Friday, October 12, 2012

"Zero Dark Thirty" Trailer #2

"Zero Dark Thirty" has a new trailer, which isn't quite as intriguing as the first but does establish that this is a "regular" movie as opposed to a documentary or political piece (which apparently a lot of audiences thought was the case with the first trailer.)


Lido said...

I gotta say personally I'm still pretty stoked for this, decent lookin trailer, not as good as last time agreed but still enjoyable

Benfea said...

Ah, so this is the movie Republicans don't want us to see.

Anonymous said...

Love how Bob just happened to post this right after the Democrats lost their second Debate in a row. :D

We get it, Bob. OBL got killed on Obama's orders. Good for you. It won't stop him from losing this election. Romney/Ryan will be our new President and VP and there is NOTHING you can do about it. Feeling scared? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous
Really don't know what you are smoking, but Bidden won the debate. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Anonymous said...

'Bidden' didn't win anything, and neither did Biden. :P He just showed what a reactionary, arrogant asshat he is as usual.

Silens Cursor said...

@First Anonymous - I'd argue it showed more of Ryan being a lying incompetent college Republican who has no business near the White House, but, as Jon Stewart so helpfully illustrated in his debate with O'Reilly, sometimes it's hard to see from the top of Bullshit Mountain.

Trailer looks interesting, Bob, this is shaping up to be quite the fall and winter for movies.

Anonymous said...

@Silens Cursor - Something tells me that you drive a Prius with a big fat Obama sticker on it. Good luck peeling it off in two or three years when you stop being delusional and realize Romney/Ryan are halfway through their first term. HAHAHAHA

Silens Cursor said...

@Anonymous Replier - I'm afraid not. Don't have a car, prefer to take the subway or walk. And I might have a problem voting anyway, considering I'm Canadian :)

And, just to throw you a bone, I actually did think O'Reilly performed pretty well in the debate last Saturday - he made some coherent, well-thought points and he was reasonably articulate. Unlike you.

Pat said...


Yes, because Bob NEVER posts trailers for movies on his movie blog unless it somehow ties in with topical politics.

Never mind the fact that the only thing Bob mentions in this post is how this trailer isn't as good as the first and makes it clearer that it's not a documentary.

OOH, the bias is OVERWHELMING.

Anonymous said...

@Silens Cursor: You're CANADIAN? HAHAHAHA. Then stop pretending to even have a viewpoint in American Politics, Scott Pilgrim. :P

@Pat: Your sarcasm is almost as weak as your grammar. Try harder. If you can.

Pat said...


I don't really think I need to try much harder. I think my point still stands. In the past week alone Bob has posted 6 separate movie trailers, most of which are not inherently political. It's just what he does. If he thinks a movie is potentially interesting or at least probably going to generate a buzz (since "Zero Dark Thirty" is from the same director that brought us "The Hurt Locker", it's safe to assume it will generate Oscar buzz) then he posts the trailer with some of his thoughts.

Yes, his thoughts can get political sometimes, but I think anyone with a working brain can see that he didn't in this case.

Then again, you seem to be operating under the delusion that Romney is going to win this election, so I guess I shouldn't assume that a working brain is a factor for you.

Anonymous said...

@Pat - If you believe that Obama is actually going to win this election legitimately, you're not just delusional. You're stupid. You bore me. NEXT! HAHAHAHAHAHA

Pat said...


No, I just remember recent history. This election is pretty much a perfect mirror for the 2004 election, just with the sides swapped. The incumbent is powerfully hated by the opposing side and frequently called "the worst President in history", they nominate someone "electable" (i.e. white, middle-aged, rich, and sticks to standard talking points), motivated by the desire to beat the incumbent rather than nominate someone with actually strong ideals (because all those nominees are risky), the nominee picks a young go-getter as his running mate that stands as stark contrast to the incumbent's older, less popular VP, the nominee pivots to the center during the first debate and wins, the VP debate is a draw...

And I think we all remember how the 2004 election ended. During the next two debates, Bush called Kerry out on his rhetoric not staying consistent with his record, voters began to wonder what Kerry actually might do because it was no longer clear, and his most recent (and more moderate) positions didn't seem all that different from what they already had under Bush, so they decided to stick with the devil they knew.

