ALIENS : Simply the best
Kevin Lamb
have a computer (as opposed to a webtv) I thought I'd check
back to see how things in the ng were going. Since I see
that the debate continues to rage over which Alien film is
the greatest, I thought I'd jump right back in with both
feet. Brace yourself A1 lovers, things could get messy.
Obviously, I can't tell anyone which film to like best (nor
would I want to.) But I can definitely prove (heh heh) that
beyond a shadow of a doubt, Jim Cameron accomplished a much
greater cinematic feat than Ridley Scott, and made a film
that was flat out better.
Lets look at what each director did on their respective
films. Ridley was given a premise that was a blatant
derivative of an old 50's sf/horror flick and made a very
memorable and entertaining movie, even if it was totally by
the book.
Cameron was simply given the go-ahead to make a sequel, then
he went about conceiving the entire plot of the movie in his
head.
For A1, the alien monster, derelict craft, and space jockey
were all conceived and designed by famed artist H.R. Giger.
The script was written and then passed on to Scott. Even
the worn and grungy interior of the Nostromo was admittedly
inspired by George Lucas's Star Wars.
Deciding that the brainchild of a world famous artist wasn't
cinematically up-to-par for his story, Cameron invented the
Alien Queen, as well as the majority of the designs for the
ships and military hardware. He also turned his Vietnam
inspired story treatment into a full-fledged script.
And while Scott played it safe in making a *totally*
formulaic slasher-movie-in-space, Cameron went out *way* out
on a limb on pretty pivottal aspects of the movie (more on
that in a second.)
Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy Alien. I'd even call it a
classic for its near perfect execution and the fact that it
allowed for the superior sequel to be made. But I'm really
kind of perplexed as to why some people hold it in *such*
high regard. For all of A1's style and visual wonder, its
still *just a slasher movie.* And storywise, it breaks
absolutely no new ground. The characters totally act, live,
and die according to the John Carpenter "Book of Slasher
Movie Rules" that every like horror film emulated after
"Halloween." Basically, its just another story of a smart
and pretty chick surrounded by morons just dying to utter
the immortal phrase, "I'll be right back." The dumb fodder
guys go off by themselves to "investigate what might have
killed the 20-foot space jockey," play hero with a flame
thrower, or find a lost cat, then they <gasp> die. Then the
token black guy and the less-attractive female make the
fatal mistake of separating themselves from the heroine, and
bam, they meet the boogie man as well.
The characters in A1 engage in conversation more natural
than those in other sci-fi or horror films, but they still
play the tried-and-true roles of their respective slasher
movie character archetype. Steven Spielberg beat Ridley to
the punch in showcasing realistic protagonists in a monster
movie when he made Jaws, but he didn't have to make the
characters suddenly stupid when it was almost their time to
die.
Cameron, on the other hand, didn't play by anybody's rules.
Sure, there are moments in Aliens that are straight
formula, but the totally unorthodox (cinematically) premise
of his film virtually gave birth to an entirely new *genre.*
Risking the anger of a legion of fans, Cameron decided to
throw away the slasher elements and made it a war movie. He
included much more characters and spread the heroics around
accordingly. Ripley is obviously the heart of the picture,
but Cameron ingeniously split the authority between her (the
strategic leader) and Hicks (the morale boosting tactical
commander.) Then he added Bishop to share even more
expertise. Even though Hicks has always been my favorite
character of the movie, I must say that Cameron's master
stroke of character development came in the form of Hudson.
Talk about ballsy! By adding a comic-relief character to a
serious action/horror film, he ran the risk of totally
defusing the tension and ruining the movie (Can you say Jar
Jar Binks? Or how about Chris Tucker in the Fifth Element?)
But all of Hudson's humor was completely within the context
of his character (no winks at the audience) and the
situation at hand. When the going got tough, the
wise-cracking ended.
Now lets look at the horror/threat level. In Alien you've
got a badass looking creature who basically just hides in
different corners of a really big ship waiting for
characters to wander into its grasp.
Aliens has over a hundred of the monstrosities infesting a
colonial complex that after discovering your presence, *hunt
your ass down and kill you.* No matter where the characters
in A2 hid or what precautions they took, there was always
the sense of "they're coming...they're coming...they're
coming."
There are long gaps in A1 where the characters just kind of
chill out wondering what to do next. Every once in a while
somebody will wander off and....
To be unkind, most of the time in A1 the drone just does an
impression of a really nasty venus fly trap.
In A2, the *only* people who venture off alone are Burke
(because the marines have made it clear they plan to *kill*
him) and Ripley, to save the life of a child. None of the
actions by Cameron's characters require me to turn my brain
off because they mostly echo what my own suggestions would
have been, especially "take off and nuke the site from
orbit" and "yeah, Bishop should go." : )
As far as dread and horror go, seeing the cocooned remains
of men, women, and children are infinitely more chilling
than coming across the remains of some random alien pilot.
Cameron also made the only film that did a good job of the
whole "heavily armed dudes vs. primitive yet overwhelming
enemies. George Lucas and Paul Verhoeven both tried their
hand at it and failed.
So you still think Scott did the better job, huh? Then ask
yourself this: How many great movies have been made? Lots.
How many great sequels have been made? Four (Aliens, The
Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, and the
Roadwarrior.) Of the four sequels, how many were made
without direct input from the director of the first film in
the series? One. ALIENS. Wow. That is one *damn* short
list.
And consider this: almost every sci-fi horror film to be
released during or after the 1970's was a derivitave of a
50's grade-B picture (IT, The Thing, etc.) But nearly
*every single* sci-fi action thriller involving a monster of
some kind that was released after 1986 was a derivative of
Aliens. Both Predator movies. Starship Troopers. Deep
Rising. Even From Dusk Till Dawn and Event Horizon. Some
movies are pretty similar to the first Alien (like
Leviathan) but since that was just a stylish update of IT:
The Terror from Space, its disqualified.
So there you have it folks. Scott good. Cameron better.
End of story.
Later,
Kevin (heh heh)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Menacer
> Cameron, on the other hand, didn't play by anybody's rules.
> Sure, there are moments in Aliens that are straight
> formula, but the totally unorthodox (cinematically) premise
> of his film virtually gave birth to an entirely new *genre.*
> Risking the anger of a legion of fans, Cameron decided to
> throw away the slasher elements and made it a war movie. He
> included much more characters and spread the heroics around
> accordingly. Ripley is obviously the heart of the picture,
> but Cameron ingeniously split the authority between her (the
> strategic leader) and Hicks (the morale boosting tactical
> commander.) Then he added Bishop to share even more
> expertise. Even though Hicks has always been my favorite
> character of the movie, I must say that Cameron's master
> stroke of character development came in the form of Hudson.
Not to get myself involved in the flame-fest or any arguments that will
become of this thread, but I must say, you do have a good eye for a good
character. ^_^
> Talk about ballsy! By adding a comic-relief character to a
> serious action/horror film, he ran the risk of totally
> defusing the tension and ruining the movie (Can you say Jar
> Jar Binks? Or how about Chris Tucker in the Fifth Element?)
> But all of Hudson's humor was completely within the context
> of his character (no winks at the audience) and the
> situation at hand. When the going got tough, the
> wise-cracking ended.
Needless to say, Hudson's the number 1 marine on my list.. :P
--
Menacer wearing his black trenchcoat
Leader of the Yard Gnome Resistance Front, Local 618
- "Making Yards Gnome/Cowboy/Peeing-Child Free since 1991"
ICQ: 2813740 AOL IM: EH Menacer
Kevin Lamb
>>Not to get myself involved in the flame-fest or any
arguments that will become of this thread...
Don't worry, I'm pretty good about "playing nice" on usenet.
Its just that for some people, the truth hurts. ; )
Kevin
Covenant
Kevin Lamb wrote in message <9331200...@www.remarq.com>...
>Hey everybody. What's up googs. Hey Covenant.
Hey Brother!!
(WE know what *I* mean huh Kev.. ; ' ) )
> Brace yourself A1 lovers, things could get messy.
Oooooooohhhhh.......
>Cameron was simply given the go-ahead to make a sequel, then
>he went about conceiving the entire plot of the movie in his
>head.
Not really Kev.
He just made a vietnam movie in space.
( A *good* one yeah.. but still..)
>For A1, the alien monster, derelict craft, and space jockey
>were all conceived and designed by famed artist H.R. Giger.
> The script was written and then passed on to Scott. Even
>the worn and grungy interior of the Nostromo was admittedly
>inspired by George Lucas's Star Wars.
Wrong way round Kev.
Script came first.
(And the lived in look of alien was a bit more realistic than the *used*
look of Star Wars.)
>Deciding that the brainchild of a world famous artist wasn't
>cinematically up-to-par for his story, Cameron invented the
>Alien Queen, as well as the majority of the designs for the
>ships and military hardware. He also turned his Vietnam
>inspired story treatment into a full-fledged script.
There y'go! Vietnam!
(And as far as the queen is concerned.. well... you know my thought s on
that huh ?)
>And while Scott played it safe in making a *totally*
>formulaic slasher-movie-in-space, Cameron went out *way* out
>on a limb on pretty pivottal aspects of the movie (more on
>that in a second.)
No.. just a glorified vietnam movie!
(And didn't the hold-out in the labs remind anyone of the teenagers stuck on
the log cabin in "Friday The Thirteenth Part Forty Six... Jason Gets A
Zimmer Frame...." )
>Cameron, on the other hand, didn't play by anybody's rules.
> Sure, there are moments in Aliens that are straight
>formula, but the totally unorthodox (cinematically) premise
>of his film virtually gave birth to an entirely new *genre.*
Kev... you're contradicting yourself here...
> Risking the anger of a legion of fans, Cameron decided to
>throw away the slasher elements and made it a war movie.
See... It is just that. A space-age war movie.
As opposed to a space age slasher??
> Talk about ballsy! By adding a comic-relief character to a
>serious action/horror film, he ran the risk of totally
>defusing the tension and ruining the movie (Can you say Jar
>Jar Binks? Or how about Chris Tucker in the Fifth Element?)
> But all of Hudson's humor was completely within the context
>of his character (no winks at the audience) and the
>situation at hand. When the going got tough, the
>wise-cracking ended.
I disagree...
Most war movies have the gung-ho, wisecracking type.
And they usually always die.
So did ol' hudson!
(And his MOST cringe-worthy moments were cut from the cinema release...
"Check it out........" etc...)
>Now lets look at the horror/threat level. In Alien you've
>got a badass looking creature who basically just hides in
>different corners of a really big ship waiting for
>characters to wander into its grasp.
Something never seen before.
Something that was intelligent and TOTALLY Alien, with a lifecycle we could
not understand, using us for a hitherto unknown purpose.
>Aliens has over a hundred of the monstrosities infesting a
>colonial complex that after discovering your presence, *hunt
>your ass down and kill you.* No matter where the characters
>in A2 hid or what precautions they took, there was always
>the sense of "they're coming...they're coming...they're
>coming."
Cameron turned them into big ants.
Cannon fodder.
Dull, dull, dull...
(But still a good movie.)
>Cameron also made the only film that did a good job of the
>whole "heavily armed dudes vs. primitive yet overwhelming
>enemies. George Lucas and Paul Verhoeven both tried their
>hand at it and failed.
George Lucas??
You're not talking about the Ewoks here are ya??
>So you still think Scott did the better job, huh? Then ask
>yourself this: How many great movies have been made? Lots.
> How many great sequels have been made? Four (Aliens, The
>Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, and the
>Roadwarrior.) Of the four sequels, how many were made
>without direct input from the director of the first film in
>the series? One. ALIENS. Wow. That is one *damn* short
>list.
So what?
It doesn't make Aliens *better* than Alien....
>So there you have it folks. Scott good. Cameron better.
>End of story.
Never that easy is it Kev.....
; ' )
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Cuhoolan
>Cannon fodder.
>Dull, dull, dull...
>
>
Apparently some kid in my area went insane thinking the aliens were after her,
she was 6 and saw the bit where they come through the ceiling. Not many horror
films can boast that,even if it is just rumour.
-Joe
JEyers
greater cinematic feat than Ridley Scott, and made a film that was flat out
better.>>
Sure, Aliens was a good film (great, even), but at heart it is just a by the
numbers gung-ho American action flick. The thing is, if you're ever going to
make a film like that, use Aliens as your role model. It has never been done
better.
<<Cameron was simply given the go-ahead to make a sequel, then he went about
conceiving the entire plot of the movie in his head.>>
Actually, Aliens: the first draft was highly derivative of the Forever War and
Starship Troopers. Don't believe me? READ it.
<<And while Scott played it safe in making a *totally* formulaic
lasher-movie-in-space, Cameron went out *way* out on a limb on pretty pivottal
aspects of the movie (more on that in a second.)>>
Cameron played it safe by making a pretty formulaic war movie in space, as
well. Loads of stereotypes in the cast: cowardly male, butch woman, token
ethnics, bellowing leader, incompetent second command. Pretty standard 1940s
war movie stuff.
<<For all of A1's style and visual wonder, its still *just a slasher movie.*
And storywise, it breaks absolutely no new ground. The characters totally act,
live, and die according to the John Carpenter "Book of Slasher Movie Rules"
that every like horror film emulated after "Halloween.">>
Whoa! Whoa! All the cast of all the Alien movies are set up to die, its just
they have some purpose to fulfil first. If Alien is just another slasher movie,
then Aliens is just another sci fi action flick. In slasher films, something
goes around and rips things to bits. More emphasis is put on the killing for
horror. In Alien, more emphasis is put on the build up (i.e. suspense) and
aftermath. Alien was intelligent. It had a psycho-sexual extraterrestrial with
Freudian undertones.
<<Cameron, on the other hand, didn't play by anybody's rules.>>
Just those for all war movies.
Look, I agree Aliens is better than Alien, but not for those reasons. Alien had
an idiot plot where no-one knew what they were doing (even the audience).
Aliens was the only true horror-action mix ever made. It was formulaic in
places, but the pace, atmosphere and plot moved so fast you couldn't notice the
imperfections. It's beginning to look dated now (especially those sets), but no
film of it's kind has bettered it, as you say. Alien, however, worked on more
than one level. It was all about sex, and that is something most people here
miss.
Kevin Lamb
>>>Kevin Lamb wrote in message
<9331200...@www.remarq.com>... >Hey everybody. What's up
googs. Hey Covenant.
>>>Hey Brother!! (WE know what *I* mean huh Kev.. ; ' ) )
Heh heh.
>>Cameron was simply given the go-ahead to make a sequel,
then he went about conceiving the entire plot of the movie
in his head.
>>>Not really Kev.
Actually, yes Cov. Cameron had no pitchman, no team of
writers, just an idea to do 'Vietnam in space' that was
inspired by his research into the subject when he was
scripting the first draft of Rambo. From that idea, he
concocted the entire story himself.
>>>He just made a vietnam movie in space.
And inherently selected a higher form of storytelling as his
premise. You see, a slasher flick is all about surviving
the movie by being the last character to break one of the
"rules." Don't say "I'll be right back," don't have sex,
don't volunteer for *anything* if you're unattractive or
black, etc. Basically, slasher movies are just mindless (if
enjoyable) works of entertainment that have no parallels in
the real world.
War movies, on the other hand, can reflect a lot about
society, the way we resolve conflicts, the horrors of
humanity, the impact one person can have when they rise to a
challenge in the midst of terrifying odds, etc.
Hell, I remember watching Uncommon Valor, a somewhat goofy
movie about a bunch of guys who go back to Vietnam in the
80's to free some POW's (apparently its *based* on actual
events.) Anyway, there's a scene in the movie where the
demolitions guy blows himself up in the process of
destroying an enemy bridge. I was watching it on TV and my
dad looked up from his newspaper and said,"In war you do
what you've gotta do." This wasn't Platoon or Full Metal
Jacket I was watching, yet the movie still showcased events
that allowed for quiet reflection. "Would I be able to
sacrifice my life for my friends? Will I be able to stand
the pressure if called to duty during a war?"
I can just imagine what my dad would have said if he watched
a slasher movie with me. "Sometimes in a crisis situation
you just have to resist the urge to venture off, alone, into
the dark in search of the killer. Remember that, son."
Of course, Cameron's movie was chalk full of elements no
earthbound soldier would *ever* run into, but it still
contains elements that parallel our own down and dirty
conflicts, (the chaos of battle, the tragedy of friendly
fire, self-sacrifice, etc.) Do these elements in any way
make ALIENS a profound piece of entertainment on the level
of real-life battlefield reenactments? Nope. Just more
so than any slasher movie. And the realistic portrayal of
infantry warfare and the way the characters deal with crisis
situations add immensely to the suspension of disbelief, and
overall enjoyment of the film.
>>>(A *good one* yeah.. but still..)
A good one that preceded all of the 'serious' Vietnam flicks
like Platoon, Hamburger Hill, etc.
>> For A1, the alien monster, derelict craft, and space
jockey were all conceived and designed by famed artist H.R.
Giger. The script was written and then
passed on to Scott. Even the worn and grungy interior of
the Nostromo was admittedly inspired by George Lucas's Star
Wars.
>>>Wrong way round Kev. Script came first.
I wasn't listing the events chronologically. I was just
showing that Scott had a bunch of "helpers" when he made A1.
>>>(And the lived in look of alien was a bit more realistic
than the *used* look of Star Wars.)
Oh, totally. Its just that some people credit Scott as the
guy who pioneered the look. He didn't, just added to it.
>> Deciding that the brainchild of a world famous artist
wasn't cinematically up-to-par for his story, Cameron
invented the Alien Queen, as well as the majority
of the designs for the ships and military hardware. He
also turned his Vietnam inspired story treatment into a
full-fledged script.
>>>There y'go! Vietnam! (And as far as the queen is
concerned..
well... you know my thought s on that huh ?)
Something about the queen being the most "cinematically
wondrous" creature you've ever seen? (Heh heh)
>>And while Scott played it safe in making a *totally*
formulaic slasher-movie-in-space, Cameron went out *way* out
on a limb on pretty pivottal aspects of the
movie (more on that in a second.)
>>>No.. just a glorified vietnam movie!
In space. With monsters.
>>Cameron, on the other hand, didn't play by anybody's
rules. Sure, there are moments in Aliens that are straight
formula, but the totally unorthodox
(cinematically) premise of his film virtually gave birth
to an entirely new *genre.*
>>>Kev... you're contradicting yourself here...
How so? Sure some *scenes* like the dropship flying away
from the exploding nuke (which was total "Luke Skywalker
fleeing the exploding Death Star," right down to the
accompanying music) were straight Hollywood formula but the
premise had *never been attempted.* And the inclusion of
the Hudson character as well as Newt were HUGE risks to the
integrity of the movie (something most directors don't have
the guts to do.) I mean, if Cameron overdid the Hudson
stuff, he'd have Jar Jar Binks, if he overdid Newt, he'd
have had Jake Lloyd from the Phantom Menace <shudder.>
>>Risking the anger of a legion of fans, Cameron decided to
throw away the slasher elements and made it a war movie.
>>>See... It is just that. A space-age war movie. As opposed
to
a space age slasher??
Exactly. See above.
>>Now lets look at the horror/threat level. In Alien you've
got a badass looking creature who basically just hides in
different corners of a really big ship waiting
for characters to wander into its grasp.
>>>Something never seen before.
Except in old 50's horror movies.
>>>Something that was intelligent
and TOTALLY Alien, with a lifecycle we could not understand,
using us for a hitherto unknown
purpose.
Which is all to the credit of H.R. Giger and the writers,
not Scott. (For the record, I like Ridley Scott, a lot. He
just didn't do as much for his movie or cinema in general as
Cameron did.)
>>>Cameron turned them into big ants. Cannon fodder.
Dull, dull, dull...
This is what really gets me about many A1 lovers. The
aliens in A2 are the same as the one in A1!!! Just cooler
looking and *way* more aggressive. How is a creature that
relentlessly hunts you down "dull" compared to one that
hides and waits for you to walk within arms reach? And I
hate to say it, but there is nothing in A1 that suggests the
drone would fare any better against a pulse rifle.
Seriously, how scary is a monster that has to have all
circumstances and surroundings in its favor (unarmed
victims, a big, poorly lit ship, etc.) to be effective?
Heck, give a chick a spacesuit and a harpoon gone and its
"hasta la vista, baby," in under two minutes.
>> Cameron also made the only film that did a good job of
the whole "heavily armed dudes vs. primitive yet
overwhelming enemies. George Lucas and Paul
Verhoeven both tried their hand at it and failed.
>>>George Lucas?? You're not talking about the Ewoks here
are
ya??
Yub yub.
>>So you still think Scott did the better job, huh? Then
ask yourself this: How many great movies have been made?
Lots. How many great sequels have been
made? Four (Aliens, The Empire Strikes Back, The
Godfather Part II, and the Roadwarrior.) Of the four
sequels, how many were made without direct input
from the director of the first film in the series? One.
ALIENS. Wow. That is one *damn* short list.
>>>So what? It doesn't make Aliens *better* than Alien....
It just shows that Cameron did something no other director
in history has accomplished (before or since.)
>>So there you have it folks. Scott good. Cameron better.
End of story.
>>>Never that easy is it Kev..... ; ' )
Heh, I almost would have been disappointed if you guys all
agreed... ; )
Kevin
Kevin Lamb
>>>Actually, Aliens: the first draft was highly derivative
of the Forever War and Starship Troopers. Don't believe me?
READ it.
Of course Cameron had his inspirations. He was, however,
the first to put those particular inspirations onto the big
screen. BTW, I don't know the Forever War. It wasn't an old
Outer Limits episode was it? ; )
>>>Cameron played it safe by making a pretty formulaic war
movie in space, as well.
Pretty formulaic? Like placing a female actress in the lead
role of an action movie? Something *major* that had *never,
ever* been done? Not to mention the other female characters
in the unit. Robert Heinlein has even said that he wished
he'd included female infantry in his book.
>>For all of A1's style and visual wonder, its still *just a
slasher movie.* And storywise, it breaks absolutely no new
ground. The characters totally act, live, and die according
to the John Carpenter "Book of Slasher Movie Rules" that
every like horror film emulated after "Halloween."
>>>Whoa! Whoa! All the cast of all the Alien movies are set
up to die, its just they have some purpose to fulfil first.
If Alien is just another slasher movie, then
Aliens is just another sci fi action flick.
"Just another sci-fi action flick" that was the quality
benchmark for every like-genred film to follow. Not to
mention the first to have war as its theme.
>>>In slasher films, something goes around and rips things
to bits. More emphasis is put on the killing for horror.In
Alien, more emphasis is put on the build up (i.e. suspense)
and aftermath.
The chestbursting scene is the granddaddy of all shockingly
gory death scenes. There was *no* buildup to that scene.
It just happened. And that is why it was so horrifying.
>>>Alien was intelligent. It had a psycho-sexual
extraterrestrial with Freudian undertones.
So did Species. That doesn't make it "intelligent."
>>>Look, I agree Aliens is better than Alien, but not for
those reasons. Alien had an idiot plot where no-one knew
what they were doing (even the audience).
So adding sexual overtones to an idiot plot suddenly makes
the movie intelligent???
SNIP
>>>Alien, however, worked on more than
one level. It was all about sex, and that is something most
people here miss.
Maybe the tag line should have been, "In space no one can
hear you ----" oh, never mind.
Later,
Dr. Evil
**shudders** WOW, Just READIND that made me feel stupid...I feel sorry for
the guy that repiled to Kevin's letter...
Menacer
>
> **shudders** WOW, Just READIND that made me feel stupid...I feel sorry for
> the guy that repiled to Kevin's letter...
What an intelligent and productive way to reply to a set of completely
viable (though however arguable) points that someone makes. Truly, if
you can't debate the topic, just shut the hell up and let someone who
actually has a clue do it.
Kevin Lamb
>>**shudders** WOW, Just READIND that made me feel
stupid...I feel sorry for the guy that repiled to Kevin's
letter...
Ahhh, my adoring public.
Kevin Lamb
>>>Kevin Lamb <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Of course Cameron had his inspirations. He was, however,
the first to put those particular inspirations onto the big
screen.
>>>First?! What part of 'inspiration' don't you understand?
Okay googs. Enlighten me. Who made a bughunter war *movie*
before Cameron? What's that? *Nobody?* Thank you.
>>Pretty formulaic? Like placing a female actress in the
lead role of an action movie? Something *major* that had
*never, ever* been done? Not to mention the other female
characters in the unit. Robert Heinlein
has even said that he wished he'd included female infantry
in his book.
>>>Inevitable & non-congratulatory. In these years of sexual
integration of the military, would 'ID4' be as deserving of
accolades if it were the 1st to portray
females in combat?
No.
Because if ID4 was the first movie to include women in the
military, it would simply be a reflection of the times. But
Cameron used a little something called "foresight." Kind of
like giving all of the video monitors in the movie a 16x9
ratio, as all HDTV's will have.
And then there's that thing called "commercial appeal."
Cameron had no idea whether or not audiences would be ready
for a woman to duke it out "mano-a-mano" in an action
finale, but he went ahead anyway. And simple box-office
numbers have *always* favored male leads.
>>"Just another sci-fi action flick" that was the quality
benchmark for every like-genred film to follow. Not to
mention the first to have war as its theme.
>>>Umm, remember 'War of the Worlds,' for one?
No, because it wasn't an action flick, which you may note,
was what I was *talking* about.
>>The chestbursting scene is the granddaddy of all
shockingly gory death scenes. There was *no* buildup to that
scene. It just happened. And that is why it was so
horrifying.
>>>No. If Kane exploded in mid-sentence, without us knowing
he'd been 'hugged', *that* would be emphatic on shock.
We got a perfectly built up tension onscreen, a la
Hitchcock, but with a messy ending seen onscreen.
You apparently don't understand the meaning of 'buildup'
either! ; >
You're right googs. That dinner scene was all about
"suspense." I remember the first time I heard about it,
some kid came up to me and kept raving about "the buildup,
the *buildup*" of this one scene that was just soooo
memorable and amazing. "Then what happened?" I asked,
amazed. "Oh, after the incredible suspense some creature or
something burst out of this dude's chest. But did I mention
the 'buildup?'"
>>>Species was overtly sexual; designed to titillate. Alien
was covertly sexual; designed to play on our deepest
Freudian based fears. That makes it 'classy,' as opposed to
'trashy.'
I never said ALIEN was trashy, I said sexual undertones
didn't make it intelligent.
>>So adding sexual overtones to an idiot plot suddenly
makes the movie intelligent???
>>>*Undertones*. Something to *think* about.
Come on, googs! Thinking about something does not make it
intelligent! George Lucas said the ewok battle in Return of
the Jedi had major Vietnam undertones. You can think about
that fact till the cows come home, but *it doesn't make RotJ
an "intelligent" movie.*
Later,
Kevin Lamb
know if I'll have time to respond to every lengthy reply to
my initial post, but for now, there's still some rounds in
the sentry gun.
>>>James Cameron isn't worthy of *washing* Ridley Scott's
cinematic feet, let alone having any chance of challenging
his ability to put things on a movie screen.
Yeah, the film negatives of 1492: Conquest of My Ass and
White Squall should be sealed away by Congress as national
treasures. Please, T2 (Cameron's worst film) can still hold
its own against 90% of the action fare ever to come out of
Hollywood.
>>>Cameron has his moments (quite a few, but none recently),
I will agree that Cameron's work in the 80's is head and
shoulders above his films of the 90's.
>>>but he isn't a patch on Ridley Scott. Cameron can make
movies that make money and appeal to a wide audience (and
technically are very good), but Scott is a true artist of
cinema.
The tired old "Since Cameron's popular, he must be an
artistic sellout" argument. Yawn.
>>>I think David Fincher made a better Alien Film than
Cameron did. Which is not to say that Alien3 is a better
film that Aliens. It isn't.
Well, I disagree, but unlike you, *I don't care that your
opinion differs from mine.* Ready for me to piss you off
even more? I think *Fincher* did a better job than Scott,
at least since I've seen the A3 work print and heard about
the creative conflicts he had with the studio.
>>Cameron was simply given the go-ahead to make a sequel,
then he went about conceiving the entire plot of the movie
in his head.
>>>No he didn't at all. He admits that he was making a
homage to Vietnam war films, but setting it in space.
Why is my point so freakin' hard to understand? Of course
Cameron was inspired by different sources. The point was
that he organized the desired plot elements *himself*, then
wrote them out, thereby doing much, much more for his
picture than Scott did.
>>>What he did with the *aliens*, is make more of them,
and dumbed them down to be more accessible to the popcorn
munching (ticket buying / money-making-for-his-backers)
audience.
Yeah, <reaching for some popcorn> the drone in A1 was sooo
intelligent. Like when it cut the power, operated the
elevators, organized its attacks with flanking
maneuvers---oh, wait a minute, wrong flick.
>>>There are a number of instances where scenes in Aliens
were no more than augmentations of the same events in Alien,
just "made bigger".
Yeah, and a lot of people complain that the whole movie
wasn't a scene-for-scene recreation of A1. You can't please
everyone.
>>>James Cameron contributed fuck-all to the Alien idea, and
what he did offer was pretty trite compared to what was
concocted in Alien.
I say A1 was just a slasher flick, you say it was just a
haunted house flick. Not exactly "deep" cinema.
>>Even the worn and grungy interior of the Nostromo was
admittedly inspired by George Lucas's Star Wars.
>>>Admitted by whom?
Well, that would be Ridley Scott, Adam. I've got a video
from 1997 that was a compilation of different filmmakers
talking about the rerelease of Star Wars. In the special,
Scott said that Star Wars was so innovative and
inspirational that it nearly made him sick, and it forever
changed his conception of what can be done both in sci-fi
and on film.
