when they're the same age, and because of this, others like you deem her more worthy, thus buying into it, and even moreso when you scoff/get flouncy about someone very fairly challenging it. It's not Foster insulting Leigh, no, it'll be Hollywood, and you insulting me for not liking it. Who's ugly then?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Movie forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  22
Total posts:  143
Initial post:  Jan 14, 2013
Latest post:  Jan 25, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions