And the Winner... [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

Fiver

03-24-2002, 10:17 PM

This category was long overdue, but its a shame that this had to be the first year it was given out. Disney would have been dominating this category for decades had the academy acknowledged animation before now. I cant help but wish that there was a better representative for a first time winner than Shrek. There are so many Disney films that have deserved this honor, and its sad that the company who paved the way in animation couldnt have won the first award.

Fiver

meowthew2

03-24-2002, 10:36 PM

Shrek deserved the Oscar. It's story was fresh and original for the animated genre. Monster's Inc. was nice, but pretty generic. The animation for both was about the same quality.

Keep in mind also, Monster's Inc. was created by Pixar. Disney only distributed it.

Face it, Disney no longer rules in the genre Walt created. The playing field has definitely been leveled.

The real shame is the Animated Film category itself. There was simply no need for it.

toefungus

03-24-2002, 11:23 PM

Randy Neuman FINALLY got an Oscar!!! I think it was around 16 nominations, and he's gone home empty handed every time. Congrats to Randy Neuman! :bounce:

johare

03-25-2002, 12:36 AM

I cant help but wish that there was a better representative for a first time winner than Shrek. Like what...maybe your call for movie of the summer...Atlantis? Shrek has the higher box-office total, set records for DVD sales and took home the Oscar for animated films. Shrek is undisputably the better animated film of 2001.

d-r

03-25-2002, 06:26 AM

Johare-
We all know that you love Shrek. You have been taking this sort of personally for a while on this board, so with that in mind, congratulations, I guess.

To me, this points out why I don't like the oscars in the first place. I think that the reason that shrek won was "buzz" - that hollywood term for something being on the radar screen. I think that people saw Shrek as "fresh" because it was "irreverent," meaning that it had the nerve to make fun of fairy tales. To me this is nothing new - having read things like "the stinky cheese man" years ago. But to many people, this approach, coupled with making fun of Disney with things like the castle parking lot and the "its a small world" reference. Actually, I thought the story itself was pretty lame - I didn't see a lot of freshness in the "beuty is inside" theme, and didn't you see the princess is an ogre thing coming from a long, long way?

Anyway, I think that there was never an animated category before because it would have went to Disney with no one else in contention. That is why they have never had it. I think there was a sort of anti-disney sentiment to it, that someone besides Disney had to win it to make it a "legitimate" category, and not just the "award that we give to Disney every year." Although there has been a category of animated short for years, this was the first year to include an animated feature category because it was the first time that there was a contender to Disney viewed as "legitimate."

Whatever - this isn't the first time that it has been clear to me that my opinion of what is a better film isn't the basis of an academy awards decision - or of dvd sales for that matter.

Anyway, I know that you love Shrek, Johare. I figure that Shrek is a flash in the pan that will be about as relevant as the smurfs in a couple of years, but hopefully Shrek 2 will prove me wrong about that.

DR

jfap

03-25-2002, 07:07 AM

I thought it was pretty funny when Nathan Lane handed the Oscar over with Mickey Mouse Gloves on!!!

johare

03-25-2002, 07:19 AM

Anyway, I know that you love Shrek, Johare. I figure that Shrek is a flash in the pan that will be about as relevant as the smurfs in a couple of years, but hopefully Shrek 2 will prove me wrong about that. Actually I like Monsters Inc almost as much as Shrek (kids like watching both about equally), but feel that Shrek really was the better movie. I also wanted Shrek to win because hopefully that will help Disney wake up and return to doing what they do (or should be doing) best. Besides, with all the Disney supporters around here, someone has to take Shrek's side! :D

HBK

03-25-2002, 11:34 AM

When was the last blockbuster that Disney created? I'm really struggling.

Pixar - We all know of the successes...but I don't count them as Disney since they're basically lottery tickets Ei$ner is cashing in on.
Dreamworks / PKI - Shrek did boffo business and Spirit reminds me a LOT of Lion King. Seemed to get a great reception at the Theaters when it was shown before ET.
Fox - Ice Age is following in Shrek's footprints. Great movie which looks like it could make a killing as well as recieve some consideration for the awards...

Which leads us to Disney. Last year was a total flop, this year is a success in so far as Return to Neverland is making a profit, but it only hit around 50 mill....Ice Age did close to that in it's first weekend....Lilo & Stich looks like it's going to be a good movie, but I wonder if it's going to get crushed with all of the summer movies. Spirit will probably linger much like Shrek did, Ice age will be on it's last legs theatrically (If at all), Stuart Little 2 will be out, and all of the adult blockbusters will limit the number of theaters this movie can be shown on.

As cute as it looks, and the ads are definitly funny I'm not sure how it will do at the box office.

Fiver

03-25-2002, 11:43 AM

raidermatt

03-25-2002, 01:02 PM

Shrek did a much better job of utilizing flatulence and outhouses, and I guess that's what the Academy feels is needed in an animated feature.

If only Jim Carrey had made Ace Ventura as an animated feature instead of live-action. The "talking rear" routine would be considered classic, because after all, kids loved it...

johare

03-25-2002, 01:23 PM

Hmm...my first post in months(just had a baby boy!), and once again Johare your response seems more like a personal attack. Yes I liked Atlantis but I certainly would not put it up with other Disney Greats like Lion King, etc.. It was a fun movie but not something deserving of an oscar. That said, just because I liked that movie does not mean your opinion is any better than mineSorry...I just don't care for it when people still say that Shrek didn't deserve the award. The movie was widely praised by critics, had a huge box office take, had record DVD sales AND won the Oscar. I'd say that Shrek does a great job representing animated films. As for Atlantis, I didn't enjoy it and neither did the general public or most of the critics, I guess that's why I still find your "movie of the summer...rush out and see it, then see it again" comment to be funny. <p> btw: Congratulations on the baby boy. We just had a baby boy back on Dec 8th...our 3rd.
We all know that you like...I mean LOVE Shrek. Now seeing that we are on a Disney Board, then surely you must know that some people on here LOVE Monsters, Inc., and that their opinion is going to be different from yoursActually I like both movies, however I do feel that Shrek was the better of the two films, plus with all the 'Disney cheerleaders' around here I figured Shrek needs someone in his corner. Also, just in case your keeping track, unless Disney comes up with something better than Return to Neverland (which I hope they do), my pick for next years Oscar is Ice Age!
Why must you be such an ogre? I'll take that as a compliment...at least you didn't call me a donkey!:)

Fiver

03-25-2002, 02:01 PM

I've been very,very disappointed in Disneys recent slew of movies. While I liked Atlantis, It was not the Disney quality I had expected. I'm also very upset with this slew of sequels to many of my favorite movies. I cringed when I first heard of Return to Neverland and Cinderella 2. I havent seen either of them, but have heard that they are awful. Cinderella was a childhood favorite of mine, and I fear that the sequel will be nothing but a major disappointment. I am looking forward to Lilo and Stitch. I have seen some previews and it looks pretty funny, and I'm hopeful that it will do well this summer. The company needs to get back on track, and I hope that Lilo and Stitch is the start of their return.

Fiver

johare

03-25-2002, 02:37 PM

Have you seen Ice Age yet? It was pretty funny and didn't really have any of that 'potty humor' which you don't seem to care for. Scratty the Saber Tooth Squirrel is hilareous. I'll have to see Lilo & Stitch when it comes out. I don't really have any expectations for that one, but hope it's good.

Fiver

03-25-2002, 03:36 PM

Hubby and I really want to see it, but the little one is keeping us busy. He is only 6wks old, and I'm recovering from a c-section. We were thinking of asking my folks to watch him sometime in the next couple of weeks so we can see a movie or two. We also want to see ET again so we can relive our childhood. Animal Planet was showing previews of Ice Age about a week ago, and it looks to be right up our alley. I'm also curious about the upcoming movie Spirit. I hadnt seen anything about it until today, but then I've been out of circulation for awhile. I'm just now getting back to the DIS.

Fiver

MiknMinMouse

03-25-2002, 04:50 PM

I was completely bummed that Monster's Inc. didn't win the Oscar ~ our entire family LOVED that movie. And no, we've never seen Shrek, I haven't seen the need to Pay to see that movie, now if someone wants to let me borrow it free, then maybe. I think the fact that MI was associated with Disney hurt it since people are going through an anti Disney thing. How could a movie that had Boo Sulley and Mike not win an Oscar ~ sigh. At least Randy Newman went home with one :-)))

As for not liking the fact that there is an animated category. Get a grip. If everything from Foreign shorts to the light people are going to get Oscars then the talented folks who give us movies like Monsters, Inc. should be awarded as well. Personally I think they should can all the award shows.