>>>Ridley Scott said he was sick of the spotless future
offered by films like Star Wars and STar Trek (and even
2001!), and wanted to make it different, "lived in", and
"realistic.
Well, considering that the Star Wars universe was anything
but "spotless" I question the credibility of your quotes.
>>Deciding that the brainchild of a world famous artist
wasn't cinematically up-to-par for his story,
>>>Yeah right. I actually *did* LOL when I read that.
I'm glad I brightened your day.
>>>I think it was more that *Cameron* wasn't cinematically
up-to-par with coming up with a treatment for the original
alien, so he applied his inferior imagination and artistic
(kind description) ability to come up with something that
would fit his paint-by-numbers
filmmaking.
"inferior imagination and artistic ability?" ROTFLMAO!
Please, you're killing me!
>>Cameron invented the Alien Queen, as well as the majority
of the designs for the ships and military hardware. He also
turned his Vietnam inspired story treatment into a
full-fledged script.
>>>Well I'd rather have an artist be in charge of the art
work, just as I would want proven writer to write the story,
or a DoP to handle the cameras.
FYI, Cameron *is* an accomplished illustrator, also, he got
his start in movies by building models for low-budget sci-fi
movies. And much of the photography in ALIENS blows the
crap out of anything ever seen in *any* monster movie. Case
in point: the entire ventilation shaft sequence.
>>>Good on James Cameron for doing a DIY job,
which is why I made the point
>>>but the fact the he took so much on does not mean it was:
a) the best approach;
b) well executed.
True (though in this case it does.)
>>And while Scott played it safe in making a *totally*
formulaic slasher-movie-in-space, Cameron went out *way* out
on a limb on pretty pivottal aspects of the movie (more on
that in a second.)
>>>Well if I had to sum up the two films in as many words as
you have there, I would say *EXACTLY* the opposite.
And you have every right to, I just have yet to see some
really compelling evidence in favor of your claim.
>>>For me it is because it is really very good on a number
of levels: a) It is lovely to watch, thanks to the
production design, b) I like the characterisation and acting
which I find to be some of the best in any film. I
*believed* that the actors were the characters, not just
actors portraying characters, c) it is actually scary,
d) it doesn't treat the audience like a bunch of imbeciles.
Well, I'll give you A and C (in general, not over Aliens.) I
also agree with B, just not as much.
>>>99% of films follow a formula (hence the concept of
genre, I think), but it is the *treatment* of the formula
that will make a film stand out from its peers.
Yeah, and when I say ALIEN was formulaic, I mean it didn't
do a good enough job of hiding what formula it was
following.
>>>Aliens was just - well, *more* - formulaic than Alien
was. I'm not sure many people would disagree with that
(whether they thought Alien or Aliens to be the better
film).
Only because most people get hung up on the action element.
SNIP
>>>I think you missed the point. I guess you thought The
Usual Suspects was crap after you guessed who Keyser Sose
was, or The Crying Game wasn't worth watching after you
guessed the "surprise".
The Crying Game absolutely shocked me. You actually guessed
the surprise before "it" was revealed? Wow, I am impressed.
>>>It is not the package, it is how it is delivered.
True, somewhat. But I don't see how that supports your
argument.
>>>Are you telling me that you were *shocked* that 90% of
the characters ended up dead in Aliens?
Ummm, no. I was impressed that none of them died because of
script required mental lapses.
>>Then the token black guy and the less-attractive female
make the fatal mistake of separating themselves from the
heroine, and bam, they meet the boogie man as well.
>>>Yeah, you watched Aliens first, didn't you? Given that
Sigourney Weaver was the nobody in the cast of otherwise
established actors, and according to your own "rules", it
should have been Ripley who got killed there.
Oh come on! The good-looking, authoritative chick who comes
up with all the good ideas separates from the black guy and
plain looking woman and you were *surprised* at who got
killed. Okay.
SNIP
>>but the totally unorthodox (cinematically) premise
>>>You what?
>>>James Cameron might be a few things, but unorthodox,
inspired or inventive are not some of them.
You know with sweeping comments like that, I'm starting to
wonder if you're trolling me. And for the record, I said
the *premise* was unorthodox for a movie.
>>of his film virtually gave birth to an entirely new
*genre.*
>>>That genre being?
Gritty sci-fi action/horror/war films. You'd think
something that specific wouldn't have had so many copycats.
>>>Aliens was an action film, or (loosely) a SF film, or
(very loosely) a horror film, or (thematically) a war film.
Yep, all of the above.
>>Aliens has over a hundred of the monstrosities infesting a
colonial complex that after discovering your presence, *hunt
your ass down and kill you.*
>>>The multiplicity of the aliens has no effect on this. One
alien would have achieved this just as well.
???
One alien would have been quickly killed by the marines,
even if it did nab one in the process. Not exactly
"overwhelmingly horrifying." Or were you talking about a
drone that mostly sits around like the one in A1?
>>No matter where the characters in A2 hid or what
precautions they took, there was always the sense of
"they're coming...they're coming...they're coming."
>>>As it was in Alien.
No in Alien, it was more of an "its somewhere out there,
lurking," which is frightening yes, just less so than a more
pro-active threat.
>>>Not at all, actually. The deaths in Aliens were all
pretty much the same,
Yeah, totally. Tongue-jabs, chest bursting, acid showers,
flamed by friendly fire, blowing yourself up, getting torn
in half, getting killed by exploding magazines, being hauled
off to be cocooned...attacks from the walls, ceilings,
through windshields, behind doors, in ventilation shafts, on
a dropship, the Sulaco hangar...come on James, where's the
variety?
>>To be unkind, most of the time in A1 the drone just does
an impression of a really nasty venus fly trap.
>>>And the aliens in Aliens did a good impression of those
targets they have at shooting ranges.
You mean the targets that hunt and kill in all the ways
listed above? Holy crap, dude! You live by some pretty
nasty firing ranges!
>>In A2, the *only* people who venture off alone are Burke
(because the marines have made it clear they plan to *kill*
him)
>>>Irrespective of the motivation, it still falls into the
Carpenter cliche you cited above.
No, because the slasher movie cliche is that the fodder guys
wander off *when they have other options.* Burke didn't.
>>and Ripley, to save the life of a child. None of the
actions by Cameron's characters require me to turn my brain
off
>>>Ripley going after the kid when she had vetoed the idea
of rescuing the marines in the same situation before because
it was a lost cause?
Dude, Ripley was behaving as any chick with maternal
instincts toward someone in danger would. She wasn't an
altruistic freaking Wonder Woman willing to sacrifice
herself for any old scrub. She just didn't have much of an
attachment to the marines in the beginning. And besides,
even if she did have the inclination, she had no way of
locating the marines who were taken; Newt had a wrist
locator.
>>Cameron also made the only film that did a good job of the
whole "heavily armed dudes vs. primitive yet overwhelming
enemies.
>>>Yeah well that idea wasn't original after the Scottish
did it to the Romans in the first few decades of the AD
scale. Or when French got their arses kicked out of
Viet Nam in the 1950s. Or the Americans from Cuba in the
1960s, or Vietnam in the 1970s. Or the Russians from
Afganistan in the 1980s.
News flash, dude. Those were real-life conflicts. Cameron
was the first and only director to successfully showcase
that angle in a fictional movie.
>>Both Predator movies.
>>>P1 was more derivative of Alien. Even *with* the
soldiers.
Oh, I get it, a joke. Ha ha.
>> Starship Troopers.
RAH would turn in his grave.
Newsflash number 2. Paul Verhoeven made the movie
adaptation, which is what I was referring to.
