United bars
John Duffey
the days... United bars!
I'd forgotten about them!
John
* Don't speak, I know what you're saying
--
Mark Blunden
news:4a400742...@freeuk.com...
> Whoa, love this 80's programme - loads of things from back in
> the days... United bars!
>
> I'd forgotten about them!
I remember them well! The regular ones were alright, but the orange-flavour
ones were superb - I used to bite them in half, eat the biscuit first, then
enjoy the orangey-bits-embedded chocolate. I still look for them in
supermarkets even though I know they're long gone.
Funnily enough, I started off watching Blade Runner, switched to I Love 1981
by mistake, and found that far more entertaining! Not that Blade Runner
isn't great, but you can't beat nostalgia. :)
Isn't it amazing how young Kim Wilde still looks?
--
Mark.
mar...@bigfoot.com
* It's things like this that cause people to go and live in a hut on Dagobah
Charlie Pearce
<mar...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Funnily enough, I started off watching Blade Runner, switched to I Love 1981
>by mistake, and found that far more entertaining! Not that Blade Runner
>isn't great, but you can't beat nostalgia. :)
It was a good night for sci-fi films last night, with Blade Runner on
Channel 5 and Alien on ITV2. Shame I missed that start of both...
That reminds me, I had a very very freaky experience yesterday. I
bought a paper in town, then as I was sitting reading the TV section I
circled interesting-looking programmes so I wouldn't forget to watch
them. Later that evening I picked up the TV section, and suddenly
realised that programmes I definitely remembered circling were
unmarked(!). As I was trying to think of an explanation that didn't
involve alien abduction or time travel, I suddenly realised that among
all the weekend/travel/money supplements, some bozo at the newspaper
plant had generously thrown in two TV sections...
Charlie
--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs
Zoe Titman
charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk (Charlie Pearce) wrote:
> It was a good night for sci-fi films last night, with Blade Runner on
> Channel 5 and Alien on ITV2. Shame I missed that start of both...
Cronenburg's Videodrome was on BBC2...
Daniel Ratcliffe
wrote:
>Cronenburg's Videodrome was on BBC2...
Bollocks! I knew I missed something. PHa.
~Daniel
Simon Jones
"Zoe Titman" <jin...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:20010121....@rowena.local.intranet...
I love that film. One of my all-time favourites.
But, then again, you could say that about any Cronenberg film.
Not that I've seen many of 'em yet.
Shivers, Videodrome, eXistenZ....wow.
Simon.
--
* Part man. Part machine. All cop.
s.j...@uea.ac.uk
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~u9930965
Zoe Titman
<Smj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Zoe Titman" <jin...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:20010121....@rowena.local.intranet...
>> Cronenburg's Videodrome was on BBC2...
> I love that film. One of my all-time favourites.
> But, then again, you could say that about any Cronenberg film.
> Not that I've seen many of 'em yet.
> Shivers, Videodrome, eXistenZ....wow.
Naked Lunch.
Steve Brooks
"Zoe Titman" > wrote
[Cronenberg films.]
>
> > Not that I've seen many of 'em yet.
>
> > Shivers, Videodrome, eXistenZ....wow.
>
> Naked Lunch.
An amazingly affective attempt to capture the spirit of Burroughs'
unfilmable book IMHO.
--
SB
VinceH
> > Cronenburg's Videodrome was on BBC2...
> Shivers, Videodrome, eXistenZ....wow.
Shivers... very good.
eXistenZ... daft capitalisation and IIRC I didn't
find it that good.
Videodrome... managed to miss. Bugger.
VinceH
--
WebChange2 for RISC OS: 12ukp. Limited function version and order form from:-
http://www.softrock.co.uk/webchange/
Simon Jones
"VinceH" <vin...@softrock.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a40fecf...@softrock.co.uk...
> In article <94fvb6$8hv$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> Simon Jones <Smj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > Cronenburg's Videodrome was on BBC2...
>
> > Shivers, Videodrome, eXistenZ....wow.
>
> Shivers... very good.
The ending really smacked me back in my chair.
> eXistenZ... daft capitalisation
Er.....that's because it's a daft computer game. Supposedly. Remember?
Take a look at the somewhat daft names that accompany....well.....just about
every game on the shelves in a computer shop.
> and IIRC I didn't
> find it that good.
Yeah, I know lots of people who didn't like it. I even know a disturbing
amount of people who went "oh, it's not as good as The Matrix", as if they
actually had something to do with each other. That was a little odd.
Personally, I was astonished by it. So many little subtleties, it was really
rather impressive. I thought. :)
> Videodrome... managed to miss. Bugger.
Damn. It's really fantastic. Totally nuts, but genius at the same time.
And James Woods is great. Hell, James Woods is always great!
Talking of another James Woods film - John Carpenter's Vampires. Everybody
said this film was crap. Everybody. I saw it, and loved every minute of it!
Some of the best entertainment I'd had for a long time.
Simon.
