defrog: (Default)



DISCLAIMER: Satire.

PRODUCTION NOTE 1: BTW, for everyone having a cow over D.Trump declaring Loyalty Day as if he came up with the idea? He didn’t. May 1 has legally been Loyalty Day since 1958, and every POTUS from then to now has recognized it as such.

Still …


PRODUCTION NOTE 2: If yr wondering, that video is meant to demo the fact that there were two soundtracks recorded for Flash Gordon – one by Queen and a more traditional one by Howard Blake. This one shows a scene with the Blake version.

PRODUCTION NOTE 3: In case yr thinking George Harris’ voice sounds different than on the Queen soundtrack album, yr right – the album version is Harris’ real voice. This is the overdubbed version. Contrast and compare here.

BONUS TRACK: Everywhere else in the world (i.e. outside of America) it’s Labor Day. So here’s yr Labor Day song.



Possibly topical!

Without measure,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
Fact.



O captain my captain,

This is dF 
 
defrog: (Default)
It’s not quite what I was expecting.



[Via Scott Patrick]

Mad Mario,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)
Yes it is.


It's a Mad Mad Mad Max Fury Road - Trailer from Monkey Blood on Vimeo.

What a lovely day,

This is dF
defrog: (mooseburgers)


[Via Lint]

Pump some Trump in it,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)
Album Cover Art

[Via Forever Blog]

Pop will eat itself,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)




[Via Thrills, Chills and Stills]

Onward to Iowa,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)
incorrectnoamchomskyquotes:True quote

[Via Matt Fraction]

DISCLAIMER: That’s probably not a real quote. But that doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate.

Noam if you want to,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)
And now, the movie review you’ve been waiting for all this time.

[NOTE: I’ve done my best to avoid spoilers, but if you haven't seen it yet, by all means wait until you do before reading this.]

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Truly it’s hard to imagine another movie preceded by this much hype and an equivalent amount of baggage from fans who have never forgiven George Lucas for making grim prequels instead of giving them the Star Wars movies they WANTED. Plus, there was all the dithering over the fact that Disney bought Lucasfilm and declared most of the Star Wars Expanded Universe books, comics and games non-canon. Cos you know, Disney ruins everything, right?

Anyway, SW:TFA had a hell of a legacy to live up to, which makes it hard to review it like any other film – unless you’ve never cared about Star Wars, or you liked the films but not to the point of obsession, or you saw them starting with the prequels, or whatever. For myself, I’m from the original Star Wars generation where our young and impressionable lives were changed forever in 1977 by the original film. I didn't expect J.J. Abrams to duplicate that experience – that would be impossible, partly because I’m 50, and partly because part of what made the first Star Wars so amazing was that nothing like it had ever been done visually – Lucas’ team literally had to invent some of the FX techniques that made it work, or take older techniques to new levels. I knew going in that SW:TFA would have none of that – FX-wise, it would use the same techniques as the average Hollywood CGI blockbuster, albeit perhaps to better effect.

So I wasn’t expecting a life-changing experience – I was just hoping Abrams would make a decent Star Wars film that reflects the spirit of the original trilogy – i.e. a fun adventure in space with good characters.

So, with all that in mind, here’s what I have to say about SW:TFA:

1. I loved it.

2. Is it perfect? No – far from it. Plot holes abound, and Abrams and the writers go a little overboard with the fan service, while the story unnecessarily borrows select plot elements from the original trilogy and relies an awful lot on coincidence as a plot lubricant.

3. On the other hand, it’s got far better dialogue than any of the other films, and while the story follows some fairly obvious tropes, it doesn’t come across as a tired rehash.

4. That’s largely because SW:TFA is populated by an interesting new cast of likeable characters – Rey the mysterious Force-sensitive scrap collector, Finn the cowardly but good-hearted Stormtrooper, Poe Dameron the smart-ass pilot and BB-8 the plucky cute droid – to take the baton from the old hands.

5. Speaking of whom, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher do a great job of playing convincing older versions of their respective characters. I do admit being disappointed that Leia doesn’t have as prominent a role as Han, but at least she gets more than a cameo.

6. As the new Bad Guy, Kylo Ren is no Darth Vader, but that’s a good thing. Ren has his own motivations and complications, and actually projects his own brand of menace – until the mask comes off, but even then he comes across as a character someone put some thought into.

7. All up, is it as good as the original film? Of course not. But it’s a hell of a lot of fun, which you haven't really been able to say about a Star Wars film since 1983.

8. Is it as good as the original trilogy? Let's put it this way – I can safely say this is the fourth-best film in the series. Possibly even the third-best, depending on how you feel about Return Of The Jedi.

9. Either way, it’s safe to say the series is now back on track as the fun, entertaining popcorn space-fantasy franchise it was intended to be (whether George Lucas cares to admit that or not).

BONUS TRACK: For those of you who care, while Disney disavowed the Expanded Universe stories, that didn’t stop the screenwriters from borrowing certain ideas from it. io9 has a list here if you’d like to know more, though it is of course chock full of spoilers.

SEE ALSO: This op/ed from Ars Technica on why scrapping most of the Expanded Universe was probably a good idea.

AND FINALLY: If you want to know what George Lucas thinks about SW:TFA, you can find out here.

The Force abides,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)
The Muppets returned to the televisions this week.

I didn’t watch it, because I don’t live in the USA. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned as an American citizen, it’s this: just because you haven't actually seen a TV show or a film doesn’t mean you can’t criticize the content.

Sure. That’s what Franklin Graham and One Million Moms do.

Apparently they’re expecting lots of sex, drugs and full frontal nudity. I have a feeling it’s going to fall short of that mark – after all, this is ABC, not HBO.

On the other hand, if the promo material is anything to go by (and that is what these people are going by), The Muppets ain’t exactly a kids show, either. Even the producers have promoted it as a more “adult” show, which means edgy realism humor, uncomfortable relationship situations, double entendres and Grindr jokes, evidently.

None of which is a reason for ABC to cancel the show as Graham and 1MM are demanding. They generally demand the same of 85% of any given prime-time line-up, so it’s hard to take them seriously even before you factor in the fact they haven’t even watched the shows they want taken off the air.

Probably a more pertinent question is: is this really the Muppet show we want? (And by “we” I mean “me”, of course.)

Some of the more sober commentary I’ve read suggests that while the new show is clever and probably what the franchise needs to succeed in 2015, fans of the original show may find it jarring, if not sacrilege, or at least depressing.

For myself, I can tell you from the promo material that I’m not that enthralled with the new direction for a couple of reasons.

1. The mockumentary concept has been done to death (and just because they’re mocking the mocumentary concept doesn’t mean we need more of it). Even the idea of a mockumentary of a late night TV show isn't that original – The Larry Sanders Show covered this ground in the early 90s.

2. I don’t really want a Muppet show that goes for edgy realism or delves into their personal relationships. The Kermit/Miss Piggy angle of the original show was fun and made sense because it played to Piggy’s stage-diva character. Turning it into an ugly public tabloid drama with new girlfriend/ex-girlfriend tension doesn’t really entertain me or make me laugh.

Maybe all of this gels in the current jaded TV landscape. I don’t really watch much TV anyway, so that’s at least one reason for the disconnect here, I admit. Maybe Muppet fans who do watch lots of TV will get more out of the new show, or see the humor in it. Or maybe they’re just glad that the Muppets will be relevant to new generations of fans.

The thing is, they’re not the same Muppets I grew up with. The same characters, yes – but portrayed and presented in a much different way. Let me put it this way: as far as I know, the Muppets were always an all-ages proposition – that doesn’t mean it was just for kids, but that everyone who watched would get something out of it. Making it more “adult” alters that equation. Which might be fine except that the Muppets have always been marketed as being appropriate for kids. To suddenly bump them up to PG levels is inevitably going to confuse people.

It’s also fair to ask: is this what Jim Henson would have wanted? Lisa Henson thinks so, at least in terms of the Muppets being back on prime time and being popular again. But while Jim Henson always had something of a subversive streak to his work, he also understood the importance of subtlety.

Anyway, I'll be the first to admit my reservations don’t mean anything – as I say, I haven't seen the show, so I’m just kind of riffing and dithering here via a promo and second-hand info. And to be clear: even if it’s as bad as I imagine, I wouldn’t support a boycott like what Graham and 1MM are demanding.

Also, it’s not fair to judge a whole show on one episode. By some accounts, Episode 2 is a lot better than the premiere. So it could still grow into something that’s worthy of the Muppet legacy.