roymccoy

03-25-2002, 04:57 PM

Potty humor, bawdy R rated jokes, dumb story, no morale to the story whatsoever. It was on par with Porky's...not Lion King. Eddie Murphy set civil rights back 20 years with his "Uncle Tom" donkey character. Yeah...a real masterpiece...my kids loved it. (NOT) I too was upset that the first year the Oscars had an award for animated film was the first year that Spielberg and company had their first animated hit. Hmmm....could it be a coincidence?? Hollywood is controlled by about 20 influential people. Anyone who thinks that this stuff is left to chance is being naive. I'm not one to be led around by my nose ring. Shrek was a B movie.

Roy

Planogirl

03-25-2002, 06:33 PM

I must agree with johare on this one. :eek:

I LOVED Monsters Inc. and wouldn't have minded seeing it win at all. But I really thought that Shrek was a bit better. (And I saw no R-rated jokes in it :confused: ) This has nothing to do with any anti-Disney sentiment (even if I don't consider Monsters Inc. a true Disney film) but is just my opinion for this year and is worth little or nothing. Also, Lion King would have won along with Little Mermaid, B&B, Aladdin, etc... but unfortunately such a category didn't exist when Disney did their good stuff.

Besides, Disney will win next year. :D

MelissathePooh

03-25-2002, 07:52 PM

I'm not trying to be anti-Shrek I swear, but I really did think that Monsters Inc was just a better film. Being that it was marketed to a younger audience - I thought Shrek was baudy and trashy where humor was concerned and the story was predictable. The potshots at Disney were offensive to some loyalists, but probably missed by most viewers.

Monsters Inc was a new and original story, and it was heart touching - if for nothing other than the final scene - Kitty!!

As far as animation is concerned I truly believe that Monsters was FAR superior - Shrek used some nice landscapes and colors, but Monsters was phenomenal!

Shrek was a commercial hit - there is no doubt, but did it change the animation world in anyway that deserved an award - not imho. Pixar is far superior and with or without Disney behind them they will continue to be I'm sure.

Xevious

03-26-2002, 12:37 PM

I enjoyed both Shrek and Monsters Inc, but if hard pressed I'd give the nod to MI. Eddie Murphy grated on my nerves like he did in Mulan. He was the low point of that otherwise great movie (Mulan).

How the heck did Jimmy Neutron get nominated??? Has anyone here seen Waking Life? I think it's a crying shame it wasn't at least nominated. I know it's not for everyone's taste, but if you have the opportunity to catch WL don't miss out!

MiknMinMouse

03-26-2002, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by MelissathePooh

Monsters Inc was a new and original story, and it was heart touching - if for nothing other than the final scene - Kitty!!

As far as animation is concerned I truly believe that Monsters was FAR superior - Shrek used some nice landscapes and colors, but Monsters was phenomenal!

That's so true. The way Sulley's fur Moved ~ that was amazing, the attention to detail. GREAT MOVIE :-)))

Another Voice

03-26-2002, 02:51 PM

It’s always fascinated me that people continue the bash ‘Shrek’ for its “toilet humor”. The only toilet joke I remember actually came in ‘Monsters’, complete with a tracking shot of a blue dyed foot trailing toilet paper down the hall. I think that scene was before the “don’t eat yellow snow” scene and in the middle of many, many “kick Mike in the groin to make the audience laugh” scenes. I won’t even discuss the lurid implications of sneaking a two year old girl into a men’s locker room. Or even the “friendship” between the two main characters. There’s a reason the throwaway subplot about Mike’s “big date” was put into the movie. Humor and offense are both subjective.

If you look hard enough, you can find or imagine “R-rated” stuff in almost any children's film.

As for the Vast Anti-Disney Conspiracy of Evil: please. While this year was much nastier than normal (thanks to the growing desperation of the Weinstein kids), there was no anti-Disney plot to steal an Oscar from them. First, politics in Hollywood is all personal. There is no corporate loyalty or “our studio – their studio” mentality among the voters. Second, no one cares about Eisner or Disney these days. The current view is that they are a low-end studio and its has-been CEO who are just waiting for the vultures. It’s real hard to worked up that much hatred against someone who’s so insignificant. Third, everyone in town knows that ‘Monsters’ was a Pixar movie. Everyone likes Pixar. The only thing Disney had to do with the movie was selling off the stuffed toy rights. Lastly, maybe the voters in the academy feel that ‘Shrek’ was a better overall movie than ‘Monsters’ was. They get to vote with their little statues, you get to vote with your money.

All Aboard

03-26-2002, 03:14 PM

If toilet humor is defined as specifically pertaining to the toilet (or a place where toilet-activities take place) there are two in the opening sequence of Shrek.

1) Shrek says from inside his outhouse "Whatta load of..." toilet heard flushing.

2) In his swamp, Shrek balls both fists, closes his eyes, grimmaces and then generates quite a volume of bubbles from his backside. Enough to kill many of the fish around him.

Never mind Donkey's "just crack on off" and "my mouth was open" comments. With pride, Shrek notes "if it had come from me, you'd be dead."

If it's a "count the potty humor" contest, Shrek will double and triple lap Monsters on its way to victory.

raidermatt

03-26-2002, 03:15 PM

I was hoping I wouldn't have to watch Shrek again so soon, but if I do, I will...;)

I'm sure somebody else can be more specific, but I remember bubbles coming up while bathing, and outhouses...

I won’t even discuss the lurid implications of sneaking a two year old girl into a men’s locker room.

This takes some imagination, as the Monsters are all repulsed by humans. Sort of like bringing a female cross between a chimp and a skunk into a human male locker room. But if this strikes some as lurid, ok, I'm just glad my imagination is not so vivid.

Or even the “friendship” between the two main characters. There’s a reason the throwaway subplot about Mike’s “big date” was put into the movie.

Please.

Humor and offense are both subjective.

If you look hard enough, you can find or imagine “R-rated” stuff in almost any children's film.

Yes its subjective, and yes one can imagine a lot, but theres a difference between imagining it and being hit over the head with it.

johare

03-26-2002, 07:28 PM

1) Shrek says from inside his outhouse "Whatta load of..." toilet heard flushing.

2) In his swamp, Shrek balls both fists, closes his eyes, grimmaces and then generates quite a volume of bubbles from his backside. Enough to kill many of the fish around him.

Never mind Donkey's "just crack on off" and "my mouth was open" comments. With pride, Shrek notes "if it had come from me, you'd be dead."

If it's a "count the potty humor" contest, Shrek will double and triple lap Monsters on its way to victory.I think Shrek has a very slight edge on the 'potty humor', but certainly not even close to double or triple what you'll see in Monsters Inc. Other than the outhouse/bubbles in the opening scene, the "my mouth was open" scene and possibly the small world parody I can't think of anything else I would consider potty humor. That's only 3 or 4 occurrences with at least half of them in the opening credits. Monsters had the TP scene and the kick to the groin scenes. I think Jimmy Neutron was much worse with it's pooping robotic dog and those scenes with the kids saying "I'm peeing in the shower..." as they did it!

Another Voice

03-26-2002, 09:06 PM

I’m not denying that there’s a bunch of humor for nine-year old boys in ‘Shrek’. I’m just amused by how vigorously people want to condemn the same type of humor in that movie yet completely ignore it in another film. It’s just an interesting case of how well the “Disney” brand works.

All Aboard

03-27-2002, 08:56 AM

I'm amused by the notion that Monsters uses anywhere near the potty humor to get its effect. It's night and day. First, We went to see Shrek in the theater four times (that's right, four) and we, of course, own and watch the DVD. I think it's hilarious.

But there's no comparison of how Shrek makes use of "9 year old boy" humor v. that used by Monsters.

Voice, I'm troubled by 2 of your 4 Monsters examples. First, are you actually saying the notion that two males living together and just might be gay is an example of "potty humor"? Second, Boo had to go to the bathroom. Sully couldn't take her in the ladies' room. He had no choice. Each time I go to WDW with my 4 year old, I often have to take her in the men's room. Is that lurid behavior? Or twisted further, an example of "potty humor" somehow?

Here's another Shrek moment, and you have to listen very closely. When the dragon is first trying to charm Donkey and Donkey tries to fend off her advances listen as the focus shifts to Shrek moving in on the chain.

Donkey says, "that's my personal space" then in perfect Eddie Murphy fashion he injects "HEY, what are you going to do with that?" That's one of the funniest moments in the movie, and definitely not rated G.

How about the Robin Hood sequence with Robin's rhyming song. Forgive me for not knowing the exact words, but robin ends a sentence with a word that rhymes with "head" and the next line is: "she likes to give..." at that moment the merry men interrupt.

"Just becasue she lives with seven men doesn't mean she's easy"

"Dead broad off the table"

"I'm the talkinest damn thing you've ever seen"

The level of graphic description that Shrek used to describe what he would do to people.

The earwax candle

The catepillar inards toothpaste

The frog and snake balloons

Fiona's well-timed belch

There's plenty more examples of "grossness" and "potty humor" that Shrek used to make the film work.

And so far all that's been offered up (legitimately) for monsters is toilet paper on the foot and Mike landing on his Jewels.

None of this matters to me, it's just an absurd comparison.

HauntedMansionFan

03-27-2002, 12:08 PM

Anyway, I think that there was never an animated category before because it would have went to Disney with no one else in contention. That is why they have never had it. I think there was a sort of anti-disney sentiment to it, that someone besides Disney had to win it to make it a "legitimate" category, and not just the "award that we give to Disney every year." Although there has been a category of animated short for years, this was the first year to include an animated feature category because it was the first time that there was a contender to Disney viewed as "legitimate." I strongly have to disagree with this. It isn't like the award all of a sudden "popped" up so Disney wouldn't win. Only in the past few years has Disney seen any companies try and tread on their animated film territory. The reason this award was started this year is that animated films are becoming more and more present during the year. Think back about a five years ago and you will see my point. In the time before that there would really only be one animated movie a year, and it would be Disney's and it would be released over the Summer. Now a few years back animated movies began to be made and released more frequently. Prince of Egpyt comes to mind when thinking of animated movies that began to fringe on Disney's territory. So now every year for the last couple there are at least 3 to 4 animated movies being released by different studios, this year just happened to be the year they put the award into place. It's not a matter of a "legitimate" category, in years past Disney would have one the award, because it was the only studio releasing animated films. Also, someone made reference to the award being started in the same year that Steven Speilberg had his hands in an animated film. This couldn't be a more incorrect statement if I have ever heard one. The Academy is infamous for NOT LIKING Steven Speilberg, he has been overlooked for E.T., Jaws, Empire of the Sun, the list goes on. The only reason he was awarded for Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan is that the Academy would have been disgraced if they didn't award him for these films. Also, Steven Speilberg has produced animated films for Disney before.... anyone remember a film by the name of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? This film won a special techinical award for its advances in combining animation with live action.

ringo

03-28-2002, 07:43 PM

I SUSPECT THAT SHREK WAS A BETTER FILM THAN MONSTERS INC. I DON'T THINK THAT RANDY NEWMAN'S SONG DESERVED THE AWARD THIS YEAR.I DID THINK THAT RANDY GOT THE SHAFT LAST YEAR WHEN JESSIE'S SONG WASN'T GIVEN THE OSCAR. I ALSO THINK THAT TOY STORY 2 DESERVED THE OSCAR FOR BEST MOVIE,WITHOUT QUESTION.PERHAPS,THAT'S WHY THEY CREATED THE NEW CATEGORY.ANYWHO,DISNEY DESERVES A LIFETIME OR CENTURY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.THEY NOT ONLY LAID THE GROUNDWORK,BUT ARE WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BAR BEING WHERE IT IS NOW. DON'T BE SURPRISED IF THE NEXT QUANTUM LEAP COMES FROM OUR BELOVED DISNEY!INRE THE ACADEMY AWARDS:THERE IS NO MORE POLITICAL EVENT THAN IT.

d-r

03-29-2002, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by HauntedMansionFan
I strongly have to disagree with this. It isn't like the award all of a sudden "popped" up so Disney wouldn't win. Only in the past few years has Disney seen any companies try and tread on their animated film territory. The reason this award was started this year is that animated films are becoming more and more present during the year. Think back about a five years ago and you will see my point. In the time before that there would really only be one animated movie a year, and it would be Disney's and it would be released over the Summer. Now a few years back animated movies began to be made and released more frequently. Prince of Egpyt comes to mind when thinking of animated movies that began to fringe on Disney's territory. So now every year for the last couple there are at least 3 to 4 animated movies being released by different studios, this year just happened to be the year they put the award into place. It's not a matter of a "legitimate" category, in years past Disney would have one the award, because it was the only studio releasing animated films.

I think you are saying the same thing here that I was saying, even though you are strongly disagreeing with me. This is the first year that there was an animated feature oscar, and the reason there was not one before was that it would have gone to Disney 99% of the time. As I said, it would have been "the award we always give to Disney." In recent years there have been other studios making animated features, and it didn't have to necessarily go to Disney, so they added it in. I agree with you. <strong>This is what I was saying.</strong>

Leading up to the AA I read a couple of articles where people said this (basically, "In the past only Disney would have won this so we didn't have one, but now there are other studios that could win it too")

And AV says basically that everyone in Hollywood considers Disney a "has been" low-end studio (is this not an "anti-disney sentiment?"), so if every one has this notion and it impacted their decision, I'm not sure how he disagrees with me, either.

I made no claims of any grand or vast consipiracy or any whispered conspiracy, I said I thought there was a "sentiment" (which means a view, opinion, or feeling). If I had meant "conspiracy" I would have said "conspiracy"... but I didn't.

Jeesh.

DR

Another Voice

03-29-2002, 02:25 PM

Politics and hatred in Hollywood are all about power. Right now, Disney has no power in town. There’s simply no reason for a vast conspiracy because there’s really nothing to conspire against. NO ONE CARES ABOUT SNUBBING DISNEY. They aren’t that important any more. In fact, people like the way Disney is going right now because it’s helping everyone else. Disney developed both ‘The Lord of Rings’ and ‘Black Hawk Down’, only to have Michael Eisner personally refuse to make both movies. They were instantly picked up by other studios with tremendous profits. Who wouldn’t want to keep a fool in place if you can make money off his stupidity?

The award came out this year by accident, not because someone in a darkened office said “now we give it to someone else!!!”. The separate award idea was started to HELP Disney in the wake of the Best Picture Nomination for ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and Robin Williams’ nomination for ‘Aladdin’. It was realized that an animated movie, no matter how good, would never win a major Oscar. Since all members vote for the final award, you’re never going to get the support of all those actors, art directors, costume designs and others that don’t work on animated films. It takes years for the Academy to make chances – it took over twenty years of lobbying to get a Best Make-up award and the campaign for a Best Casting award has been going on just as long.

Besides, everyone in Hollywood knows that ‘Monsters’ was a PIXAR film. Everyone likes Pixar and no one would wants to snub them. And if there was a vast anti-Disney conspiracy, how does anyone explain the nominations for ‘Pearl Harbor’ (I can’t). Wouldn’t that be the bigger snub – to not give a single nomination to the film that Michael Eisner all but promised would win Best Picture?

You can spin all the grassy knoll theories you want, but the simple fact is that the majority of the Academy voters thought ‘Shrek’ was the best of the three films that were nominated. If you want to blame anyone, blame Disney. They are the ones slashing their animation efforts, they are the ones that rushed ‘Atlantis’ through production despite all its problems, and they are the ones that are putting their efforts into repackaging Saturday morning cartoons and calling it Feature Animation.

Worry about making good films and the awards will follow.

iamleia2

03-29-2002, 02:41 PM

Allright, I'm confused. I only read the first page of posts... but everyone was talking about how Shrek has an original story. This seems a little backwards to me... All Shrek did was make fun of Fairy Tales and then end the same way all Fairy Tales end! All of the humor came from things that had already been created! Monsters inc. had the original story line if you ask me! Maybe I missed something as a child... but I never read or saw anything about the secret world of monsters who come out to scare children at night... I think it's very original! I liked Shrek a lot, but I fell in love with Monsters. Not as much as I fell in love with Toy Story... but it was still an amazing movie. And even just animation wise, I think Monsters was far superior! Anyway, that's my two cents. Monsters created a Fairy Tale and Shrek just mocked them... Whatever works...

d-r

03-30-2002, 09:00 AM

Gosh, you know, I've been working hard lately and only checking in here on an occasional break, so I must not be taking the time to make sure that I am communicating clearly. I obviously am not, and I apologize for that.

Also, I am not a hollywood type and don't care to be, so I may not understand some lingo or buzz words or hot button words that send off some sort of signal, sorry for that, too.

AV - again, I did not say that there was a conspiracy, a grassy knoll or even a whispered campaign. I said there was a "sentiment," and I think that all of the things you are saying are really consistent with that. I think you are agreeing with what I was trying to say, while argueing against an idea or point that I never intended to make - again, I'm sorry that I'm being unclear.

DR