moriath

Something I forgot to mention in my bitching about Watchmen: the trailers alone were almost worth the price of a ticket.

First up: Angels and Demons. This is the story that introduced the lead of The DaVinci Code and, according to my mother, is a superior story. I have to say, the trailer certainly makes it look awesome. Billy and I might have to check it out.

Second: Star Trek. Damn you, fancy trailers, constantly weakening my resolve against seeing this film. I'm still not expecting it to be an awesome Star Trek film, but my curiosity has definitely been piqued. I want to see how they work out this time travel thing (and if Kirk taking command of the Enterprise is really as ridiculous as it appears to be in this latest trailer)

Third: Wolverine. I'm such an X-Men fangirl, lol. I forgot this one was coming up when I posted about the Public Enemies trailer a few days ago, calling that the one film of the summer I was looking forward to. I'm also definitely looking forward to Wolverine.

Fourth: The aforementioned Public Enemies. It seemed a little out of place coming after the previous three action-packed trailers. Public Enemies is definitely going to have some bad ass action in it, but it's definitely of a different tenor than Star Trek, or even Angels and Demons.

Fifth: Observe and Report. This one was a lot out of place. What the hell is up with movies about mall cops this year? I can only imagine this one was placed with Watchmen because the target audience of Watchmen is young men, which perfectly coincides with Seth Rogen's fan base.

So they've (there's always a "they") confirmed that a portrait exists of Shakespeare that was painted while he was alive.

In the comments, Tom in Hawaii leaves this gem:
This article completely misses the point. The author of the Shakespears plays WAS NOT William Shakespeare, theatre owner, it was Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Perhaps Mr. Mackey could educate himself on this point. Perhaps even look it up on wikipedia. For the “paper of record” to omit this in an aticle of this type is absurd.

Naturally, this is full of fail for multiple reasons. RM, NYT Ed picks up on one of them and responds to Tom:
[Tom, If you think it has been established that William Shakespeare was not the author of these plays, based on what Wikipedia says, we can't help you. -- RM, NYT Ed.]

RM (who, after I scroll back up to the top of the article, I am going to assume is Robert Mackey, the author of the article) is full of snarky win.