>>and Event Horizon.
>>>This film seems to be nothing *but* film derivation, but
as it is basically a haunted house in space pic, it is more
derivative of Alien. And that is so obvious that I *really*
wonder about you.
Yeah, you wonder about me and I'll think back to EH's rescue
mission, guys who explore with cameras that the leader
monitors from his "cockpit", the A2 character ripoffs, etc.
>>movies are pretty similar to the first Alien (like
Leviathan) but since that was just a stylish update of IT:
The Terror from Space, its disqualified.
>>>Since Aliens is just a sequel to Alien (and not even a
stylish one), it is invalidated also.
>>>What a stupid premise for you to concoct.
You and "Dr. Evil" outta hook up for lunch sometime.
>>>And a big smiley to you also. I *could* almost buy what
you wrote as an elaborate troll, but I still feel happy
replying, as you have put so much effort into it.
Trolls generally split after getting everyone fired up.
They don't stick around and back up their claims with logic
and compelling evidence.
Later,
Kevin
go...@happyland.com
>JEyers said:
>>>>Actually, Aliens: the first draft was highly derivative
>of the Forever War and Starship Troopers. Don't believe me?
>READ it.
>Of course Cameron had his inspirations. He was, however,
>the first to put those particular inspirations onto the big
>screen. BTW, I don't know the Forever War. It wasn't an old
>Outer Limits episode was it? ; )
First?! What part of 'inspiration' don't you understand?
>>>>Cameron played it safe by making a pretty formulaic war
>movie in space, as well.
>Pretty formulaic? Like placing a female actress in the lead
>role of an action movie? Something *major* that had *never,
>ever* been done? Not to mention the other female characters
>in the unit. Robert Heinlein has even said that he wished
>he'd included female infantry in his book.
Inevitable & non-congratulatory.
In these years of sexual integration of the military, would 'ID4' be
as deserving of accolades if it were the 1st to portray females in
combat?
No.
>>>For all of A1's style and visual wonder, its still *just a
>slasher movie.* And storywise, it breaks absolutely no new
>ground. The characters totally act, live, and die according
>to the John Carpenter "Book of Slasher Movie Rules" that
>every like horror film emulated after "Halloween."
>>>>Whoa! Whoa! All the cast of all the Alien movies are set
>up to die, its just they have some purpose to fulfil first.
>If Alien is just another slasher movie, then
>Aliens is just another sci fi action flick.
>"Just another sci-fi action flick" that was the quality
>benchmark for every like-genred film to follow. Not to
>mention the first to have war as its theme.
Umm, remember 'War of the Worlds,' for one?
>>>>In slasher films, something goes around and rips things
>to bits. More emphasis is put on the killing for horror.In
>Alien, more emphasis is put on the build up (i.e. suspense)
>and aftermath.
>The chestbursting scene is the granddaddy of all shockingly
>gory death scenes. There was *no* buildup to that scene.
>It just happened. And that is why it was so horrifying.
No. If Kane exploded in mid-sentence, without us knowing he'd been
'hugged', *that* would be emphatic on shock.
We got a perfectly built up tension onscreen, a la Hitchcock, but with
a messy ending seen onscreen.
You apparently don't understand the meaning of 'buildup' either! ; >
>>>>Alien was intelligent. It had a psycho-sexual
>extraterrestrial with Freudian undertones.
>So did Species. That doesn't make it "intelligent."
Species was overtly sexual; designed to titillate.
Alien was covertly sexual; designed to play on our deepest Freudian
based fears.
That makes it 'classy,' as opposed to 'trashy.'
>>>>Look, I agree Aliens is better than Alien, but not for
>those reasons. Alien had an idiot plot where no-one knew
>what they were doing (even the audience).
>So adding sexual overtones to an idiot plot suddenly makes
>the movie intelligent???
*Undertones*. Something to *think* about.
>>>>Alien, however, worked on more than
>one level. It was all about sex, and that is something most
>people here miss.
>... oh, never mind.
Exactly.
"His Evil Brains Glow In The Dark! (with exposure to light)"
Adam Cameron
I'm not holding my breath *yet*.
>beyond a shadow of a doubt, Jim Cameron accomplished a much
>greater cinematic feat than Ridley Scott, and made a film
>that was flat out better.
James Cameron isn't worthy of *washing* Ridley Scott's cinematic feet,
let alone having any chance of challenging his ability to put things
on a movie screen.
Cameron has his moments (quite a few, but none recently), but he isn't
a patch on Ridley Scott. Cameron can make movies that make money and
appeal to a wide audience (and technically are very good), but Scott
is a true artist of cinema.
Depends what you like. I like both, but in the context of ALIEN,
Ridley Scott made a great Alien Film, James Cameron just made a (very)
good film which happened to have aliens in it.
I think David Fincher made a better Alien Film than Cameron did.
Which is not to say that Alien3 is a better film that Aliens. It
isn't.
>Lets look at what each director did on their respective
>films. Ridley was given a premise that was a blatant
>derivative of an old 50's sf/horror flick and made a very
>memorable and entertaining movie, even if it was totally by
>the book.
*Jesus*. You're the first person to say *that*.
What he did is adopt the haunted-house-flick premise (which wasn't
used *that* much in 1950s sf / horror films, was it? It was
*overused* in the late 1970s and 1980s, though), and do something that
had *not* been done to this premise before: apply production values to
the concept. So we get an intelligent setting and story, plausible -
nay *real* - characters portrayed by good actors, fantastic design and
great direction. Along with a studio that was prepared to let their
"summer blockbuster" (as Alien was in 1979 - it was thei big budget
film of the year, planning to compete with Star Trek: The Motion
Picture) be a pretty grim and non-standard offering.
>Cameron was simply given the go-ahead to make a sequel, then
>he went about conceiving the entire plot of the movie in his
>head.
No he didn't at all. He admits that he was making a homage to Vietnam
war films, but setting it in space. What he did with the *aliens*, is
make more of them, and dumbed them down to be more accessible to the
popcorn munching (ticket buying / money-making-for-his-backers)
audience. There are a number of instances where scenes in Aliens were
no more than augmentations of the same events in Alien, just "made
bigger".
James Cameron contributed fuck-all to the Alien idea, and what he did
offer was pretty trite compared to what was concocted in Alien.
>For A1, the alien monster, derelict craft, and space jockey
>were all conceived and designed by famed artist H.R. Giger.
> The script was written and then passed on to Scott. Even
>the worn and grungy interior of the Nostromo was admittedly
>inspired by George Lucas's Star Wars.
Admitted by whom? Ridley Scott said he was sick of the spotless
future offered by films like Star Wars and STar Trek (and even 2001!),
and wanted to make it different, "lived in", and "realistic.
Nostromo was a spaceship, but that is where the similarities ended cf
Star Wars. Sulaco was more like something from Star Wars that
Nostromo.
>Deciding that the brainchild of a world famous artist wasn't
>cinematically up-to-par for his story,
Yeah right. I actually *did* LOL when I read that. I think it was
more that *Cameron* wasn't cinematically up-to-par with coming up with
a treatment for the original alien, so he applied his inferior
imagination and artistic (kind description) ability to come up with
something that would fit his paint-by-numbers filmmaking.
>Cameron invented the
>Alien Queen, as well as the majority of the designs for the
>ships and military hardware. He also turned his Vietnam
>inspired story treatment into a full-fledged script.
Well I'd rather have an artist be in charge of the art work, just as I
would want proven writer to write the story, or a DoP to handle the
cameras.
Good on James Cameron for doing a DIY job, but the fact the he took so
much on does not mean it was:
a) the best approach;
b) well executed.
