Huffy Flounce

A woman's candy bar is her castle!

Do not worry, Jubboiter will remember, in time.

"Uncle A, why do you cry?........ Silly me, that's right, it's because I had you thrown in the shark tank for stealing mothers candy bar nine years ago. Oh do try not to bleed so much, I just had that tank cleaned!"

It's blowing a hurricane outside. People getting blown over in the street. Centre of town flooded. Police and fire brigade out. Think I will stay indoors.

Jeebus, this wind is going mental. It's carnage outside.

I think an important detail about the story has been omitted. What kind of candy bar was it?

BABY... RUTH!

One was left floating in the tank.

A Caddyshack reference. Slick!

It was preceded by a Goonies reference. Because I'm that good. And because it's my time down here.

I am not a fan of The Goonies.

I realise that is heresy.

I don't think it's heresy. I think it appeals mostly to kids who were a certain age when it was released. It also appeals to my mother, but all kinds of shit appeals to her.

You appeal to her. One would hope.

Even though I had only seen it a few times, The Goonies had a real impact on my imagination as a child.

I've read that Spielberg was on the set and was practically a co-director. It sounds like the same situation as the one with Hooper and Poltergeist.

From what I understand, Spielberg was pretty unhappy with Hooper's work and essentially took over. I don't think I've read about Spielberg having any problems or disagreements with Donner, but I've always wondered why Spielberg would set up a potentially similar situation with another project that grew from a story idea of his.

Granted, Spielberg was a busy motherfucker in 1985. He directed The Color Purple, but he also produced or executive produced The Goonies, Young Sherlock Holmes, and Back to the Future. (I'm blanking on at least one more, but I'm not going to look it up. I'm going to sit here until I remember it.) He probably didn't have time to direct The Goonies, and I suppose he was trying to kickstart his "serious" phase, so maybe he didn't want to direct it.

I guess the thing I've really always wondered is... why Donner, specifically? He was clearly capable of both action/adventure (Superman) and movies with horror elements (The Omen), so there's that. I also used to think that maybe Spielberg had an in with Donner thanks to John Willams (who scored Superman) and Barry Levinson (Levinson wrote Inside Moves. which Donner directed; Levinson directed Young Sherlock Holmes [incidentally, Chris Columbus wrote the scripts for both Young Sherlock Holmes and The Goonies]), but was that it?

I guess they did both get their starts around the same time. They also both worked with Rod Serling. Donner directed a handful of Twilight Zone episodes, and Spielberg directed a couple Night Gallery episodes. I'd like to pretend Serling introduced them, but I doubt that happened.

There's probably no real mystery. Spielberg probably just thought, "Donner's a competent director. I'll let him direct The Goonies." I could probably find out more if I dug. The Internet would know.

(Fandango. That's the other Spielberg-produced movie I was trying to think of earlier.)

I've learned something today.

That Goiter has had some time to think this through?

Which is odd, since I'm not the kind of guy who does much thinking.

Current Annoyance:



How does it feel to be on your high horse, The Daily Show? Stop acting like homophobic attitudes are a thing of the past in your own country (oh yeah, sure: 40 years ago we didn't accept gay people... or blacks) when about 50% of the population here holds similar views to those expressed by the Russians you interviewed in this segment.

The Daily Show couldn't tell you how it feels to be on its high horse. It's been on it so long, it just feels like... being.

Yeah, I enjoyed Jones' bit with Gorbachev much more than this one

I am a little uncomfortable with all the Russia bashing going on over here too re: Sochi. It's like we are always banging on about how tolerant and respectful we are of all other opinions and beliefs, except for when we don't like them.

But where do you draw the line? What's acceptable in the name of tolerance of other views and what isn't?

I live in a state where gay marriage is legal and thus far society has lived to tell the tale. Can I hop on my high horse?

Not that the horse is actually high yet. We haven't legalized weed and probably won't for...oh....2-13 months or so.

Ah, now. Gay marriage leaves me conflicted and is a perfect example of what I am talking about here..

Not because I don't agree with homosexuality. I have absolutely no homophobic thoughts or feelings whatsoever. And not because I am personally against gay marriage either. I don't think that anyone should be spared the misery of marriage simply because they have decided they like same-same willy or v-jay-jay fun.

However, in the UK homosexuals could already have fully legal civil partnerships that made them legally "Married" in every way. However then it was campaigned to actually have full "Marriage" I.e. Church and everything if desired.

Again, fine by me. No personal issue.

What I did not like however, was that for some people they passionately believe I the power and institution of 'Marriage' and believe that it is a union between man and woman. Yet their view, their belief in marriage by this definition, was ridiculed and they were held up as homophobes.

Surely marriage is also for them to defend (as they saw it) as this institution? Surely their views and beliefs matter as much and are as valid as those who believed that homosexuals being allowed to have full civil partnerships was not enough?

But they were shouted down and attacked by the progressives.

Ahh, but is it intolerance to defend an institution you believe in?

I don't believe in institutions. I'm the wrong person to ask.