In any case, it does sound like one of those cases where parents should be given fair warning. If you already let yr kids watch (say) South Park, it’s probably a non-issue. If you keep them at the level of Pixar films or Frozen, you might want to dial up some parental supervision. Maybe a lot of the “adult” stuff will fly right over their little heads and they’ll just laugh at the silly bits. Still, I have my misgivings.

This is because I am old and decrepit, I know. Fair enough. I can’t say this is the Muppet show we need, but given the state of TV in 2015 – and the general culture of Fear, Hate and Cynicism that pretty much defines social media – maybe it’s the Muppet show we deserve.

It’s not easy being green,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)
I am somewhere in America, walking across a large shopping mall campus. I need to get to the Parkroyal Hotel to meet some friends, but I’m not sure where it is or of it’s within walking distance. I see a taxi and decide to flag it down.

The taxi is more like a van, and there are already some people inside, but the driver tells me it’s cool – it’s more like a mini-bus service than a taxi service. The driver looks familiar but I can’t place him. He hands me a business card – his name is Tom Petty.

Well that explains it.

The people in the van are a mix of passengers and friends (most of whom I assume are the Heartbreakers), and Petty jokes around with them – it’s like a party, though with no drinks. He pulls up to the front of what I assume is the main shopping mall building and drops off the last of the passengers, then drives off.

As we go up some kind of ramp next to the mall, I ask him if we’re going to the Parkroyal next. He says, “Oh, it’s over there on the left.”

I look out the window. From the elevated vantage point of the ramp I can see that the building we just left has a courtyard in the front, and the courtyard is the lobby of the Parkroyal. So we were already in front of it when he dropped off the last passengers.

“Okay, then just let me out here,” I say.

“Sure, just hold on a minute, I can’t stop right here on the ramp,” he says.

The ramp leads to a vast rooftop parking lot that is technically next to the Parkroyal but still a good distance away. He stops the van and everyone gets out – me, Petty, and the Heartbreakers.

“How come you didn’t just take me to the front entrance again?” I ask.

He scowls. “Because I didn’t want the reception that people were going to give me when I showed up! And they wouldn’t be saying ‘Cobalt!’ neither!”

I seem to remember that “Cobalt” was Petty’s nickname among his fans. I realize now what he’s talking about – he used to be a rock star, now he’s driving a cab, and he doesn’t like the assumptions people make about that.

“I got tired of the music business, and I have more fun driving a cab, but people see you go from rock star to taxi driver and they think it’s because you don’t have any talent anymore, or yr a loser! Well fuck that! I don’t need that shit!”

It’s at this point I realize two things: (1) he’s a little drunk and (2) he doesn’t look like Tom Petty so much as he looks like Gary Busey playing Tom Petty in a TV movie.

Petty sits down on a curb and starts to throw golf balls with enough spin that they rebound back to him. The golf balls keep hitting him in the crotch, but this is apparently on purpose, as he goes off on a monologue about how the only purpose of marriage is for a woman to legally and metaphorically kick a guy in the nuts.

I sit down next to him. “Bad marriage, huh?”

He gives me a look. “Like you don’t know. The media milked it for weeks.”

“I don’t know,” I shrug. “I don’t follow celebrity gossip or watch much TV. I don’t even know who you were married to.”

“Heather Locklear,” he says.

I nod. “Oh, right. I remember hearing about you two being a couple, but I didn’t follow the details. You wanna tell me about it?”

Petty proceeds to tell me about his marriage and divorce from Heather Locklear. The other Heartbreakers fill in some details as well. We all sit there casually throwing golf balls as the story unfolds, and by the end Petty seems to be feeling better.

“It helps to talk about this,” he say. “Especially to someone who didn’t hear the tabloid version first.”

“Yeah,” I say, “my experience is that it’s always good to talk to an outsider who doesn’t care.” When Petty frowns at this, I add, “What I mean is someone who has no stake in the game. Like when you know a couple that gets divorced and yr friends with both of them and they expect you to take a side, and they resent it if you try to stay neutral.”

He nods, then he gets to his feet. “C’mon, I’ll drive you to the lobby.”

And then I woke up.

DISCLAIMER: I'm pretty sure Petty's nickname in real life is not "Cobalt". But that's what he said.

Also, I have no idea if he was ever married to Heather Locklear.