--
* You met me at a very strange time in my life.
s.j...@uea.ac.uk
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~u9930965
John Duffey
[eXistenZ]
Well, I can't claim to like it or really dislike it. Every time
I've tried to watch it, I've gone to sleep.
Actually, every Cronenberg film I've tried to watch has had
sleep interfere in it somehow.
Fell asleep during my first watching of The Fly, then again
during my first watching of Videodrome. Both times I've tried to
watch eXistenZ I've retreated to the arms of Morpheus (see, it
*does* have something to do with The Matrix!) and somehow I
managed to doze through the middle of Lost Highway.
Oooh, looking at IMDb I see that Scanners is a David Cronenberg
film too. remembering back to secondary school, I remember
talking to a lad called Adam Mason about how cool Scanners was -
unfortunately, you guessed it, the soporific effects of the
director took hold and I fell asleep about halfway
through it. I actually now own Scanners on video, and tried
watching it over the summer when I was off sick, but again,
drifted into unconsciousness before the end.
> I even know a disturbing amount of people who went "oh, it's
> not as good as The Matrix", as if they actually had something
> to do with each other.
Well, from the beginning of eXistenZ, isn't it a computer game
which interfaces directly with your brain?
A little similarity there!
> That was a little odd.
Ah, but people are strange.
John
* Turn thee into darkness, and ye shall repent.
--
Simon Jones
Ah..I would appear to be getting some of your posts again...still, hopefully
i'll be changing newsfeed sometime soon.....
> [eXistenZ]
>
> Well, I can't claim to like it or really dislike it. Every time
> I've tried to watch it, I've gone to sleep.
>
> Actually, every Cronenberg film I've tried to watch has had
> sleep interfere in it somehow.
Strange. Is this a general film thing you have, or just Cronenberg films?
And were you just trying to watch them at particularly tired times or
something?
Every one I've seen (I forgot that I'd seen The Fly, which was the first I
saw) has captivated me completely.
> Fell asleep during my first watching of The Fly, then again
> during my first watching of Videodrome. Both times I've tried to
> watch eXistenZ I've retreated to the arms of Morpheus (see, it
> *does* have something to do with The Matrix!) and somehow I
> managed to doze through the middle of Lost Highway.
Isn't Lost Highway by David Lynch?
> > I even know a disturbing amount of people who went "oh, it's
> > not as good as The Matrix", as if they actually had something
> > to do with each other.
> Well, from the beginning of eXistenZ, isn't it a computer game
> which interfaces directly with your brain?
> A little similarity there!
Vaguely.
Programmer invents a virtual reality computer game that plugs directly into
the spine. It's an RPG game of sorts, and it's so realistic people aren't
sure when it ends and when it begins. It's just the latest software for the
spine device. But, then again, the game could be just a
game-within-the-game.
Alternatively -
Humanity creates artificial intelligence, robots run amok (as they tend to),
humans blacken the sky in an attempt to stop them (??), robots imprison and
enslave most of the human population, creating a 'construct' of the world
from about 200 years previously, to keep all the 'batteries' happy whilst
the robots feed off them. There's a band of renegade humans who are free of
this 'construct' who are trying to save humanity from 'the Matrix' (by
shooting lots of them, or so it would seem).
Yes, I suppose there are small similarities.
I really must see eXistenZ again.....
Simon.
--
* C'mon you apes! You wanna live forever?
s.j...@uea.ac.uk
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~u9930965
VinceH
Simon Jones <Smj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "VinceH" <vin...@softrock.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4a40fecf...@softrock.co.uk...
> > eXistenZ... daft capitalisation
> Er.....that's because it's a daft computer game. Supposedly.
> Remember?
Yes, I do. It's still daft. I hate daft
capitalisation. Being about a computer game
is no excuse. It's daft.
> Take a look at the somewhat daft names that
> accompany....well.....just about every game on the shelves in
> a computer shop.
Quake
Tomb Raider
Half Life
The Driver
Just a few examples which spring to mind
(and all with sequels, so equate to more
than one game). No daft capitalisation there.
They should serve as examples to the twats
that release games with daft capitalisation.
> John Carpenter's Vampires. Everybody said this film was crap.
> Everybody. I saw it, and loved every minute of it! Some of the
> best entertainment I'd had for a long time.
Ah yes. Enjoyed that rather a lot.
Simon Jones
> > Er.....that's because it's a daft computer game. Supposedly.
> > Remember?
> Yes, I do. It's still daft. I hate daft
> capitalisation. Being about a computer game
> is no excuse. It's daft.
But....but...that's the point!
> > Take a look at the somewhat daft names that
> > accompany....well.....just about every game on the shelves in
> > a computer shop.
> Quake
> Tomb Raider
> Half Life
> The Driver
>
> Just a few examples which spring to mind
> (and all with sequels, so equate to more
> than one game). No daft capitalisation there.
> They should serve as examples to the twats
> that release games with daft capitalisation.
At this point I would name a few to back up my point, except I don't really
know the gaming market at all. All I know is that on the few occasions I've
wandered into somewhere like Electronics Boutiques, I've had to stop myself
from laughing out loud at the names of some (well, most) of the titles.
I don't get it. OK, so computer games are still in their adolescent
stages...but neither film, TV, novels (?) went through a period of Stupidly
Melodramatic And Dumb-Sounding cApitaLised Names.
> > John Carpenter's Vampires. Everybody said this film was crap.
> > Everybody. I saw it, and loved every minute of it! Some of the
> > best entertainment I'd had for a long time.
> Ah yes. Enjoyed that rather a lot.
Oh, jolly good. Well, that's 3 people now I know who liked it. Including me.
Simon.
--
* No shit Sherlock.
s.j...@uea.ac.uk
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~u9930965
Mark Blunden
news:94kksi$h85$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> At this point I would name a few to back up my point, except I don't
> really know the gaming market at all. All I know is that on the few
> occasions I've wandered into somewhere like Electronics Boutiques, I've
> had to stop myself from laughing out loud at the names of some (well,
> most) of the titles.
>
> I don't get it. OK, so computer games are still in their adolescent
> stages...but neither film, TV, novels (?) went through a period of
> Stupidly Melodramatic And Dumb-Sounding cApitaLised Names.
I'm sure we could easily find a few examples - Star Wars, for instance, is
about as stupidly melodramatic as you could get, except that you don't think
of it that way because it's built its own context. Taken out of context,
many film titles would sound stupid, so perhaps your reaction to computer
games' names is simply down to not having any information to go on except
the names. There certainly are some silly names out there, but most of them
do make sense, at least when taken in the context of the games' nature and
content.
--
Mark.
mar...@bigfoot.com
* I'm playing all the right notes. Not necessarily in the right order.
John Duffey
<Smj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Strange. Is this a general film thing you have, or just
> Cronenberg films? And were you just trying to watch them at
> particularly tired times or something?
Just Cronenberg I think.
That and 5th Element, which I find it very difficult to not go
to sleep through now, though that could just be a pavlovian
response.ą
> Every one I've seen (I forgot that I'd seen The Fly, which was
> the first I saw) has captivated me completely.
Hmm, I think this is one of our differences here.
While I can see that technically, he's very good indeed, he's
often absolutely interminal.
I was told on saturday that Videodrome was a film about the
development of post modern thinking. The creation of an
artificial reality which is easy to distinguish from reality,
followed by an artificial reality that's very real with some
obviously fake bits, then it becomes an artificial reality which
is very difficult to distinguish from reality, then the final
stage is the dawning of the New Flesh. (or some such crap).
My own thoughts on post-modern thinking is that it's an
excercise in being very clever about an essentially stupid
thing, and I don't have much truck with it. I don't like films
which present themselves to you and say (as Videodrome and
eXistenZ seem to) "here's a big pile of steaming gibberish wank"
and because they then go on to say "Only it's not a pile of
steaming gibberish wank because it's a metaphor for the human
condition and the nature of unknowing" the audience always
seems to get sucked into it and say "ahh, that's very clever!
How does the director know that we think it's a pile of
steaming gibberish wank? Ooh, he must be very clever!".
A bit ridiculous if you ask me. I'd agree that the nature of
unknowing is a big pile of steaming gibberish wank, but I think
I'd rather watch a story.
> > Fell asleep during my first watching of The Fly, then again
> > during my first watching of Videodrome. Both times I've
> > tried to watch eXistenZ I've retreated to the arms of
> > Morpheus (see, it *does* have something to do with The
> > Matrix!) and somehow I managed to doze through the middle of
> > Lost Highway.
> Isn't Lost Highway by David Lynch?
Er, er, maybe.
It seems very similar to something Cronenberg would do, however,
with a tried, tested and not particularly original idea being
ruined by shifts of narrative, insufficient explanation of
characters, random events taking place, pace shifts and
essentially the director doing everything he possibly can to
alienate and disorientate the viewer.
John
ą I went through quite a long phase of attempting to watch
that film late at night. I nearly always fell asleep just
after the jump scene, and I find it very difficult not to
do the same whilst watching it now, even if I'm wide awake
to begin with!
* You can't see what she's doing with her pointy stick!
--
Steve Brooks
"John Duffey" > wrote
> My own thoughts on post-modern thinking is that it's an
> excercise in being very clever about an essentially stupid
> thing, and I don't have much truck with it.
What do you see as post-modern thinking?
--
SB
Simon Jones
"David Burnett" <var...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:9802...@bigfoot.com...
> "Simon Jones" <Smj...@btinternet.com> wrote...
> >
> >Humanity creates artificial intelligence, robots run amok (as they tend
to),
> >humans blacken the sky in an attempt to stop them (??)
>
What, every single one?
And they couldn't just pick up a few batteries from a store somewhere?
Simon.
--
* Now it gets interesting.
s.j...@uea.ac.uk
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~u9930965
Simon Jones
> Just Cronenberg I think.
Righty-ho.
> That and 5th Element, which I find it very difficult to not go
> to sleep through now, though that could just be a pavlovian
> response.¹
Could just be 'cos it's a bit of a poor film, really, once they leave New
York.
> > Every one I've seen (I forgot that I'd seen The Fly, which was
> > the first I saw) has captivated me completely.
> Hmm, I think this is one of our differences here.
Woohoo! I like those.
> While I can see that technically, he's very good indeed, he's
> often absolutely interminal.
Hm. Depends upon your own interests, of course.
> I was told on saturday that Videodrome was a film about the
> development of post modern thinking.
Hm...maybe. Well, that's one possible reading, I guess. Although I've never
really thought of it as that.
Sure, it's got post-modern elements, in the way he sees himself and other on
television as if they were really there, and sees the future etc....which is
mildly post-modern. Although would be more so if, of course, it was a TV
programme, rather than a film....
> The creation of an
> artificial reality which is easy to distinguish from reality,
> followed by an artificial reality that's very real with some
> obviously fake bits, then it becomes an artificial reality which
> is very difficult to distinguish from reality, then the final
> stage is the dawning of the New Flesh. (or some such crap).
That's not really all the post-modern. That's just a typical, weird
Cronenberg plot. With completely nutty stuff happening in totally normal
places to totally normal people.
> My own thoughts on post-modern thinking is that it's an
> excercise in being very clever about an essentially stupid
> thing,
Hm. Depends upon your definition.
The way I see it, post-modernism is simply being aware of what has come
before and what is. It's another term for 'self-conscious', but relating to
the arts.
Scream, for example, is post-modern (hell, Kevin Williamson has post-modern
all over his work). Sure, it's a spoof, but not in the classic spoof-style.
It's all too *knowing*. It's not a Naked Gun or Scary Movie-style spoof,
where it just takes the piss. It knows exactly what it's doing, and plays
upon established things. A bit like, I believe, Wes Craven's New Nightmare,
although I've only seen a bit of it, which star Robert Englund as himself,
an actor, being stalked by Freddie.
Early films rarely had references to films in. They weren't kind of
'self-aware' - they just were.
Another way of looking at post-modernism is that it simply means that there
are no new ideas around, and that all is left is to cross-reference and
repeat what has already been.
> and I don't have much truck with it
I don't have much truck with it when it's used in a really pretentious, "oh
look, I'm really clever, because I know what post-modernism is and I'm going
to exploit it, woo!" kind of way. But post-modernism itself you can't really
complain about, 'cos it's a thing...it's a technique, or whatever you want
to call it. A way of describing certain works of art, whatever medium they
may be in.
>. I don't like films
> which present themselves to you and say (as Videodrome and
> eXistenZ seem to) "here's a big pile of steaming gibberish wank"
> and because they then go on to say "Only it's not a pile of
> steaming gibberish wank because it's a metaphor for the human
> condition and the nature of unknowing"
No, I don't like that either. However, as I've never noticed Videodrome or
eXistenZ do that, I don't have a problem with them. eXistenZ I can't really
comment on properly, 'cos I've only seen it once, a while back, and don't
remember specifics, other than my reaction to it.
Videodrome, though....that doesn't do that at all. When does it do the whole
Kevin Williamson "this is really bad, but it's OK-bad because it's
deliberate, and we know it is, and we're being ironic, and we're
oh-so-clever post-modernists"? I've seen it several times, and at no point
does it try to put in a get-out clause. Nor does it make any particular
points about human condition or whatnot - sure, you can read that out of it
if you feel like it, but at no point does it actually *make* the point. It
just puts a few things out in the open there, and you can think what you
want about it. Maybe that's what I like about his stuff...he doesn't dictate
to you, or manipulate your emotions - he just does his stuff, and goes
"there y'are."
> the audience always
> seems to get sucked into it and say "ahh, that's very clever!
> How does the director know that we think it's a pile of
> steaming gibberish wank? Ooh, he must be very clever!".
Yes.
> A bit ridiculous if you ask me
Yes. I find that highly annoying, too. A film holding up a sign saying
"look, I'm crap!" does not make it not-crap.
> > Isn't Lost Highway by David Lynch?
> Er, er, maybe.
> It seems very similar to something Cronenberg would do
Haven't seen any Lynch yet (got Eraserhead sitting up here somewhere).
However, having spoken to people who are pretty much experts on Lynch and
Cronenberg, I don't think they really cover the same stuff at all. I'll have
to watch some Lynch and get back to you.
> , however,
> with a tried, tested and not particularly original idea being
> ruined by shifts of narrative, insufficient explanation of
> characters, random events taking place, pace shifts and
You don't like that? Take that stuff out of film-making, and what have you
got left?? Linear, dull stories, that's what you've got.
Did you not notice the many, many, many shifts of narrative, insufficient
explanation of characters, random events taking place, pace shifts and
various techological gimmicks used in Fight Club?
And who wants a tried, tested and not particularly original idea presented
in a tried, tested and not particularly original manner?
I dunno how "tried, tested and not particularly original" can apply to
either Cronenberg or Lynch, really. Sure, Cronenberg does examine the same
ground in a lot of his films, but he always seems to do it in a different
way, and comes to different conclusions...if he even comes to a conclusion.
And from what I've seen of Eraserhead, "tried, tested and not particularly
original" is....well....about as far from that film as an episode of
Eastenders.
> essentially the director doing everything he possibly can to
> alienate and disorientate the viewer.
Alienating the audience is indeed a dodgy thing to do....although sometimes
can be a cool thing.
But disorientating the viewer......what's wrong with that? Surely that can
be half the fun of some movies? I know Fight Club left me feeling pretty
disoriented the first time I saw it.
Simon, wondering if he'll actually get any responses to this......
--
* Me? Why me? This is so unfair.
s.j...@uea.ac.uk
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~u9930965
Mark Blunden
>
> "David Burnett" <var...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:9802...@bigfoot.com...
> > "Simon Jones" <Smj...@btinternet.com> wrote...
> > >
> > >Humanity creates artificial intelligence, robots run amok (as they tend
> to),
> > >humans blacken the sky in an attempt to stop them (??)
> >
> > They where presumably solar powered.
>
> What, every single one?
"Heavily dependent", I think Morphius says.
> And they couldn't just pick up a few batteries from a store somewhere?
Well, supposedly they used humans instead.
This is, of course, The Matrix's central plot weakness - there's just no way
that the 'human battery' concept as described stands up to close scrutiny.
For a start, humans - even just lying in tanks - are high-maintenance,
there's just no way that you'd get more energy out of them than you put into
them. Then, even if we accept that 'bio-energy' could be made into a viable
energy source, why humans? Why not cattle or some other easily-controlled
species? And i they must be humans, why the Matrix? Why not just lobotomise
them or leave them constantly drugged to oblivion?
Obviously there must be some further reason for the Matrix (I have some
theories myself), and hopefully the second movie will come up with some
better explanations. Perhaps Matrix 2's tagline will be "Why is the Matrix?"
--
Mark.
mar...@bigfoot.com
* Hey, what does this button do?
Jess
[HUUUUUUGE snip]
LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET HIM TALKING ABOUT FILMS!
> Simon, wondering if he'll actually get any responses to this......
Probably not many.
Jess
--
* Every word I say is true.
A Jess Baker original
jess_...@bigfoot.com
http://www.corrupt.f9.co.uk <---this is new
John Duffey
Steve Brooks <st...@REMOVETHIS6vaudrey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> What do you see as post-modern thinking?
I had post modernism explained to me actually...
From what I remember, it's a way of thinking which is inherently
inclusive of it's own shortcomings.
Which is very clever and very "post modern" <g> but it doesn't
actually bring us anything even remotely usable.
John
* Have you just shot the King's carrier pigeon?
--
John Duffey
<Smj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > That and 5th Element, which I find it very difficult to not
> > go to sleep through now, though that could just be a
> > pavlovian response.¹
> Could just be 'cos it's a bit of a poor film, really, once
> they leave New York.
Nah, it doesn't start getting to be a poo film until they're in
Egypt again.
Right up until that point there's potential for it.
> > While I can see that technically, he's very good indeed,
> > he's often absolutely interminal.
> Hm. Depends upon your own interests, of course.
Oh, absolutely.
As I think I said after American Beauty - It's a good film, just
not one that grabbed me as being particularly "WOW!" amazing. X
Men was the same, as was any number of other things.
Mind you, as Roderick P.A Hunt was known to say, "Whatever
floats your boat".
> > I was told on saturday that Videodrome was a film about the
> > development of post modern thinking.
> Hm...maybe. Well, that's one possible reading, I guess.
> Although I've never really thought of it as that.
I was told in no uncertain terms that that's exactly what it is.
And Simon H Scott (Proprietor of http://www.sporadic.co.uk/) has
studied it, you know.
> > My own thoughts on post-modern thinking is that it's an
> > excercise in being very clever about an essentially stupid
> > thing,
> Hm. Depends upon your definition.
> The way I see it, post-modernism is simply being aware of what
> has come before and what is. It's another term for
> 'self-conscious', but relating to the arts.
Yeap. Sounds about right to me.
Post Modernism (To me anyway) suggests that it's aware of what
has come before and what is and regards that as the final point,
even though it is aware that there is a whole lot more than
that. I think it just generally puts too much emphasis on being
aware of what it is and what's come before and fails to do
anything but point this out.
Much like conversations with a Certain Individual )referenced a
fair while ago now in a thread started by me) seemed to spend
far too much time on how far we'd come since we met and how much
difference there was and how it's painful to look back at
Younger Individuals and think "Gods, I used to be like that
once".
> Scream, for example, is post-modern (hell, Kevin Williamson
> has post-modern all over his work). Sure, it's a spoof, but
> not in the classic spoof-style. It's all too *knowing*. It's
> not a Naked Gun or Scary Movie-style spoof, where it just
> takes the piss. It knows exactly what it's doing, and plays
> upon established things. A bit like, I believe, Wes Craven's
> New Nightmare, although I've only seen a bit of it, which star
> Robert Englund as himself, an actor, being stalked by Freddie.
Yes, but Scream is a classic example of why post modernism isn't
much cop.
It spends time saying "Look, we know where we are and we don't
care" which is a bit pointless really, because if you truly
didn't care where you were you wouldn't even bother telling
people that you were there and you certainly wouldn't have to
say "We don't care". To *say* "And we don't care" may make it
advanced, philosophically speaking, to a certain degree, but to
my mind the truly advanced are noplussed by their position in
the same way as someone who doesn't even realise that there's a
position at all.
I'm going to display true post-modernism by saying that this is
one of the things that makes me cringe most about my Taoist
beliefs - I used to be really enthused about finding this thing
that fit me perfectly. It's only now that I'm actually doing the
sodding thing at all!
> Early films rarely had references to films in. They weren't
> kind of 'self-aware' - they just were.
Oh, absolutely. Much more like a story than film.
> Another way of looking at post-modernism is that it simply
> means that there are no new ideas around, and that all is left
> is to cross-reference and repeat what has already been.
Well, I do to a certain degree believe that there's no new ideas
around, I don't believe however that everyone's been exposed to
them.
[Congratulate it's self on being post-modern]
> Videodrome, though....that doesn't do that at all.
Er, hadn't you noticed the interview with Brian O'Blivion?
That he would only ever appear on television on television?
Isn't it just convenient that David Cronenberg chose a medium to
display his views on which his views are based?
He knows that the power of film, when harnessed by someone, can
be quite powerful, so he uses film to put his message across.
This, to me, is captured by the character of Brian O'Blivion -
so much more in fact because he's dead and his persona is
constructed from footage. How can DC possibly have created B O'C
without realising that he's chosen a voice of a voice that had
no voice and seeing that that fitted in well with the
post-modernism of the film?
Just because his message is not blatant and on screen as they
could be, doesn't mean they're not messages.
> When does it do the whole Kevin Williamson "this is really
> bad, but it's OK-bad because it's deliberate, and we know it
> is, and we're being ironic, and we're oh-so-clever
> post-modernists"? I've seen it several times, and at no point
> does it try to put in a get-out clause. Nor does it make any
> particular points about human condition or whatnot - sure, you
> can read that out of it if you feel like it, but at no point
> does it actually *make* the point. It just puts a few things
> out in the open there, and you can think what you want about
> it. Maybe that's what I like about his stuff...he doesn't
> dictate to you, or manipulate your emotions - he just does his
> stuff, and goes "there y'are."
That's possibly another reason why I don't like him. I like
being told by the director what I should think about something.
That's the whole point to me of film and storytelling.
Stories, films, books, are designed to let us see what the
author tells us to see. If someone just plonks something down in
front of you and says "What do you make of this?" then you might
as well look at the patterns in a lava lamp or the waves of the
sea. It's being able to look at what someone wants to tell you
makes (for me) a good creator. Any fool can create modern art
(Which leads on to the question "what is art?" - "Something that
is designed to provoke a reaction", in which case a cherry bomb
in the toilet can be defined as art) and have someone pay him
for it. Where Cronenberg succeeds as a director is in things
like this - if his goal is to provoke the kind of discussion
we're having now then he's succeeded, in which he has got the
post-modernism thing down perfectly because he's created
something that whilst being totally irrelevant to the point has
achieved his goal. If he wanted to make a point of putting a big
steaming pile of shit in front of us to make us do this, then he
would have done. It doesn't stop it being a big steaming pile of
shit, but it would have done the job.
Of course, if he *hadn't* intended the discussion of Videodrome
and the thought processes he's triggered, then he's failed, and
just made a technically coherent film (within certain
parameters) which doesn't do all that much. To me, that's all
Videodrome is - a technically coherent film (within certain
parameters) which fails to evoke much response. I think I could
live without it, I certainly don't feel moved to watch any more
of his stuff because of it.
In post-modernism, Cronenberg would have to be aware that
Videodrome it's self is a tool in a much wider scenery - much
the same as what he claims the "Videodrome" TV show in the film
to be.
> Haven't seen any Lynch yet (got Eraserhead sitting up here
> somewhere). However, having spoken to people who are pretty
> much experts on Lynch and Cronenberg, I don't think they
> really cover the same stuff at all. I'll have to watch some
> Lynch and get back to you.
Lynch is different. I've seen the last few minutes of Eraserhead
and I was hooked. I thought it was fantastic, marvelous,
couldn't be faulted in any way.
Lost Highway was strange.
> > , however, with a tried, tested and not particularly
> > original idea being ruined by shifts of narrative,
> > insufficient explanation of characters, random events taking
> > place, pace shifts and
> You don't like that? Take that stuff out of film-making, and
> what have you got left?? Linear, dull stories, that's what
> you've got.
Yeah. What's wrong with linear, dull stories?
Most stories are linear and dull when told in a linear and dull
manner. Does that make them any less fantastical or true?
> Did you not notice the many, many, many shifts of narrative,
> insufficient explanation of characters, random events taking
> place, pace shifts and various techological gimmicks used in
> Fight Club?
Yes.
If you were allowed to talk about Fight Club, how would you tell
it's story? (Please don't tell, but wouldn't you agree that it's
actually quite dull?)
Take Babylon 5. (EEEK!!! John being off topic????)
The general synopsis is "Two races try to guide other races to a
similar postion whilst the other races realise that they'd
actually like to find out for themselves thank you very much".
That is, in essence, quite dull.
> And who wants a tried, tested and not particularly original
> idea presented in a tried, tested and not particularly
> original manner?
Tabloid readers.
Broadsheet readers.
Readers.
Pretty much everyone in fact.
If we are to take some of the greatest literary figures in the
world - Shakespeare, Dickens, Berman - wouldn't we see that
their stories are too essentially quite dull, presented in an
entirely unoriginal manner?
What makes Cronenberg (and Lynch) different from these guys is
that they actually seem to try and distract you from the story,
make it incredibly difficult to follow, and then expect you to
"fill in the blanks". Whilst B5 distracts you from the real
story and fills in other bits in the mean time, in the end we're
left with a definite feel for what JMS wanted us to feel. We
know what went on because he's told us. Again, I'll say that if
Cronenberg wanted us to feel disorientation and a bit "wargh? -
er...?" then he's done it very well.
What I'll say is that I'd rather be told what's going on because
I make make my own conclusions about things that take a lot less
than 2 hours. I watch films because I want to get told what the
director/author is telling me. If I wanted to analyse myself and
how I think about things I can do that any old time.
You see where I'm coming from now?
> I dunno how "tried, tested and not particularly original" can
> apply to either Cronenberg or Lynch, really. Sure, Cronenberg
> does examine the same ground in a lot of his films, but he
> always seems to do it in a different way, and comes to
> different conclusions...if he even comes to a conclusion.
Lost Highway is what I was referring to here. I've seen the
story a million times before. Even Star Trek has done something
similar, I think. Oh yeah, Data's head, that was it.
> And from what I've seen of Eraserhead, "tried, tested and not
> particularly original" is....well....about as far from that
> film as an episode of Eastenders.
From what I've seen it is.
Mad scientist creates a mutant.
Old as the hills, that one!
> > essentially the director doing everything he possibly can to
> > alienate and disorientate the viewer.
> Alienating the audience is indeed a dodgy thing to
> do....although sometimes can be a cool thing.
> But disorientating the viewer......what's wrong with that?
> Surely that can be half the fun of some movies? I know Fight
> Club left me feeling pretty disoriented the first time I saw
> it.
Disorientated can be quite good. It's the essense of story
telling actually - I do it quite well myself, you may have
noticed. The point of disorientation in storytelling is to
postpone the conclusion so you go "ahh! I see! Wow, that's very
clever" when you hear it - a la Fight Club. What Videodrome does
(and actually Blade Runner, thinking about it) is that it
distracts you and then leaves you hanging with nothing.
The only way I can possibly /enjoy/ Blade Runner is reading
dissections of it and then watching the thing again. I couldn't
stand it as a Blade Runner virgin, but when I look at the
construction of it it is very good. I think Blade Runner is one
of those things that you can only enjoy as a collection of parts
fitting together, which is a shame really.
Babylon 5 is something that you can enjoy as both. Fight Club is.
Again, do you see the distinction?
> Simon, wondering if he'll actually get any responses to
> this...... --
I'll email it to you too.
* This is my happening baby and it FREAKS ME OUT!
--
John Duffey
Jess <widge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Simon Jones <Smj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:94nn9p$979$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> [HUUUUUUGE snip]
> LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET HIM TALKING ABOUT FILMS!
A big long post that's worth reading and replying to?
Why didn't we get him talking about film sooner, for christ's
sake!
> > Simon, wondering if he'll actually get any responses to
> > this......
Other than the thoroughly pointless one from Jess, I suspect not
many.
John
* I'm all busted up
--
Simon Jones
"Jess" <widge...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:94nqd2$e9h6f$1...@ID-38529.news.dfncis.de...
> Simon Jones <Smj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:94nn9p$979$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> [HUUUUUUGE snip]
>
> LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET HIM TALKING ABOUT FILMS!
I offer a simple solution to your pain - don't read it.
> > Simon, wondering if he'll actually get any responses to this......
> Probably not many.
I'm not sure if all my posts are getting through, and I'm definitely not
receiving everybody's. That's what I meant.
Simon.
--
* Do I look like the second coming of Christ?
s.j...@uea.ac.uk
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~u9930965
Simon Jones
"Mark Blunden" <mar...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:94nnf1$e7v9b$1...@ID-36588.news.dfncis.de...
> > And they couldn't just pick up a few batteries from a store somewhere?
>
> Well, supposedly they used humans instead.
Ah yes.
> This is, of course, The Matrix's central plot weakness - there's just no
way
> that the 'human battery' concept as described stands up to close scrutiny.
> For a start, humans - even just lying in tanks - are high-maintenance,
> there's just no way that you'd get more energy out of them than you put
into
> them. Then, even if we accept that 'bio-energy' could be made into a
viable
> energy source, why humans? Why not cattle or some other easily-controlled
> species? And i they must be humans, why the Matrix? Why not just
lobotomise
> them or leave them constantly drugged to oblivion?
Maybe the whole thing depends upon the humans being 'conscious', or at least
brain-active. That's the only real explanation for it....maybe they don't
get power from normal means, but from harnessing the actual power from the
thought.
I'm going to shut up now.
Simon.
--
* Hey, you don't happen to be going out with a cursed vampire, do you?
s.j...@uea.ac.uk
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~u9930965
Pål Are Nordal
>
> This is, of course, The Matrix's central plot weakness - there's just no way
> that the 'human battery' concept as described stands up to close scrutiny.
In the interest of accuracy it should be noted that Morpheus also says
they use "a type of fusion". What they need the humanses for is
anybody's guess, though.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Steve Brooks
"John Duffey" > wrote
> Steve Brooks wrote:
> > What do you see as post-modern thinking?
>
> I had post modernism explained to me actually...
>
> From what I remember, it's a way of thinking which is inherently
> inclusive of it's own shortcomings.
>
> Which is very clever and very "post modern" <g> but it doesn't
> actually bring us anything even remotely usable.
>
Hmm.. I think whoever you were talking to was coming from the philosophers
end of the scale. I would have expected you to be in favour of
post-modernism since a major facet of it is a rejection of ideology.
--
SB
Steve Brooks
"Simon Jones" > wrote
> "Jess" wrote
> > [HUUUUUUGE snip]
> >
> > LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET HIM TALKING ABOUT FILMS!
>
> I offer a simple solution to your pain - don't read it.
I think you should be a bit more apologetic. You've clearly infected the
poor girl with capitalism.
--
SB
Mark Blunden
>
> "Mark Blunden" <mar...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:94nnf1$e7v9b$1...@ID-36588.news.dfncis.de...
> > > And they couldn't just pick up a few batteries from a store somewhere?
> >
> > Well, supposedly they used humans instead.
>
> Ah yes.
>
> > This is, of course, The Matrix's central plot weakness - there's just no
> way
> > that the 'human battery' concept as described stands up to close
scrutiny.
> > For a start, humans - even just lying in tanks - are high-maintenance,
> > there's just no way that you'd get more energy out of them than you put
> into
> > them. Then, even if we accept that 'bio-energy' could be made into a
> viable
> > energy source, why humans? Why not cattle or some other
easily-controlled
> > species? And i they must be humans, why the Matrix? Why not just
> lobotomise
> > them or leave them constantly drugged to oblivion?
>
> Maybe the whole thing depends upon the humans being 'conscious', or at
> least brain-active. That's the only real explanation for it....maybe they
> don't get power from normal means, but from harnessing the actual power
> from the thought.
That's basically one of my two theories, that perhaps the AIs require some
form of organic component to attain consciousness, and the more humans are
added to the Matrix, the more self-aware and powerful the AIs become.
My other theory, which I prefer slightly, is that the machines never really
rebelled as such. All of their actions - building and populating the Matrix,
and eliminating all humans outside of it - are in accordance with their
original programmed instructions, although their interpretation of those
instructions is radically different from what their programmers intended and
expected.
--
Mark.
mar...@bigfoot.com
* It's things like this that cause people to go and live in a hut on Dagobah
Simon Jones
> I had post modernism explained to me actually...
Who explained it to you?
> From what I remember, it's a way of thinking which is inherently
> inclusive of it's own shortcomings.
Hm....that's something which is often associated with it. It's the laziest
form of post-modernism, but it isn't *it* as such. :)
> Which is very clever and very "post modern" <g> but it doesn't
> actually bring us anything even remotely usable.
No, not really. That's what the rest of it is for.
Simon.
--
* That little routine was just one of Preja's left-over evil plot
devices.
s.j...@uea.ac.uk
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~u9930965
Lewis Hutton
from "Mark Blunden" <mar...@bigfoot.com> contains these words:
> My other theory, which I prefer slightly, is that the machines never really
> rebelled as such. All of their actions - building and populating the Matrix,
> and eliminating all humans outside of it - are in accordance with their
> original programmed instructions, although their interpretation of those
> instructions is radically different from what their programmers intended and
> expected.
From my own experience of AI programming, I'd go with this
interpretation. The damned things never do quite what you expect
them to. Make it more complicated and you could guarantee that they
won't do what you expected.
--
Lewis
Frank Peelo
wrote:
But that's true of children in general, even nonartificially
intelligent ones.
Frank