I don't think anyone presently still believes that Bush was a good President, but he still won re-election simply because his opposition lacked any real conviction for his platform. Bush may have been shit, but voters knew what they were getting.

You have to remember, Anon, the rest of America doesn't hate Obama as much as you do. They either don't care that much or they actually like him. Romney's biggest problem isn't Obama's record or public image. His problem is that he's not doing a very good job at convincing the voters that he'll be any better.

Anything can happen, so Romney might be able to turn it around if he can find a position that both rings true and strikes a chord with voters who are looking for something easy to grasp and clearly different from what we've got, but I honestly don't think he has it in him. He's not an idea guy. He's the politically expedient guy. His positions are just whatever work best for the given moment. It's hard to inspire faith in a guy like that.

And if you don't believe me, you should probably check the Electoral College Maps. Romney's win didn't really give him a boost as much as it gave Obama a fall. But even with that fall, he's still got a lead and most of the toss-ups still err on the blue side of the fence. People aren't so much inspired by Romney as they are just disappointed with Obama. It's easy to overcome disappointment. In fact, that's generally the best way to gain massive public favor. If you disappoint someone, their standards tend to lower quite a bit. It'll probably be that much easier for Obama to win people over next week simply because he set the bar so low. But the fact that people haven't gone full-tilt in the opposite direction and given Romney some new states on his map is because people are hoping that Obama will come back.

Romney's etch-a-sketch strategy isn't going to work more than once. Unless he's got a smoking gun, his bounce is probably going to hit its peak soon.

Anonymous said...

@Pat: HAHAHAHA. You're actually comparing this to the 2004 Election? The same election that your crowd still insists to this day was 'stolen' by Bush with mythical fraud?

Your reasoning is almost as weak as your President.

Elessar said...

Stop. Feeding. The Troll.

He's not arguing, he doesn't warn to argue. Ignore him and he'll go away.

Pat said...


Wait, I'm confused, are you saying that Bush DID steal the 2004 election? That's what you seem to be implying considering that you say my reasoning comparing the 2004 election to the present one is weak, citing only that my "crowd insists to this day" that the 2004 election "was 'stolen' by Bush with mythical fraud". The only way your argument holds water is if Bush actually did steal the election, thus meaning that the only way Obama can win is by stealing the election.

Oh wait, no, silly me. Once again I was assuming that whole "functioning brain" thing again. You weren't actually trying to form a coherent argument, you probably just thought you'd get a rise out of me by insulting my "crowd" or whatever.

Bad news, bud. I don't give a flying shit about the Democrats. Right now they're the party best positioned to represent my interests in the government, so they tend to get my votes, but they have no loyalty from me.

And even if they did insist that Bush stole the 2004 election (they don't by the way, it's the 2000 election that they claim he stole), I wouldn't care. I know as well as you do that Bush won the 2004 election.

And unless you have any ACTUAL reasons for why this election is significantly different from the 2004 election (I'll save you the time: it isn't) then it stands to reason that Obama will win re-election just as Bush did.

Not that you care. As Elessar points out, you are just a troll and no one should waste any time getting angry at you.

But the thing is, I'm not angry. In fact, I'm probably more amused by this exchange than you are.

You GENUINELY believe that Romney is going to win this election, and what makes it even sweeter is the fact that you keep lording it over everyone else here like you've already won. So when Obama DOES get re-elected, I'll be laughing my ass off, imagining your jaw hung open for a solid hour until you jump back onto some random blog and start accusing Obama of mythical fraud. Really, I would give anything to see your face in that moment, particularly since you seem SO CONVINCED that it isn't going to happen. Oh it's just so delicious.

Anonymous said...

Pat, I love you and you're probably right, but stop feeding her.

Arbiter said...

@Pat: It's just as pathetic to troll as it is to taunt people. Grow up, hmm? :D

Durendal said...

Hey! I didn't know Edgar Ramirez was in this! Great! :D

The Saarai'ari said...

Hmmm, the anonymous poster there reminds me a lot of that idiot Templar Gamer who trolls Bob at times. If it's him, at least he's a bit more funny to laugh at than James as he looks just like South Park's Chickenfucker. HAHAHAHAHA