Don’t do me like that,

This is dF
defrog: (Default)


[Via Flashe Non Deux]

PRODUCTION NOTE: Yes, it’s a hoax.

Spoken word,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)
Remember the old days when the hep kids used to groove to Captain Beefheart on the TVs?



Yeah, me neither.

PRODUCTION NOTE: For those not acquainted with Captain Beefheart, the song is "Flash Gordon's Ape" from the LP Lick My Decals Off, Baby.

Picked a banana and threw it at the sun,

This is dF

 
defrog: (Default)
ITEM: YouTube user Marcelo Zuniga has made some videos detailing every change ever made to the first three Star Wars films, complete with side-by-side comparisons.

Many of them I already knew about via the 1997 "special editions", but I didn’t know they’d been making extra alterations in subsequent home video releases. Many of them are fairly subtle, others not so much.

Anyway, as part of the original Star Wars generation, I think these videos offer definitive proof (to me) that the originals really didn't need "fixing". In my opinion the Biggs scene is the only deleted scene that was worth adding in.

It occurs to me too that one of the biggest problems here is that Lucasfilm is subtely (if not intentionally) altering film history.

The original SW trilogy was heralded in large part because the FX were groundbreaking and visually stunning for the time period. That matters because when you watch any old film, yr basically seeing films that were made with the tools available at the time, some of which may have been invented specifically for that film. That in itself is a tribute to the ingenuity of the filmmakers, and even if it looks a little clunky by 2015 standards, you can still appreciate what they managed to accomplish.

Star Wars has a well-earned rep as a game-changer in FX, but when you stick in scenes using technology that didn’t exist at the time, it’s like cheating. People seeing Star Wars for the first time may look at the latest version and think, “Wow, they had CGI back in the 70s!”

Well, maybe not, if only because Lucasfilm has been fairly transparent about its enhancements, so it’s not they're trying to trick anyone into thinking they were that far ahead of the CGI game. And maybe it only matters to people like me who have a fascination with film FX tricks and the art of making fake look real, and how they used to do it in the Old Days compared to now.

And considering a lot of the original FX are still intact, I guess you could say the upgraded films serve as a kind of mostly seamless comparison of old-school and new-school FX that demonstrate how sophisticated Lucasfilm and ILM were when they first started.

Still, now that Disney owns Lucasfilm, I’m hoping one day they’ll release the original versions for us Old And Cranky People who will always swear that Han shot first. That doesn’t seem likely, internet rumors notwithstanding. And Lucas has adamant that the “special editions” are the definitive versions as far as he’s concerned, and the originals are “half-completed” films.

If it ain’t broke,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)
Coming soon to a porn site near you:





[Via Scott Patrick]

Of course it’s tradition for pornmakers to cash in on big-budget films with a cheap XXX version, though it’s only in recent years that they’ve put a little effort into it in terms of costumes.

Apparently they’ve gotten so good at it that they can make a parody of the film before the film is even out.

Which means this is really more of a parody of the trailer of the film. Which is probably close enough, since the XXX plot will probably involve Batman and Superman having a contest to see who can bang the most porn stars.

Or here’s another way of looking at it – if the XXX version comes out before the non-XXX version, could one argue that Zack Snyder’s Batman vs Superman is a non-porn rip-off of the original XXX film?

Who came first,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)
From 1962 (allegedly):

The Hipster Coloring Book (1962)

[Via Retrospace Zeta]

It's probably a hoax. Or a Mad Men in-joke.

But either way, FINALLY I know what a “hipster” is. I’ve seen everyone on Facebook complaining about them, but I’ve never actually seen one or even heard them described. Now I know.

Thanks, Tumblr!

Color me impressed,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)
Before there was Syfy and The Asylum, there was Hammer Films.

flight-to-mars:Another Hammer film that was never made.�� � Art by Tom Chantrell �(c. 1971)

[Via 70s Sci-Fi Art]

Evidently this is concept art for a film idea floated at Hammer that – sadly – never went anywhere.

There is however a hoax Republic serial from 1936. With gratuitous jazz crooning.



Watch the skies,

This is dF
 
defrog: (Default)
ITEM: Marvel is killing the popcorn movie. Furthermore, it doesn’t care. And Avengers: Age of Ultron is proof.

