• Profile logout login

#spoilers

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 8:36 PM
Sun Nov 22
11 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138

Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email

West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email

Contributing Editors:

Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email

Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email

Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email

Investigations:
John Cook | Email

Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email

Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email

Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email

Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • posts about #spoilers more →

    The Yes Men's Next Stunt

    Ooooh! Now There Are Gay Sex Spoilers!

    Cattrall's Predictably Icky Sex "Spoilers"

    You'll Never Guess Orphan's Surprise Ending, Because It's Completely Ridiculous

    Surprise! Jon and Kate Divorce Papers Filed

    About American Idol

    Consider This Your Giant, Missing 'Spoiler Alert' For EW's 'Lost' Cover Story

    Breaking 'The Bachelor' Code: This Season's Winner Revealed! Possibly!

    Lost: New Scene, New Trailer, And Lotsa (Hidden) Spoilers

    Desperate Fox Experiments With Unique Spoiler Campaign For 'Marley & Me'

  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of lobstr lobstr
    09/16/09

    In reply to The Yes Men's Next Stunt
    so it'll kinda look like the beginning and end of this?
     Reply
    Edited by lobstr at 09/16/09 11:24 AM lobstr was starred lobstr was unstarred
    Image of daveyjonesisdead daveyjonesisdead
    09/16/09

    In reply to The Yes Men's Next Stunt
    from farce to reality, in less than thirty minutes:

    RBC chief defends bank's oil sands work

    Royal Bank of Canada's chief executive officer, Gordon Nixon, faced a tongue lashing by two environmental activists today as he answered questions at an industry conference in Toronto. ...

    He defended his bank's "balanced approach" in taking such investment decisions, adding the industry would continue to finance energy, mining and forest product companies.

    "Look, when it comes to financing oil and gas companies in Canada, all the Canadian banks and basically all large banks, globally, are active," Nixon said.

    "I think it is important for any financial institution to ensure that they get the right balance in terms of their decision making, between what's in the economic interest and what's in the interest of society – whether it is environmental, whether it is health care or anything else.

    [www.thestar.com]
     Reply
    daveyjonesisdead was starred daveyjonesisdead was unstarred
    Image of lobstr lobstr
    09/16/09

    In reply to The Yes Men's Next Stunt
    damn that sounds expensive...
    but what else comes to mind is the fact that giving the heads up to NYPD and UN may cause some asshole to declare that section of the river off-limits during the meeting... i expect some sort of shenanigan that way if only in the name of fighting terrorism :p
     Reply
    lobstr was starred lobstr was unstarred
    Image of daveyjonesisdead daveyjonesisdead
    09/16/09

    In reply to The Yes Men's Next Stunt
    I don't doubt that some money-hungry entrepreneur will think, Hey, that's a great idea! and start selling them.
     Reply
    daveyjonesisdead was starred daveyjonesisdead was unstarred
    Image of britneyspearstears britneyspearstears
    09/16/09

    In reply to The Yes Men's Next Stunt
    "The plan so far is to put a bunch of people in like 50 inflatable "Survivaball" suits"

    Is that like one "Survivaball" suit, per person?
     Reply
    britneyspearstears was starred britneyspearstears was unstarred
    Image of dwtnguy dwtnguy
    09/09/09

    In reply to Ooooh! Now There Are Gay Sex Spoilers!
    Liza Minelli?...(sigh)...Really?

    Maybe the the minister will be a Judy Garland drag queen, and Stanford can walk down the isle to a club version of "Here Comes the Bride", and there will be a leather queen who makes jokes about having sex in the bathroom and prefaces every sentence with "Oh, honey..." while an old and fat Barbara Striesand impersonator with an inexplicably young and hot asian or latino boyfriend talk about how Carrie is "Fierce".
     Reply
    Steverino Begins promoted this comment dwtnguy was starred dwtnguy was unstarred
    Image of contradicto contradicto
    09/09/09

    In reply to Ooooh! Now There Are Gay Sex Spoilers!
    What ruined the movie for me (even though I never expected to like it) was the coupling of Anthony and Stanford.

    THEY HATED EACH OTHER! But because they're the only gays in the room they have to fall in lurrrve.
     Reply
    contradicto was starred contradicto was unstarred
    Image of Alexa Elizabeth Ann Alexa Elizabeth Ann
    09/09/09

    @contradicto: Anthony and Stanford got together? Wow, I REALLY wasn't paying attention!
     Reply
    contradicto promoted this comment Alexa Elizabeth Ann was starred Alexa Elizabeth Ann was unstarred
    Image of contradicto contradicto
    09/09/09

    @Alexa Elizabeth Ann: It was during the New Year's Eve montage. That's when I threw my cosmo at the screen.
     Reply
    contradicto was starred contradicto was unstarred
    Image of lacieca01 lacieca01
    09/09/09

    In reply to Ooooh! Now There Are Gay Sex Spoilers!
    For one thing, the schedule may contain a decoy scene, something that is intended precisely to throw gossipers off the scent.

    For another, a male guest at a black-tie wedding is supposed to wear black tie. So Anthony or Sanford or both could be a guest at someone else's wedding.

    Or they may go through with the "campy gay wedding" gag, which the more elderly commenters here may recall was so wittily done back in 1995 on Roseanne.
     Reply
    Edited by lacieca01 at 09/09/09 8:36 AM lacieca01 was starred lacieca01 was unstarred
    Image of momo momo
    09/09/09

    In reply to Ooooh! Now There Are Gay Sex Spoilers!
    Minstrelmony.
     Reply
    momo was starred momo was unstarred
    Image of The Real JR The Real JR
    09/09/09

    @momo: So in terms of Hollywood *types* there are the Magic Negros and Gayngels. Both are annoying.
     Reply
    The Real JR was starred The Real JR was unstarred
    Image of unclevanya unclevanya
    09/09/09

    In reply to Ooooh! Now There Are Gay Sex Spoilers!
    Pairing off Stanford and Anthony was the most nonsensical part of the first movie. The two hated each other throughout the series. Stanford had a long-term relationship with hunky Broadway dancer Marcus -- they even had a house in the Hamptons together. Why couldn't they just leave Anthony single and promiscuous, like he's supposed to be, and let Stanford marry Marcus?

    Yeah, I'm one of those fans. Save your pity!
     Reply
    unclevanya was starred unclevanya was unstarred
    Image of Offbalance Offbalance
    09/09/09

    @unclevanya: Oh, I am too. And I loved it when Anthony yelled at Charlotte for trying to pair the two of them up, "Just because he's gay, and I'm gay?!" Please. Marcus just turned into vapor at some point, which infuriates me. He and Stanford had a good thing.

    We can be those fans together. *hangs head*
     Reply
    The Real JR promoted this comment Offbalance was starred Offbalance was unstarred
    Image of HPGrl04 HPGrl04
    09/09/09

    @unclevanya: i was thinking that exact same thing... are they trying to prove a point, that when you get old enough, you eventually just settle for the "best/mediocre" thing that comes along?
     Reply
    unclevanya promoted this comment HPGrl04 was starred HPGrl04 was unstarred
    Image of The Real JR The Real JR
    09/09/09

    @Offbalance: lolYOU. hehehe *waves*
     Reply
    The Real JR was starred The Real JR was unstarred
    Image of PopCultureSavant PopCultureSavant
    09/09/09

    @unclevanya: That pissed me off too! I loved Stanford and Marcus' relationship. I think what upset me the most was that there was no explanation. They were together at the end of the show and then *poof!* all of a sudden Stanford is single?
     Reply
    unclevanya promoted this comment PopCultureSavant was starred PopCultureSavant was unstarred
    Image of Better to Eat You With Better to Eat You With
    09/09/09

    @HPGrl04: I think they're just trying to have a gay wedding, in the same way every book and movie had to have a school shooting a few years back.
     Reply
    unclevanya promoted this comment Better to Eat You With was starred Better to Eat You With was unstarred
    Image of Steverino Begins Steverino Begins
    09/09/09

    @Offbalance: Totally. There are a lot of straight people (mostly my friends and family) who really needed to hear that "Just because he's gay, and I'm gay" line. Now the whole lesson has been thrown to hell and people will keep setting me up with their totally non-compatible gay friends.

    I bet Mario Cantone completely agrees.
     Reply
    Edited by Steverino Begins at 09/09/09 5:02 PM Steverino Begins was starred Steverino Begins was unstarred
    Image of Uncle_Billy_Slumming Uncle_Billy_Slumming
    09/09/09

    In reply to Ooooh! Now There Are Gay Sex Spoilers!
    " perhaps a Miley Cyrus citing [sick]"

    These are the bright pudenda I was prophesying for you.
     Reply
    Uncle_Billy_Slumming was starred Uncle_Billy_Slumming was unstarred
    Image of CountFosco CountFosco
    09/09/09

    In reply to Ooooh! Now There Are Gay Sex Spoilers!
    What's Miley being cited for? Is it statutory rape? Sexting?
     Reply
    mattchew03 promoted this comment CountFosco was starred CountFosco was unstarred
    Image of PaisleyPajamas PaisleyPajamas
    09/08/09

    In reply to Cattrall's Predictably Icky Sex "Spoilers"
    This plotline, along with the rank ones from SATC-TM Part Uno must be Cattrall's punishment from the producers, et.al., for holding out on the salary negotiations.

    She still looks as young/younger than her costars--especially nekkid.
     Reply
    PaisleyPajamas was starred PaisleyPajamas was unstarred
    Image of BabyJewn BabyJewn
    09/08/09

    In reply to Cattrall's Predictably Icky Sex "Spoilers"
    What's "icky" is when idiotic guys write about SATC. Seriously--THAT is what I'm sick to shit of.
     Reply
    Vivien Smith-Smythe-Smith promoted this comment BabyJewn was starred BabyJewn was unstarred
    Image of Vivien Smith-Smythe-Smith Vivien Smith-Smythe-Smith
    09/08/09

    @BabyJewn: But it's still okay for idiotic women to write about it though, right?
     Reply
    Vivien Smith-Smythe-Smith was starred Vivien Smith-Smythe-Smith was unstarred
    Image of Lucia Toledo Lucia Toledo
    09/08/09

    In reply to Cattrall's Predictably Icky Sex "Spoilers"
    Hmmm. Juicy older women. I still don't know what to make of them, even if I know what's so great about them (and seem to be turning into one...).
     Reply
    Lucia Toledo was starred Lucia Toledo was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.