The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoPLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Post something just for the heck of it
- Thread starter belamyi
- Start date
- Featured
La vulgar mediocridad de ayer es el clasicismo elegante de las añoranzas de hoy, y el mal gusto de hoy no contamina únicamente la estética más moderna, sino la apreciación moderna de los estilos del pasado.
Resulta muy esclarecedor que el artículo no incida, menos aún deplore, la destrucción de la torre modernista original en esa localización cuyo estilo, por muy hortera que se pudiera considerar, al menos no era un aborto de clasicismo quieroynopuedo en piedra arenisca de ciudad de provincias, y se centre en el elogio fúnebre de una estética de cocina o baño de preguerra, que fue sustituida por una estética de cocina o baño de posguerra.
Podría suscribir una elegía por la muerte de un Palau Marc de Reus, al final de La Rambla, pero lo del número 87 de Paseo de Gracia tiene más pinta de karma que de otra cosa: https://i.prcdn.co/img?regionKey=eTPaRn9Fjht0WRMrSgcznA==
Resulta muy esclarecedor que el artículo no incida, menos aún deplore, la destrucción de la torre modernista original en esa localización cuyo estilo, por muy hortera que se pudiera considerar, al menos no era un aborto de clasicismo quieroynopuedo en piedra arenisca de ciudad de provincias, y se centre en el elogio fúnebre de una estética de cocina o baño de preguerra, que fue sustituida por una estética de cocina o baño de posguerra.
Podría suscribir una elegía por la muerte de un Palau Marc de Reus, al final de La Rambla, pero lo del número 87 de Paseo de Gracia tiene más pinta de karma que de otra cosa: https://i.prcdn.co/img?regionKey=eTPaRn9Fjht0WRMrSgcznA==
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 122,940
- Reaction score
- 4,438
- Points
- 113
purina
Guest
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Posts
- 3,193
- Reaction score
- 638
- Points
- 113
HAIKUS FOR A NEWLY NEUTERED DOG
(to participate send haikus to ze@zefrank.com)
many many more at link
(to participate send haikus to ze@zefrank.com)
- My two sweet playthings,
taken, without my consent,
nothing to lick now.
- Snikt
. - (freeform)
What the??!!??i mean REALLY!!! Why MEEEEE?Cum on give em' back it's not funny anymore..
- lilribbit
. - First you picked me up
I licked your nose, we were friends
Then you took my balls
- scherrah
. - (freeform)
My bollocks were
there, now they
are not.
Fuck
- Sam
. - (freeform)
Used to play dead or sit
Used to roll right over
Used to bring you lots of joy
Used to go by “Rover”
Used to let you pet me all day
Underneath the wheeping willow
Used to eat your table scraps
Used to be your pillow
Used to be your chick magnet
Used to respond to your calls
Used to fetch for you your frisbee
USED TO HAVE BALLS!
- Steve Brim
. - My… my manhood, it’ gone.
Oh my Dog! It’s frickin’ gone!
No longer a dog.
Me a dog? No. Not.
I might as well be a cat.
Me a dog? No. Cat.
- Chloe
. - why did you hurt me
when did I ever hurt you
I have no balls now
-Lucky Inu
. - (freeform)
For Fuck Sake !!!
Why did you have to go and
cut my fucking nuts off ?!?!
- Al
. - balls balls balls balls balls
balls balls balls balls balls balls balls balls
balls balls balls balls balls
-T.O.M.
. - (freeform)
take my balls will you?
i can still unfurl my pink
LIPSTICK WEINER! HA!
I could not resist.
It does look like a lipstick. You know it does.
- Rori
.
many many more at link
Last edited:
You seem to whine quite a lot yourself about a mere diverging take on a movie you seem to appreciate way beyond its worth.
I meant 'spark' as the contrary of dull? And the opposite of "glitter", which is what "High Society" is all about.
In short, the difference between deep and superficial.
High comedy is what is in the script of both the 1956 and the 1940 movies. The 1956 simply fails to deliver: the script is quick and witty, the actors are slow and drab.
I do not ask for acting in cinema, which is the art of edited moving images, and not of character role play; but when cinema wants to be like theatre, I expect from actors that they do act: there is no difference between the more or less respected average actor, and the Kardashian who would deliver exactly the same in her show.
In my posts you read what you want to interpret, like in the movie you see only what you would like to find.
I meant 'spark' as the contrary of dull? And the opposite of "glitter", which is what "High Society" is all about.
In short, the difference between deep and superficial.
High comedy is what is in the script of both the 1956 and the 1940 movies. The 1956 simply fails to deliver: the script is quick and witty, the actors are slow and drab.
I do not ask for acting in cinema, which is the art of edited moving images, and not of character role play; but when cinema wants to be like theatre, I expect from actors that they do act: there is no difference between the more or less respected average actor, and the Kardashian who would deliver exactly the same in her show.
In my posts you read what you want to interpret, like in the movie you see only what you would like to find.
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed, we both are saying too much about a 1956 nothing.
Who are you to gauge the worth of a piece of criticism, when all you can retort is that it is "obnoxious": "obnoxious" is an obnoxious term itself, and if you can not reply with arguments, instead of with adjectives that could be applied to anything, it is not like your opinion of my own opinion is offering much worth.
Please care to show where have I contradicted myself, because if you read my "I do not ask for acting in cinema, which is the art of edited moving images" as referring to acting, and not to cinema, the problem may not be so much my English as your own private understanding of any sort of English.
You and me are posting comments about a clip of a 1956 movie using the exact same part of the 1940 script for this particular scene, and it is by comparing both that I pointed out how drab the 1956 is, in contrast with the older one, and the fact that the latter movie was laced with VistaVision color, as I had already said, or with musical numbers, as you prefer to remark, does not affect the wildly different ways both deliver the exact same part of a script.
I do not disrespect cinema actors nor actors in general, only their work when it is bad, and I respect them even more when they are honest enough to admit it themselves. Actually, when you understand my saying that "in cinema, which is the art of edited moving images, I do not ask for acting", you may have better reasons to feel upset by realizing that I mean that actors are dispensable in cinema. And it is precisely because I respect the acting profession so much, and acknowledge it as an extremely difficult one, that I expect them to do the same and treat their trade as an art, not as a way of gaining a popularity and a money than a Kardashian can gain without pretending to pass for an actress: that is all I know from them, gathered through the obnoxiously dismissive reviews of actors and journalists whose talent I have always described in the terms they have used to "obnoxiously" talk about those girls.
And yes, I insist that cinema is more than just recording a theatrical production, or some novel, with close-ups or varied and natural background scenery.
Indeed, unlike some others, I am as much of an idi0t as I am a whiner.
Who are you to gauge the worth of a piece of criticism, when all you can retort is that it is "obnoxious": "obnoxious" is an obnoxious term itself, and if you can not reply with arguments, instead of with adjectives that could be applied to anything, it is not like your opinion of my own opinion is offering much worth.
Please care to show where have I contradicted myself, because if you read my "I do not ask for acting in cinema, which is the art of edited moving images" as referring to acting, and not to cinema, the problem may not be so much my English as your own private understanding of any sort of English.
You and me are posting comments about a clip of a 1956 movie using the exact same part of the 1940 script for this particular scene, and it is by comparing both that I pointed out how drab the 1956 is, in contrast with the older one, and the fact that the latter movie was laced with VistaVision color, as I had already said, or with musical numbers, as you prefer to remark, does not affect the wildly different ways both deliver the exact same part of a script.
I do not disrespect cinema actors nor actors in general, only their work when it is bad, and I respect them even more when they are honest enough to admit it themselves. Actually, when you understand my saying that "in cinema, which is the art of edited moving images, I do not ask for acting", you may have better reasons to feel upset by realizing that I mean that actors are dispensable in cinema. And it is precisely because I respect the acting profession so much, and acknowledge it as an extremely difficult one, that I expect them to do the same and treat their trade as an art, not as a way of gaining a popularity and a money than a Kardashian can gain without pretending to pass for an actress: that is all I know from them, gathered through the obnoxiously dismissive reviews of actors and journalists whose talent I have always described in the terms they have used to "obnoxiously" talk about those girls.
And yes, I insist that cinema is more than just recording a theatrical production, or some novel, with close-ups or varied and natural background scenery.
Indeed, unlike some others, I am as much of an idi0t as I am a whiner.
Last edited by a moderator:
^ who the hell are you talking to?
Her
or him 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxozXTM0GCo&lc=UgxFVD0a8Ex0SeO9rtd4AaABAg.9GdPF5MVJ2w9K6l5ejeSNH
I was ready to receive from you a lazy remark of that sort, but if you write "walls" to me, I will have to do the same. I will make this one shorter, and more to the point... unlike you:
You keep mistaking my distinction between cinema and theatre with a distinction of a small part in both of them, the actors. I only say that the acting is only a part in cinema, something that you could choose to dispense of, like you can choose to dispense of scenery, and even if you do use actors in cinema, it is easier to make great films with non-professional, or even rather bad actors, than a good movie with very good actors, and mediocre or bad everything else. Good, honest actors will admit that, irrespective of whether they are more cinematic or theatrical actors.
You keep mistaking my distinction between cinema and theatre with a distinction of a small part in both of them, the actors. I only say that the acting is only a part in cinema, something that you could choose to dispense of, like you can choose to dispense of scenery, and even if you do use actors in cinema, it is easier to make great films with non-professional, or even rather bad actors, than a good movie with very good actors, and mediocre or bad everything else. Good, honest actors will admit that, irrespective of whether they are more cinematic or theatrical actors.
Last edited by a moderator: