Peter Jackson Denies Hobbit Animal Cruelty - Again; Palm Springs To Honor Robert Zemeckis: Biz Break

Peter JacksonPeter Jackson's denial came ahead of the Hobbit premiere in New Zealand Wednesday. Also tracking in film news, Cate Blachett is eyeing a Wicked Stepmother role; MGM is considering a remake of a 1975 horror pic; And the Friar's Club is set to roast Jack Black.

Peter Jackson Again Denies The Hobbit Animal Cruelty
Jackson said, "Absolutely none - no mistreatment, no abuse," at a news conference in Wellington hours before Wednesday's premiere. He also described PETA as "pretty pathetic" for seeking publicity ahead of the premiere of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Deadline reports.

Palm Springs Film Festival to Honor Robert Zemeckis
Zemeckis will be feted at the festival for his latest pic, Flight, starring Denzel Washington. The festival, which take place January 3 - 14, will present the award to Zemeckis at a gala January 5th, Variety reports.

Cate Blanchett Eyes Disney's Cinderella
Blanchett could play Cinderella's evil stepmother in the Mark Romanek-directed film and would be the first actor to join the project, written by The Devil Wears Prada writer Aline Brosh McKenna, Deadline reports.

MGM Eyes Sundown Remake
The possible re-do is a remake of the 1976 horror movie The Town that Dreaded Sundown. The original was based on five unsolved murders attributed to a Phantom Killer during a three month period in 1946 in the border area between Texas and Arkansas, Variety reports.

Friar's Club to Roast Jack Black in 2013
Black will sit in the hot seat at the group's next annual roast. The comedian follows previous roastees including Betty White and Quentin Tarantino. "We only roast the ones we love, and with Jack, we love his comedy, we love his music and we love his enormous talent," said Friars Club "Abbot" Jerry Lewis. "It’s going to be a great day for all of us." The event will take place April 5 in New York. THR reports.



Comments

  • ANIMAL ABUSE SHOULD BE LEGAL - AND IT SHOULD NOT BE CALLED "ABUSE".

    i was searching for gay-themed topics on google, when i saw a headline that went something like this: "does homosexual behavior in dogs tell me that i was born gay?". now, i realize that to equate humans' expansive understanding of life with dogs' limited understanding is just a childlike thing to do (and makes google's headline as moot a point as rick springfield telling jessie's girl that he loves her), but it did get me thinking...

    if we are told that homosexual behavior in dogs says that humans are born gay, it should be legal to hump my dog who humps my leg. let me explain: if people compare humans to dogs in an effort to justify their own sexual deviancy, then inter-species sexual behavior in dogs should justify that i was born an inter-species humper. it should suggest that my having sex with dogs should not be regarded as problematic. if dogs hump members of their own gender then they were born gay, it's as simple as that. if dogs can be born gay, i was born gay also. and if dogs hump outside of their species, they were born to be inter-species humpers. if dogs can be born inter-species humpers, then people also can be. therefore, i was born an animal abuser and i should not be looked down upon when i hump dogs.

    i can understand how the opposing (ahem, CONSERVATIVE) side would say that dogs are horny and that they don't care what they hump. CONSERVATIVES would probably even relate this sexual apathy to homosexuals, blaming homosexuality on horniness as if we all lived in a single-gendered prison and had no other sexual options but to discover homosexuality within ourselves (and later maintain that we were BORN gay). the problem with conservatives (and heterosexuals not in prison) is that they just don't understand the issues with self-esteem and gender-identity that homosexuals have. conservatives don't understand what it's like to see a discovery zone in members of their own gender, they only see a discovery zone in the opposite gender. they only stare in dumbfounded curiosity at naked members of the opposite sex, the conservative heterosexual (or any heterosexual) does not stare in dumbfounded curiosity at naked members of their own gender.

    dare i say that heterosexuals are "straight" with themselves as legitimate members of their own gender, dare i say that the lack of curiosity that keeps heterosexual men from regarding other mens' bodies as "discovery zones" results in a life void of gay sex. i used to play a game called "king's quest" as a boy. i remember this quote: "The leprechauns revere the power of the four-leafed clover. With it in your possession they will leave you absolutely alone." i remember the leprechauns in the presence of the clover, they were spellbound and were walking around aimlessly like they couldn't make sense of anything around them. isn't that what sexual attraction is - i know that i couldn't speak to matthew muchnok (or any big and strong football player) without fumbling around like a stuttering retard who was spellbound. just yesterday, i was getting chiropractic with anthony manes dc and i realize now that i must've seemed like such a wide-eyed man-worshipper, gawking in anticipation as i was talking to him. i am in spellbound fantasy every time i am in the presence of a MANtasy...and why would anyone stick their hand up someone's ass if they weren't spellbound? i'm sure that poop is disgusting to at least 90% of people, why doesn't poop keep people from being curious of "fisting"? it's because the curiosity of gender (sexual fantasy) trumps both reality and (quite frankly) common sense. to further my point, i will bring up a parody of steve winwood's "don't you know what the night can do" that i wrote. i called it "don't you know what's inside a dude". i've seen enough gay porn to know that sexual gratification is obtained from someone sticking their hand up someone's ass, i'm sure that the gay "men" (i use quotes because gay males are really emotional masculivoids) know what's "inside a dude," but gays just don't care about anything except for satisfying their curiosity. they get an emotional high from their own gender like it's something they're not acquainted with, they think they were all born to be as "inexplicably curious" as a dog...but dogs' curiosity is not bound by gender, so i therefore can justify the aforementioned google headline as a "moot point".

    i have a mental image of "inexplicably curious" gays, it involves rainbow-colored question marks circulating around their heads 24 hours a day,

    let me get back to my original point. if society is wholeheartedly going to accept the "born gay" panacea (placebos look legitimate and taste legitimate, but they have no active ingredients to justify their actual legitimacy), then they should just accept that i was BORN to be a dog-humper. and NOBODY should try to give me any kind of therapy to curb my dog. er, my appetite for dogs.

    dylan terreri, i
    sheldon cooper, ii
    --------------------------
    "When I'm hungry, I eat. When I'm thirsty, I drink. When I feel like saying something, I say it." - Madonna
    http://www.jaggedlittledyl.com/essays
    --------------------------
    *** Get Your Free E-mail Address At http://www.obamamakesmeracist.com
    *** Yet another production of http://www.jaggedlittledyl.com, LLC
    --------------------------

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s