That's a very good point.

Well, sure, but again — it's his most famous work, and its placement contextualizes it. Moving it recontextualizes it just like putting the Little Girl statue in front of it does. So, lose-lose, I'd say

All kidding aside, Fast Five is marvelous, and I thought that making Ludacris a computer expert so that he'd have something to do in the gang was stupid, jarring, hilarious, and just generally a microcosm of everything that makes that film and its first two follow-ups wonderful

How is it that so many of you are unable to empathize with Arturo Di Modica here?

I don't see the hypocrisy. He's not complaining that the girl statue was placed illegally, he's complaining that it completely recontextualizes his own work, effectively making it not his own anymore and incorporating it into what he sees as a paid advertisement for a fund.

in this world you're either a Duchamp or a Pinoncelli

(looks at Tiananmen Square photo) "What a dumbass"

ugh
downvoted for terribleness

hey, it was there first

My prediction? Prawns.

I would argue that the bulk of the jokes in both sketches are exactly the same. Setup: clown does goofy clown thing. Punchline: depressed person who ordered clown is still depressed, makes grunt of acknowledgment but does not laugh.

I think it's one of those things you put on before a live comedy show, like those Stella shorts.

That's a surprise to me if it's true — I was under the impression that video rentals / sales at that time were a lot less important than box office

I'm much more put off by the fact that, in part 2, Ludacris was an afro-sporting street hustler with seemingly no interest in or knowledge of computers.

Big-budget action movies are almost always longer than 2 hours. I've heard somewhere that it's because market research suggests target audiences feel ripped off by shorter running times. Shorter movies get more screenings at the same ticket price and make more money, so someone's made the determination that there's…

this one's from the internet, we lay no claim to it

Hey! I'm a normal person, but out of morbid curiosity I've researched this silliness way too much, so I'm equipped to answer your question.

There are three sanity tests applicable to almost all conspiracy theories:
1. Do the conspirators have a motive?
2. Is there anything wrong with the official story?
3. Can those discrepencies be more easily explained, for example by incompetence (9/11) or science (moon landing)?

This just doesn't feel like a "someone has to be fired" level flub. That's reserved for f-bombs, that sort of thing

I'll bet it's unrelated. From my days working in TV news, here's how something like this would be investigated:
First, you'd look at the director (and/or floor director if there is one). They should have given the anchor a warning a few seconds before she was back on air, but it's obvious from the video that she had no…