So says this op/ed piece in Wired, which is not a diatribe against popcorn films, but against the approach that Marvel has taken to them, and the effect it’s having on the overall popcorn-film genre.

I don’t agree that A:AoU will have a knock-on effect on all popcorn films – fans love it, critics mainly liked it, and the box office take is healthy, so Disney/Marvel and other studios have all the incentive they need to do more things like it.

That said, I do think the article brilliantly sums up the way I feel about the whole Marvel Cinematic/TV Universe. Namely: Marvel’s stipulation that each part must serve the whole. Apparently the A:AoU script had to conform to Marvel’s guidelines to the point that a number of scenes served no purpose except as set-ups or promos for other Marvel franchises.

From the article:

•So, once Marvel’s formula has deprived the movie of (a) time for the characters, (b) the potential for the story to unfold in a surprising way, and (c) meaningful consequences, we then get each character’s maximum 10 minutes of focus (which is now more like five or six) cut down even further, with ads for other Marvel products. In Age of Ultron, we lose several minutes of valuable time that could be spent developing our characters to visit Wakanda and establish Andy Serkis as a villain, not because he’s important to the plot—he’ll totally disappear after this one scene—but because there’s going to be a Black Panther movie. Thor has to be taken out of the action for a while so that his scientist friend can help him hallucinate the premise of Infinity War. Captain America gets a flashback that doesn’t relate to the plot, but does remind you that he used to date Peggy Carter, who you can catch every week on ABC’s own Agent Carter! Etcetera.

Now, I get that the above is more of a problem for an ensemble franchise like The Avengers than it would be for a standalone MCU franchise. And I also realize that interconnectedness is a key feature of the Marvel comics.

The thing is, that's easier to do with comic books that have been around 50+ years than it is with films and television. Universes don't mean much if the characters are one-dimensional and the stories are nothing but a series of epic fight scenes.

And even then, I have to say one of the reasons I stopped reading Marvel comics in the 90s was that same emphasis on interconnectivity in the Marvel Comics Universe. The result was too many damn crossovers. It got to the point that you had to read ten or eleven titles to be able to follow what was going on. Which of course was fine with Marvel because $$$$$.

Apparently Marvel wants to do the same basic thing with the films and TV shows and spinoffs of both. IMO, eventually it's going to backfire. Some MCU fans I know are already complaining that some of the TV shows have writing that's not Whedon-levels of clever. God knows how they're going to feel when they realize that Robert Downey Jr can't play Tony Stark indefinitely, which is going to ruin the continuity.

And now Warner Bros/DC are looking to emulate the same Cinematic Universe formula (since DC Comics, of course, does the universe/crossover thing as well), which seems to be a problem for a lot of fans because the existing DC film aesthetic has already been established by Chris Nolan’s Batman films and Zack Snyder’s Man Of Steel. Which is apparently a bad thing because those movies sucked.

Which is news to me. Not Man Of Steel, of course (which I haven't seen, but I know it wasn’t that well received by Superman fans), but the Nolan Batman films. I seem to remember comics fans generally liking them (especially The Dark Knight), apart from some minor quibbles and the inability of The Dark Knight Rises to live up to TDK. Then the MCU happened, and now suddenly it seems all the fan sites are talking about how the Nolan films were actually awful the whole time because they’re not as fun as the MCU films and are about stoopid things like intelligence and emotion.

I might be imagining it. Or my memory is faulty. Maybe it’s just that Nolan’s Batman was better by comparison to every superhero film before it, but now it suffers in comparison to Iron Man and the Avengers cos they're superhero films done “properly”. That’s arguably true of Sam Raimi’s Spiderman films – I remember fans seemed generally impressed with the first two (not so much the third one, admittedly), but none of them have really aged well. Which I suppose is one reason why they rebooted it.

Anyway, I’d just as soon both Disney/Marvel and WB/DC drop the whole Cinematic Universe concept – especially if it’s only going to serve as a cross-promotion tool for other properties.

FULL DISCLOSURE #1: I haven’t seen A:AoU. Or any of the Marvel TV shows.

FULL DISCLOSURE #2: I like Zack Snyder as a director. And I don’t care who knows that.

Avengers disassemble,

This is dF

defrog: (life is offensive)
The Hugo Awards nominations are out, and everyone is upset.

The short version: two groups called Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies gamed the nomination system (albeit within the scope of the rules) to ensure that authors/publications they approve of – i.e. the ones that produce “real SF/F” – made it onto the shortlist.

In this case, “real SF/F” means “manly-man space adventure entertainment”, as opposed to Liberal Literary Affirmative Action Social Justice Warrior Bullshit (LLAASJWB) that tends to win all the Hugos these days thanks to the LAASJWB Cabal that now controls who gets nominated for Hugos and who doesn't.

I don’t follow the Hugos very closely, so the following opinion isn’t that well informed, but I’m going to assume the above accusations made by Sad/Rabid Puppies are paranoid overblown nonsense, if only because that’s usually the case when you accuse an entire group of people of conspiring against yr group of people for political reasons. (Also, the charges don't hold up very well if you do a little research, apparently.) 

So here’s my opinion:

This is a thing? Are you f***ing kidding me???

Seriously, I’m flummoxed – bamboozled, even – that a whole group of fans have not only taken it upon themselves to define SF/F as a political ideology (or at least the absence of one they fervently disagree with) but also feel the need to resort to activism in order to fight an opposing cabal that arguably doesn’t really exist in any meaningful way.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. After all, everything is political these days, so why not SF/F? Why not rate what qualifies as True SF/F based on narrow political affiliations? We’ve seen a similar thing with SF conventions, where some people complain about all the SJWs ruining everything with social messages (even though cited heroes like Gene Roddenberry and Robert Heinlein did pretty much just that).

The Sad/Rabid Puppies thing seems to be an extension of the overall general trend where many conservatives increasingly see liberals in general as some kind of organized threat to their way of life in which one must cancel out the other. They see liberal bias EVERYWHERE (news, Hollywood films, genre fiction, etc), and mistake criticism of their opinions as an active and organized attempt by liberals to prevent them from expressing them.

I have a hard enough time processing that POV when it’s used for general-purpose politics. It’s even harder for me to understand when it’s applied to something like defining the acceptable criteria and parameters of genre fiction. It seems pointless and dumb to me, because whatever you think those criteria/parameters should be, it’s not like anyone who exceeds them is limiting yr ability to consume and enjoy whatever type of SF/F you deem acceptable. Book publishing isn't a zero-sum game where, say, every sale that N.K Jemisin makes is a sale taken away from John C. Wright, or vice versa. As long as Baen Books is around (or as long as Tori Weisskopf is in charge of it), you’ll have someone serving the True Fandom market. So what if they don’t win Hugos? Screw the Hugos and enjoy yr hard-ass space operas. My favorite bands never win Grammys or get radio airplay, but I don’t care as long as I can still get a copy of their new album.

That said, I suspect the Sad/Rabid Puppies thing isn’t really about Real SF/F or Real Fans – not entirely. That may be part of it. But mainly it seems to be about a small group of very angry people consumed by bitter paranoid political ideology – at least some of them to the point of being racist homophobic misogynists – who are desperately trying to control their environment and justify it with tired old political-correctness conspiracy theories.

They have the right and the freedom to do that, so long as it doesn't devolve into GamerGate territory (which, as far as I know, hasn’t happened yet – not to the point of female authors getting trolled and terrorized with rape/death threats, anyway). But all the SF/F fans who disagree with their narrow viewpoint and tactics have the right to criticize them for it. And if that voice collectively has more support, then maybe the problem isn’t that SF/F is being hijacked by poseurs. Maybe the problem is that SF/F is evolving and yr not.

BONUS TRACK 1: My own criteria/parameters of SF/F can be described as follows:

1. I know it when I see it.

2. If it’s good, it’s good. If it sucks, it sucks.

3. If that means I’m not a True Fan in the eyes of some people, well, tough. My enjoyment of any book doesn’t depend on what you think of my qualifications or fanboy cred to enjoy it.

BONUS TRACK 2: I’m not familiar with some of the alleged LLAASJW authors that Sad/Rabid Puppies complain about. But you know what? They’re all on my “must check out” list next time I go to Kinokuniya.

Have spacesuit will travel,

This is dF


defrog: (Default)
Some days, you just can’t get rid of an indefinite number of bombs

[Via Ensalada de lengua de pajaritos]

The bombs just keep on coming,

This is dF


Profile

defrog: (Default)
defrog

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  12345
678 9101112
1314151617 1819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 20th, 2017 09:34 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios