B1ue

CAP is only a mostly accurate reflection of the world. If the hipster look didn't happen, then it didn't happen.

Given that the main plot of the Giver is: a priest in a dystopian society trains a pubescent boy by laying his hands on him for extended periods of time; boy discovers sexuality and emotions as a side effect, do you REALLY think casting an actor as young looking as Asa Butterfield would have been appropriate? I, too, thought casting Thwaites as Jonas was odd, right up until he and the Giver touched hands. Then it all made sense. I also have to ask, in what way did they change The Giver to be more like the Hunger games? Most of the dystopian elements, including "sending people elsewhere" being a euphemism for euthanasia, were in the book. From what I can recall, they changed three things between the book and the movie: aged up the characters (circumventing any possibility that the movie could be taken as advocating pedophilia), moved the emphasis from Jonas's relationship with Gabriel to all the characters interacting with each other (I have issues with this one), and changed both Fiona's and Adam's careers (it made sense from a writing standpoint, and was a natural consequence of the previous change). Everything else was in the book, although the emphasis was placed differently given the third person limited perspective of the book as opposed to the third person universal perspective of almost any movie. Personifying the Elder council into one person? Standard movie practice, and it allowed them to blow the budget on one big name character actress as opposed to a host of c and d list actors. Making Jonas's mom's role in the department of justice mean something besides an interesting character note? I wish Ms. Lowry had done that. Really, the only thing I object to is changing the characters from being medically and culturally unable to advocate for change to simply being brainwashed. Even that I can understand, because it made the movie a lot more interesting to watch at the same time it made Jonas go from being hopeless into being an idiot. By expanding on the relationships all the characters had with each other, instead of emphasizing Jonas and Gabriel and Jonas and the Giver, it created a lot of interesting people with distinct characteristics that shined through despite sameness. But, it meant that Jonas probably didn't have to run away to save Gabriel; there was enough defiance built up towards the elders and sameness already, the Giver and Jonas might have been able to come up with a different plan, if only the Giver hadn't already given up on the community. Actually, I also object to Fiona's expanded role into Jonas's love interest. I rolled my eyes. I rolled my eyes SO HARD. Given that Adam makes nearly the same choices that Fiona does, and doesn't get nookie out of it, I found making her a love interest unneeded, as she was already one of Jonas's best friends. But, whatever. Hollywood. I possibly had stronger feelings on this topic, and enjoyed the movie more, than I realized. I suppose I should go buy it now.

I assume he means the neighborhoods just outside the core, like South Central, Echo Park, Eagle Rock areas. Also, yes, there's quite a bit of room left to build suburbs to the east of the Greater LA area. I'm not sure why people imply or outright state there isn't. The ocean is a limiting factor, as are the mountains (sort of), but that limit was hit in the 70s. Hasn't seemed to slow anything down. Er... stem White flight? Aren't they about 40 years too late for that? Do you mean reverse White flight?

Agreed. In the immediate sense, Claremont is going to be pro-war. It was rather fascinating how totally patriotic fervor gripped rural America. Then their sons and daughters are going to start coming home in body bags. Not in the numbers that the Vietnam war or either World War claimed, but enough. "Support the war" will slowly morph into "Support our troops," which is supporting the war with a human face, and doesn't require complicated thinking about how those troops got into the situation in the first place.

I see some guys with that kind of look, yes. But not many. It doesn't seem to be gaining much traction.

I missed this last week, but SF can't be the next Manhattan. It is physically impossible. I've mentioned it before, but the geology of San Francisco puts pretty severe restrictions on the kind of buildings that can go up, and where, and that's before you factor in earthquakes. I like JJ and WIll's relationship. I also think Will would do great with a cat. He's already used to caring and cosseting a creature inclined to favor his worship with hostile noises and death threats.

Our people are prettier though. I'll take that instead.

I wouldn't put it past Big Momma's capabilities to fake even that. Edit: Upon reflection, the smartest thing for the Grangers to do would be to get the test done, but discreetly, and hopefully without telling Mary Ellen. Go through with the marriage in the meantime. If the baby is Alex's, great! If the baby is not, use that test result if she ever tries to pull a fast one herself. That buys the Grangers the best of all worlds; an heiress that will be utterly devoted to the family, if not necessarily to Alex himself. Alex might object, but that he gets to keep JJ on the side might quash that.

Some thoughts: Based on the characters as they stand now, Mary Ellen is probably right. If Alex and JJ haven't fizzled out on their own by the time the baby comes around, Alex's sense of duty to fatherhood will force him to become involved with the little sprog, which JJ won't want anything to do with. Much like Riley disrupted Matt and Wade, so will probably will the littlest Granger. But what fun would being predictable be? I rolled my eyes when it was revealed that Escorial had a prescribed time to open presents, because of course they did.

Not at my high school, although where I lived was primarily on the lower end of the income brackets. At college, I didn't really pay attention.

I'm not rude, if that's what you are implying. I've only turned the hose on one, and that was because he stated my six-month old niece that had just died went to hell. Couldn't tell you why they crop up. At a guess, it has to do with the number of people that are on their own out here, divorced by distance from their upbringing. But since that doesn't really apply to me, it's only a guess.

So.. you're saying that JJ is a Mean Girl?

When I said "good", I meant Tex Mex generally, not Taco Bell specifically. And I certainly include all levels of fake Mexican food in there, including full restaurants that proclaim that they serve "Authentic Mexican Food," but have fajitas on the menu. My mom makes...comments when we go to such places. And then glares at me because I order it. Although, that said, I do prefer Taco Bell to King Taco. And the only reason I go to Chipolte is because Freebirds in Isla Vista is a bit too far of a drive for my lunch break.

Of course Taco Bell isn't authentic. They don't really try to be. Almost no "Mexican" food served in America is authentic; most of it is Tex-Mex. Mind, it's good food, but it is its own thing and it is probably unfair to compare it to something it is not trying to emulate, and then ding it for not emulating it properly. Dunkin Donuts. That franchise is nuts, worse than Starbucks. We joke about Starbucks being on every corner in California, but when I went to Boston, there was almost literally a Dunkin Donuts on every corner. That was fifteen years ago, so I assume the landscape has changed somewhat. But, possibly not.

Its actually referring to a historic event, in this case, so that should be something we're able to look up. There was even a movie fairly recently about it. PrivateTim probably knows it off the top of his head. I would assume it counted playoffs, but I'm actually not certain. They do, in fact, have lots of state championships.

Yes and no. Its not a lot more expensive than the surrounding areas, but it is some. Actually, if you had a roommate or two and all of you were working, it is probably fairly reasonable, if not cheap. But considering the current job market, especially for people just out of college...

Actually, let me more fully illustrate some of the things I'm worried about with the Friends of the LA River project, using Google maps. Ven conmigo! This is a picture of the Piggyback yard. The red arrow points directly to the yard, the blue to Union Station, our main train station in downtown LA. Just on the other side of that, there's Olivera St, the historic heart of LA, as well as lot and lots of government buildings. There are also two jails and the coroner's office visible, but never mind. As you can see, the Piggyback yard sits more or less smack dab in the middle of one of the most heavily populated and heavily built up section of the greater LA area. And while I'd not want to live on that kind of toxic waste dump (honesty compels me to admit I already do work on one), developers must salivate over the idea of either a residential or commercial area taking over all that nice land. It is not only accessible via five different freeways (the 10, the 60, the 5, the 210, and the 101), but a major hub for three different passenger rail systems AND three different bus systems is a twenty minute walk away. With all that pressure, and citing the traditional trend of making over less utilized structures for newer improved ones, I think the Friends of the LA river will get their way eventually. The UP will probably demand every cent they can possibly get away with to fork it over, but I would guess it is inevitable. But this is worrying, because of this. THIS is the end junction of the Alameda Corridor, one of the most important stretches of railroad in the country. Basically, if something says "Made in China", "Korea", or "Indonesia", odds are high that it passed along that little green arrow. The same is true of things that say "Assembled in the US," and a lot of things that don't. Car parts. Housing materials. Machine equipment. And in the other direction, lots and lots of food and assembled goods. An average of 45 trains a day pass along that section, mile and half to two miles bruisers that help shape the US economy as we know it. And that little rail section is a bit less than three miles to the south of the Piggyback yard, and just as much alongside the LA river as the yard. So when I say I don't want people that favor form over utility in charge of deciding what should go and what should stay in my city, I'm not just being contrarian. The friends of the LA river group, and that one dork, has demonstrated via their articles and posts that they are less than concerned over the business and logistical impacts of their proposals. They seem to feel someone else can worry about that, so this is me. Worrying about it.

You say that like its a good thing. Or even a practical thing. Did you notice that leaving up the old bridge would have prevented finishing the new bridge, right? That doesn't get mentioned in the video either, but you can kind of see it on google maps. It currently shows the construction of the new bridge, which when completed will be a four lane road, plus a bike path, as opposed to the old two lane. However, even the two lanes the new bridge opened with comes almost against the old bridge, and it would have been impossible to expand it further without knocking down the older bridge. And that's really the problem I have with both this guy and the Friends of the LA River. They're not just slanted, they're lying, and presenting misinformation like it is unquestionable fact. I don't even object to their vision for Los Angeles, but the way they go about it annoys me, and makes me question what else they're lying about. Edit: Also, Millennials aren't going to move into downtown. They can't afford it. Further, while as I said I don't object to a more pedestrian friendly version of LA, that ideal has to align with the reality that Los Angeles is, in its current incarnation, designed to move cars and freight. It should also reflect the reality of how large LA really is. Los Angeles city itself half again as large as all five boroughs of NYC (discounting water, adding in water area brings both cities to near parity), and the Greater LA area is three times as large as the New York metropolitan area. Finally, it should also take into consideration that the geographic features that LA organizes itself on at this point in time are the freeways themselves.

Ya think? I'm also slightly annoyed by his presentation of Los Angeles as a place entirely devoid of greenery and recreation areas, which is simply false. Like this video's extended eulogy for a recreation area that could have been that completely ignores the existence of a pair of parks literally across the street from either end of the bridge itself. I'm also never going to agree with the idea that looks are more important than utility, which seems to be his stance.

"If we continue to knock down our past, it will be harder and harder to know and understand our future." What a dork. So...in sum, they made a bridge that's safer for cars (that are the primary users of the bridge) and less safe for pedestrians and bikers. That's unfortunate, but acceptable. And I say this as someone who walks everywhere it is convenient to do so. I would also offer that building over and renovating existing properties should probably be considered a historic tactic for the LA area at this point. We've been doing it since LA started to become heavily populated at the beginning of the twentieth century. I'm curious why they fail to mention that there are two parks (one a rather large recreation area) on either side of both the current and former bridges, that the pedestrian pathway used to link (not sure if there is a new pedestrian pathway, I don't head to that part of town very often). It would have made a more compelling argument, I feel, but perhaps they did not think so. I'm also carefully not making any comments about how historical preservation was not a high priority when it came to tearing out the entire East bank and making it into a wetland. You should admire my restraint. As to why the core founding families aren't terribly interested in preserving the historic core, look up "White Flight." While not generally applied to LA for some reason, it in fact happened in response to increased number of Blacks and Hispanics moving into LA during the fifties and sixties. Those founding families wrote central LA off as a loss five decades ago.

Bonus points if the divorce from skating was not voluntary, like if he tore apart his knee or something.

Well, there was that one article you posted upthread talking about another option, building over old, obsolete buildings. Which seems to be what they're going for, and there are still quite a few areas/buildings in LA that are viable options for that kind of flipping. In Long Beach, there's even a project to renovate an old government building that the new city center made redundant.

As opposed to "Clueless"? Though I suppose that would be "Emma updated to 20th century Los Angeles." Eh, we'll have to see what happens with the LA skyline. Anything is better than it rotting away at the center.

Latino, not Latina. Latina could be a person, but Latino is the race. My original accent was slightly Hispanic, yes. But I've long since trained myself out of it. Online tests peg me into a vaguely Midwestern/California mish-mash that drifts depending on who I've talked to last. The two coworkers I work with most frequently at the moment have mild accents, one Tennessee, one Hispanic. Most of our corporate officers are from either Texas or Kansas, and many of my customers are either Korean or Chinese. At the end of the 12 hour work day I sound...somewhat confused.

Well, I'd be alright with that. Granted, several of my friends are strippers and porn stars, so...