Mysteron's been around for a while... at least since 2004, I believe. Since he lived past the Merck situation, he's not a Sanctuary employee I take it. Universal's a more apt choice, as I don't necessarily see him in the promoting side of things, either. But considering how out of the loop they appear to be...

Mysteron's writing style has a case of open-ended sentences, which have gone on for so long I bet he doesn't even notice them anymore. Never caught them in Del's writings, though I don't know how he posts on msg boards. While I don't think he's Marc Canter either, that guy is an example of someone close enough to get real information without being tied to the band officially.

Well, we got the rhythm guitarist and drummer from Love Spit Love / Psychedelic Furs, wonder if they can spare a lead guitarist?

The greatest difference between those who left and those who stepped in is that (with perhaps the exception of Ron) the new guys are journeymen who've struck gold in gaining a recognizable entry for their resumes, a reasonable income from touring and a chance to record material for the upcoming studio album. All those who left had something to fall back to (with PHT likely having a dayjob outside music to begin with). The '01 lineup weren't hired guns, they wrote songs together and worked ferociously to become a unit in a studio setting. Everybody since then (with Fortus as a borderline case in the best of days) are substitutes for touring purposes. I'd reckon they're the real hired guns.

Quick to the point, setting up certain expectations to the reader on the grounds the text may cover. You might want to reconsider the part 'much more tyrannical'. Currently, it reads as if all mothers in law are tyrannical to a distinguishable degree by default (even the "very" normal ones).

I might rework the two paragraphs into one, as you're now jumping back and forth between personal experiences and generalized ideas. How about starting with a more general area of bad mother in laws and with every childlike man having (apparently quite often) a one bad mutha - then digging further by handing your personal testimony on the matter. At this point, the readers interest has already been raised, but the pacing of the text gets a little jumpy.

Also, you suggest you will have a personal viewpoint on the subject, even though it may be a biased one, as you do not seem to have experienced a 'good' or a 'normal' mother in law. Therefore you should remain wary before jumping into more generalized conclusions.

So which was the curious animal, your mother in law or you? Really, the first time I read that sentence, I got the idea that the mom was like that old golden retriever my aunt had, always looking at us with a bit blank, phlegmatic stare. Of course only certain kind of people can match the deep, liquid eyes of a worn-out canine, to which group I was willing to include your mother in law.

Because of this, the catastrophe bit was a bit lost to me. The animal fair metaphor is a good one, as it places you (the would-be spouse) in a situation where you'd be like a pet dog, all groomed up and ready to face the trials of the jury, evaluated on the grounds of how well you'll go through the motions and how good you manage look.

'He would really...' the whole sentence is a bit jumbled. Rephrase and use separate sentences if necessary. The shirts make an excellent real-life anecdote, and you do use them to symbolize his view of the world.

So you got the blues. A pretty effective way to figuratively describe how the mother in law (apparently, near-immediately) contributed to a rift between the two of you early on. Or I'm just reading it all wrong.

'holds on a leash...' I realize what you're going for here, but currently it can be interpreted as if she and her husband both hold the family dog on a leash. I'd go further in using the idiom, for example something in the vein of the man is kept in an even shorter leash than the dog. 

'return the small ones to the new mother just like her own sons...' Did the mother in law used to give her own sons away to someone else when he'd grown tired to them? If you mean that by relationship and parenthood, the son grows apart from the mother to a point where the mother rather directs her attention towards her grandchildren than her own offspring, it'd help if you'd break it down a little, as there's a number of ideas introduced in one sentence.

Also, the picture that begins to form at this point is that of a person who could be said to materialize her immediate family members to a degree. To be blunt, the daughter in law is someone who is acquired primarily for breeding purposes, while the resulting children evoke the idea of puppies which are certainly fun to be around with, but the day-to-day reality of looking after them is enough to have anyone question their cuddliness from time to time.

Since you've already established the dog show metaphor early on and compared the husband to a lap dog, I see no reason why dog terminology couldn't be used to further illustrate the power structure within the family.

Well, she's not misogynistic them, but did she have daughters? So far, I've only counted two sons. But if the son in law has a sports car, does the mom want him to change for a Hyundai or a family wagon? Would make sense if the car would represent the man's virility and later on, stability and dedication. I'm saying this because the whole idea of the car appears significant and therefore it's rather vital to know what'll come next.

The breastfeeding thing left me a bit aloof for a while. I can see the mom and the son in law having an affair (or random sexual encounter), but the entire phrasing is also alluding to a more Oedipal relationship, and it's as if the son in laws own mother never had enough time to breastfeed him back in the day and while witnessing his children receive more attention from the spouse than he does, the son in law reverts to the matriarch for deliverance.

Are these double standards related to custody issues in the case of separation? I mean, it's okay for the son in law to have an extra-marital affair (at least with the grand mother herself), while the son is forbidden from such ventures. If the mayor's daughter angle is left out of the equation, this is a moment where the mother takes sides with her daughter in law over her own son, which is rather significant in itself.

It's a good thing you include a mention of more easygoing mother in laws, which should bring in some perspective to the matter.

In closing, you imply that you still keep tabs with this mother in law after she finally got what was coming to her, alienating most of her former allies and subordinates and losing much of the power she once had over the family unit. In that case, your final note seems to be that mother in laws cease to be an issue only when they find themselves in a position in which they need the company of a daughter in law and have grown out of the role of looking over the families of their own children. Matriarchs dethroned, if you may.

You do seem to have a knack for figurative expression, though I must say that the text could use a bit more meat into it. While the everyday events you list can be seen to contain symbolic layers, they would benefit if you'd use them to open up the issues you'd like to raise to the reader, rather than to vaguely present them in the hopes that all others can relate to your viewpoints on a figurative level alone.

Lastly, I'm a bit curious. Did you write the original text in French and then translate it to English?

I'm interested in the fact that the shooting script is credited to Ed Norton.

But yeah, currently the film is sort stuck in the crossfire in the argument between Norton & director Louis Leterrier and Marvel Studios. Found a rather interesting article on the subject, which sure does explain the lack of buzz at the moment.

A pity for Universal, since Hulk was to be one of their tent-pole releases for the summer.

Edward Norton isn't speaking. The star of The Incredible Hulk, the new $150 million adaptation of the Marvel comic-book series, would normally be chatting up the press this time of year, promoting his big summer movie. Instead, the 38-year-old Oscar nominee has declined repeated interview requests, following a disagreement he had with his producers over the final cut of the film. In recent months, Norton and the film's director, Louis Leterrier (The Transporter), campaigned for a longer, more detailed film. Marvel Studios wanted a faster, leaner one. Marvel won. These creative arguments happen in Hollywood a lot but usually remain a secret. This time, they didn't. So Norton isn't talking, and others are ready to lay the blame '” well, everywhere. ''It's as much Marvel's fault as it is Edward's,'' Leterrier says. ''And my fault. It's everybody's fault! Or no one's fault, in a way. I regret that [Marvel and Norton] didn't come to an agreement where we could've all worked together.''

[Long article, full text here

Since then, Norton has spoken up.

More on HULK and Norton Rumors
By: Jarrod Sarafin, News Editor
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008

If you've been following our weekly Top Maniacal Rumors of the Week column the past few weeks, you'll know that there have been rumblings of a division between executive producer/star/screenwriter Edward Norton and director Louis Leterrier on the final cut of the upcoming Incredible Hulk. Well, Entertainment Weekly has gone into more detail on exactly what's going on...

According to Leterrier, he and his star hit it off beautifully, and there were no issues with Marvel while the movie was being shot. During post-production, though, the relationship with Marvel hit a snag. The company wanted to release the most commercial film possible: lots of action and a running time under two hours. Norton and Leterrier, however, lobbied for a more meditative cut of the film that ran about two hours and 15 minutes.

Here's what Norton had to say...

Like so many people I've loved the story of The Hulk since I was a kid, so it was thrilling when Marvel asked me to write and help produce an altogether new screen incarnation, as well as play Bruce Banner. I grew up reading Marvel Comics and always loved the mythic dimension and contemporary themes in the stories, and I'm proud of the script I wrote. In every phase of production, including the editing, working with Louis Leterrier has been wonderful... I've never had a better partner, and the collaboration with all the rest of the creative team has been terrific. Every good movie gets forged through collaboration, and different ideas among people who are all committed and respect the validity of each other's opinions is the heart of filmmaking.

Regrettably, our healthy process, which is and should be a private matter, was misrepresented publicly as a 'dispute,' seized on by people looking for a good story, and has been distorted to such a degree that it risks distracting from the film itself, which Marvel, Universal and I refuse to let happen. It has always been my firm conviction that films should speak for themselves and that knowing too much about how they are made diminishes the magic of watching them. All of us believe The Incredible Hulk will excite old fans and create new ones and be a huge hit...our focus has always been to deliver the Hulk that people have been waiting for and keep the worldwide love affair with the big green guy going strong.

-source

Norton's comments should be administered with a grain of salt. He's infamous for locking horns with American History X director Tony Kaye (who himself was already a legend in advertising at the time), basically locking the filmmaker out of the editing room in order to make sure The Ed Cut is the one that gets out. Kaye raised some hell over the matter, but Norton's career survived as he was the one who had studio backing. And of course, when you get a carte blanche to write and star over a $200M movie, you tend to be proud of all the things money can buy you.

As for Leterrier, he comes off as someone who was smart enough to acknowledge who was the big green man in the room, playing ball in order to accommodate Norton's goals. Basically this translates into doing it Ed. For all you Norton fans out there, I'm sorry but it's a bit of a stretch (or a vague statement) for him to raise Leterrier over the likes of Milos Forman, David Fincher, Woody Allen and my lasting favorite, Julie Taymor. To me, Leterrier recalls an era in the film industry before the French New Wave and the auteur theory, when the director was essentially a studio hired hand, whose job was to use his knack for storytelling in the studios story in the most effective ways. Not that different from adverts, when you think about it.

I used to be a big fan of Norton's, but I fear he's beginning to mistake his ego with the size of his paycheck, to quote the revered Marlon Brando.

The program you might want is Unrar X, a Mac-based software to open RAR files.