That's pretty good, it means we're averaging about 550 hits a month, or 18 a day. Pretty impressive, and a vast improvement from the first few weeks of the blog, when, anxious to get the blog off the ground, SammyC posted about 3 times an hour and garnered about 3 comments a week.
Anyway, with every member of 613 having written or commented in the past few days (not every member of the blog, though, where are you guys?) I think it's time to honor our 1 1/2 years of existence, and show SammyC some respect for starting this thing (he has taken a bit of a beating lately). To do that, we should relive the very first post of the blog:
Senior Year: first trivia night
Who has hosted SNL a record 13 times?What is the highest populated Muslim nation?
What bar in Ithaca use to have a fun trivia night before they hired two indie music guys to ask lame questions, and give away fewer prizes?
That was by SammyC, and got - yup - 0 responses. Let's at least get one or two this time.
6 comments:
I think the answer to #2 is Indonesia.
And whoever is the 10,000 visitor has to make a post commemorating it.
Wasn't it Steve Martin who hosted the most SNLs... I remember I was convinced it was John Goodman (and I wasn't far off... because Goodman was in second place with 12 hosting appearances).
and Jared, that's serendipity at its best... as opposed to "Serendipity" at its worst (Lim, I know you love Cusack and Piven, but that movie sucked hard... and who else had a thing for that movie? It was Sam, right?).
serendipity is a fucking awesome movie. i watched it by myself in New Zealand eating room service because we were snowed in. Yeah, and I liked it.
10,000 at 6:13 is incredible, way to lock it up J.
As for question #3, fuck benchwarmers. I know that's not the answer, but fuck benchwarmers anyway.
Fuck you rand serendipity is an all time awesome chick flick. Cusack rocks it out.
You are wrong!!!
"Jonathan Trager, prominent television producer for ESPN, died last night from complications of losing his soul mate and his fiancee. He was 35 years old. Soft-spoken and obsessive, Trager never looked the part of a hopeless romantic. But, in the final days of his life, he revealed an unknown side of his psyche. This hidden quasi-Jungian persona surfaced during the Agatha Christie-like pursuit of his long reputed soul mate, a woman whom he only spent a few precious hours with. Sadly, the protracted search ended late Saturday night in complete and utter failure"... just like this awful film.
I mean c'mon! This is supposed to be the pivotal speech in the movie, and yet Piven himself appears to be drifting in and out as he schlupps his way through this borish, self-indulgent drivel. I couldn't have cared less about either one of these main characters (Cusack or Beckinsale)... and I love Cusack, "High Fidelity" is one of my favorite films. Plus, Beckinsale is smoking hot. But the idea that these two connected over one short afternoon, and then (instead of following that feeling and seeing if anything actually exists between the two of them) Beckinsale says, I'll write my number in this book and if we're meant to be together, you'll find it. That's ridiculous. If this attraction is so strong, than why are you two running away from it and putting your future in the hands of "destiny."
That right there is one of my biggest problems with the film. These idiots don't know a damn thing about each other. They haven't seen, nor have they had to put up with, each other's idiosyncracies and character flaws. It's the whole "grass is always greener"-complex, and to be honest I never sensed a real connection between the two of them anyway... Cusack seemed like he was mailing it in, and after Beckinsale's double-crossing, heart-stomping antics in "Pearl Harbor," I've come to view her as a perennial Ice Queen.
And okay, fine. Destiny, serendipity, soul mates... I got it. You want to make a magical film based outside of reality. You don't want to show the true side of love... the many years it takes, the fighting it involves, and the acceptance it requires... I'm okay with that, you're keeping with the Hollywood tradition and harkening to mind the many films of the 40s and 50s. But at least those films were FUN and LIGHT-HEARTED. God, this movie gets so bogged down in its own minutia and seriousness that I hardly remember anyone ever smiling; let alone laughing.
I know I'm going to take some heat for this review, but that's fine. We're all entitled to our own opinions. Give me everything you got.
Rand, i think you are 100% accurate in the review of the movie, but i still think its awesome despite your points.
-Sam
Post a Comment