I think he actually *did* do a good job with the look of the
technology of Aliens, FWIW.
>And while Scott played it safe in making a *totally*
>formulaic slasher-movie-in-space, Cameron went out *way* out
>on a limb on pretty pivottal aspects of the movie (more on
>that in a second.)
Well if I had to sum up the two films in as many words as you have
there, I would say *EXACTLY* the opposite.
>kind of perplexed as to why some people hold it in *such*
>high regard.
For me it is because it is really very good on a number of levels:
a) It is lovely to watch, thanks to the production design,
b) I like the characterisation and acting which I find to be some of
the best in any film. I *believed* that the actors were the
characters, not just actors portraying characters,
c) it is actually scary,
d) it doesn't treat the audience like a bunch of imbeciles.
If I was grading Aliens compared to Alien, I would give it quarter
marks for (a) and (d). I thought the characterisation of Ripley was
quite good, but the other characters were average at best (I use the
term "caricature" to describe the players in Aliens). And Aliens was
never scary (but it wasn't supposed ot be, I think).
Basically Aliens is a good "Hollywood" film. That is both a
recommendation and an indictment at the same time if you ask me.
Alien was *not* a "Hollywood" film.
(NB: note the quoation marks. I am using the term "Hollywood"
metaphorically).
>For all of A1's style and visual wonder, its
>still *just a slasher movie.* And storywise, it breaks
>absolutely no new ground. The characters totally act, live,
>and die according to the John Carpenter "Book of Slasher
>Movie Rules" that every like horror film emulated after
>"Halloween."
99% of films follow a formula (hence the concept of genre, I think),
but it is the *treatment* of the formula that will make a film stand
out from its peers.
Aliens was just - well, *more* - formulaic than Alien was. I'm not
sure many people would disagree with that (whether they thought Alien
or Aliens to be the better film).
>Basically, its just another story of a smart
>and pretty chick surrounded by morons
Which describes Aliens, too. Although my personal tastes do not
extend to the consideration that Sigourney Weaver is "pretty".
>just dying to utter
>the immortal phrase, "I'll be right back." The dumb fodder
>guys
This doesn't wash at all. Dallas, Parker, Ash and Brett (yes, Brett,
with his "right") were more defined as characters prior to their
demise than Ripley was. That doesn't fit into Carpenter's model at
all. Without prior knowledge one would not expect Ripley to be the
survivor right up until the is the last person left alive, I would
think. According to what I take from Carpenter's films, it is obvious
from the outset who is the one who isn't going to die (the main
character).
>go off by themselves to "investigate what might have
Well going in a group of three is hardly going off by themselves. It
could only be move even if half of Ash went along too. Which would
kind of spoil the surprise later on.
>killed the 20-foot space jockey," play hero with a flame
>thrower, or find a lost cat, then they <gasp> die.
I think you missed the point. I guess you thought The Usual Suspects
was crap after you guessed who Keyser Sose was, or The Crying Game
wasn't worth watching after you guessed the "surprise".
It is not the package, it is how it is delivered.
Are you telling me that you were *shocked* that 90% of the characters
ended up dead in Aliens?
> Then the
>token black guy and the less-attractive female make the
>fatal mistake of separating themselves from the heroine, and
>bam, they meet the boogie man as well.
Yeah, you watched Aliens first, didn't you? Given that Sigourney
Weaver was the nobody in the cast of otherwise established actors, and
according to your own "rules", it should have been Ripley who got
killed there.
>The characters in A1 engage in conversation more natural
>than those in other sci-fi or horror films, but they still
>play the tried-and-true roles of their respective slasher
>movie character archetype.
Well the soldiers in Aliens live up to the expectations of war film
characters, but they lack the realistic character portrayal of Alien.
So this is a point in favour of Alien, I believe (we are comparing the
two, don't forget).
>Steven Spielberg beat Ridley to
>the punch in showcasing realistic protagonists in a monster
>movie when he made Jaws, but he didn't have to make the
>characters suddenly stupid when it was almost their time to
>die.
I haven't seen Jaws for a while, so I will take your word for it
(whilst puzzling over the fact that I seem to recall that most of the
characters in Jaws other than the leads were completely throw-away).
>Cameron, on the other hand, didn't play by anybody's rules.
Well it wasn't him that made the rule "please the crowd and make us
lots of money, please", was it?
> Sure, there are moments in Aliens that are straight
>formula,
The bits between the 20CFox logo and the copyright notice, and
excepting the bits that were augmentations from Alien.
To be as simplistic as you, he took a haunted house, he gave the
punters guns, and then he killed them.
If you think it is soooo significant that in Alien people go off by
themselves and die alone, whereas in Aliens they stick together and
then die, then I really wonder why I'm bothering replying to this
post.
>but the totally unorthodox (cinematically) premise
You what?
James Cameron might be a few things, but unorthodox, inspired or
inventive are not some of them.
>of his film virtually gave birth to an entirely new *genre.*
That genre being?
Aliens was an action film, or (loosely) a SF film, or (very loosely) a
horror film, or (thematically) a war film.
I go for Vietnam war film in a SF setting, myself. Hardly a new
genre, just a twist on a couple of existing ones.
> Risking the anger of a legion of fans, Cameron decided to
>throw away the slasher elements and made it a war movie. He
Well he *did* incur the wrath of many Alien fans, actually.
>Now lets look at the horror/threat level. In Alien you've
>got a badass looking creature who basically just hides in
>different corners of a really big ship waiting for
>characters to wander into its grasp.
That is scary.
>Aliens has over a hundred of the monstrosities infesting a
*That* is showing off.
>colonial complex that after discovering your presence, *hunt
>your ass down and kill you.*
The multiplicity of the aliens has no effect on this. One alien would
have achieved this just as well.
>No matter where the characters
>in A2 hid or what precautions they took, there was always
>the sense of "they're coming...they're coming...they're
>coming."
As it was in Alien. Except it was more claustrophobic and accordingly
heightened the suspense.
>There are long gaps in A1 where the characters just kind of
>chill out wondering what to do next.
I think there is more of this in Aliens, isn't there? BUt I don't
think the levels of it in either film are a valid criticism.
>Every once in a while
>somebody will wander off and....
Not at all, actually. The deaths in Aliens were all pretty much the
same, but there was some variety of impact in Alien.
Kane: he's fucked now (face hugger). Oh no he isn't (no more face
hugger). Oh yes he is (*really* fucked).
Brett - who is looking for a greebly about eight inches long: *Shit*.
How the hell did *that* happen??
Dallas: *aha* now we've got guns, you bastard, *now* your gonna
pay... oh... no you're not. Bugger. That didn't work at all.
Ash: Just when we are running *really* short of options, we find out
that it just gets *worse*. We're being fucked by the alien, our own
crew *and* our bosses. And we now know we don't have any real chance.
Ripley: Oh... hang on, wrong one...
Parker and Lambert: so it *doesn't* just kill the one who goes off by
herself.
Jones...
Ripley...
Jones...
Ripley...
Oh. They're both OK.
Aliens:
Surviving colonist: yeah, ok, we guessed what was going to happen as
soon as we saw her (including the waking up part, cos we could see
that she was a person not a model).
Dietrich: OK, a surprise (only that it was Dietrich: it was obviously
going to happen to *someone*).
Crowe / Wierzb. / Frost: nice touch getting toasted by their own
people / equipment. Maybe this is a Desert Storm film? Not really
dramartically involving, though. More like "need to kill some
non-important characters".
Apone: no dramatic impact as there was no build up to it. Just
another number. Although it could be argued that his character had
been developed quite a bit, which means in Hollywood there is a chance
he might be one of the survivors. But this is a film where odds on
no-one is going to survive, so still not that surprising or involving.
Spunkmeyer / Ferro: hardly any screen time for either, so who cared?
Still, Ferro's death was quite well shot. I think we probably cared
about the dropship more, though (and what does *that* say?).
Drake: nasty way to go, and not expected... well he was the last one
left (so *by himself*) outside the APC. What happens to people *by
themselves*?
Hudson: cliche: ignoble character goes out in blaze of glory.
Burke: it was obvious he was going to get it as soon as he was
revealed as being *bad*. Just a matter of when, which still ended up
not being a surprise, because we saw it coming in the shootout scene.
Vasquez: Noble character tries as hard as possible and still dies.
This is a good one. I wished she had made it, somehow. Them carting
her out really injured instead of Hicks would have been better, cos
she did more to "deserve" it. Hicks was just unlucky.
Gorman: (see Hudson), but less impact as he a) wasn't as engaging as
Hudson; and b) was unconscious a lot.
Newt: OK, she didn't die. It is just wishful thinking. If she *did*
die it would be a surprise.
Hicks: given the track record of films where people start dying one by
one, it is a good thing that he survived. But Cameron slots in the
nod to predictable film making by making him *virtually* dead for the
rest of the film.
Hadley's Hope: Having the threat of the whole place blowing up to
hurry alog the film would be an original idea, if it hadn't happened
in films before... notably in Alien.
Bishop: A good touch that he *was* good.
Queen Alien: given the rest of the film, it is obvious that Cameron
needed a "bigger brighter faster more" ending, so had a *BIG* alien,
which manages to still not look as menacing as the original one. But
he doesn't know what to do with it, so he blows it out the airlock
like in the first film.
Ripley: Well Ripley was the star, so she wasn't going to die, was
she?
>To be unkind, most of the time in A1 the drone just does an
>impression of a really nasty venus fly trap.
And the aliens in Aliens did a good impression of those targets they
have at shooting ranges.
>In A2, the *only* people who venture off alone are Burke
>(because the marines have made it clear they plan to *kill*
>him)
Irrespective of the motivation, it still falls into the Carpenter
cliche you cited above.
>and Ripley, to save the life of a child. None of the
>actions by Cameron's characters require me to turn my brain
>off
Ripley going after the kid when she had vetoed the idea of rescuing
the marines in the same situation before because it was a lost cause?
Leaving Sulaco unmanned?
>because they mostly echo what my own suggestions would
>have been, especially "take off and nuke the site from
>orbit" and "yeah, Bishop should go." : )
Concur there, though.
>As far as dread and horror go, seeing the cocooned remains
>of men, women, and children are infinitely more chilling
That was grisly (and effective), and perhaps "horror" in a
slap-you-in-the-face way.
>than coming across the remains of some random alien pilot.
But for something that was inanimate and basically a macguffin, this
was *spooky*.
My response to the scene you mention in Aliens was: "Ew yuck. Nasty".
My response to the SJ was:
"What? What the fuck is *that*? What the fuck *is* that? Erm...
this is not looking good, suddenly..."
And given the SJ has illicited quite a lot of talk since, I think its
impact was somewhat more significant that a bunch of dead colonists.
>Cameron also made the only film that did a good job of the
>whole "heavily armed dudes vs. primitive yet overwhelming
>enemies.
Yeah well that idea wasn't original after the Scottish did it to the
Romans in the first few decades of the AD scale. Or when French got
their arses kicked out of Viet Nam in the 1950s. Or the Americans
from Cuba in the 1960s, or Vietnam in the 1970s. Or the Russians from
Afganistan in the 1980s.
Or when The Bad News Bears won some stupid baseball match, or when...
Cameron was hardly portraying new ground here.
>So you still think Scott did the better job, huh? Then ask
>yourself this: How many great movies have been made? Lots.
> How many great sequels have been made? Four (Aliens, The
>Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, and the
>Roadwarrior.) Of the four sequels, how many were made
Mad Max II ("Road Warrior" indeed) was cack compared to the thoughtful
first film.
>without direct input from the director of the first film in
>the series? One. ALIENS. Wow. That is one *damn* short
>list.
So James Cameron can make a good sequel. Hurrah.
Could he have done it if Walter Hill and David Giler and Dan O'Bannon
and HR Giger and Ridley Scott (and countless others) hadn't got
together in the first place?
Not a chance.
There was only scope for a sequel because those above had done such a
brilliant job that the studio thought that punters would come to see a
sequel even after six years!
Without Alien, Aliens would be a Vietnam War film with the odd
contrivance that it was set in space, and it had big insect sort of
things instead of VC and NVA. *That* sounds remarkably "b-grade", and
Cameron would probably have been run out of Hollywood as being a
racist.
>And consider this: almost every sci-fi horror film to be
>released during or after the 1970's was a derivitave of a
>50's grade-B picture (IT, The Thing, etc.) But nearly
>*every single* sci-fi action thriller involving a monster of
>some kind that was released after 1986 was a derivative of
>Aliens.
>Both Predator movies.
P1 was more derivative of Alien. Even *with* the soldiers.
> Starship Troopers.
RAH would turn in his grave.
>Deep
>Rising.
I've not had the pleasure of this one.
>Even From Dusk Till Dawn
You're reaching here, but I see what you are getting at.
>and Event Horizon. Some
This film seems to be nothing *but* film derivation, but as it is
basically a haunted house in space pic, it is more derivative of
Alien. And that is so obvious that I *really* wonder about you.
>movies are pretty similar to the first Alien (like
>Leviathan) but since that was just a stylish update of IT:
>The Terror from Space, its disqualified.
Since Aliens is just a sequel to Alien (and not even a stylish one),
it is invalidated also.
What a stupid premise for you to concoct.
>So there you have it folks. Scott good. Cameron better.
>End of story.
>Later,
>
>Kevin (heh heh)
And a big smiley to you also. I *could* almost buy what you wrote as
go...@happyland.com
>googs said:
>>>>Kevin Lamb <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Of course Cameron had his inspirations. He was, however,
>the first to put those particular inspirations onto the big
>screen.
>>>>First?! What part of 'inspiration' don't you understand?
>Okay googs. Enlighten me. Who made a bughunter war *movie*
>before Cameron? What's that? *Nobody?* Thank you.
Being a bit thick, now, eh, KL?
'Hey! Look! I put a slice of bread together with a plutonium pellet!!
No one's ever done *that* before!! I've done it first & Best! That ust
make me a Geenyus!!!!'
Bugs are replacable by Germans, Japanese, Americans, Swedes, whoever.
Doesn't matter. Formula is formula.
>>>Pretty formulaic? Like placing a female actress in the
>lead role of an action movie? Something *major* that had
>*never, ever* been done? Not to mention the other female
>characters in the unit. Robert Heinlein
>has even said that he wished he'd included female infantry
>in his book.
>>>>Inevitable & non-congratulatory. In these years of sexual
>integration of the military, would 'ID4' be as deserving of
>accolades if it were the 1st to portray
>females in combat?
>No.
>Because if ID4 was the first movie to include women in the
>military, it would simply be a reflection of the times. But
>Cameron used a little something called "foresight." Kind of
>like giving all of the video monitors in the movie a 16x9
>ratio, as all HDTV's will have.
>And then there's that thing called "commercial appeal."
>Cameron had no idea whether or not audiences would be ready
>for a woman to duke it out "mano-a-mano" in an action
>finale, but he went ahead anyway. And simple box-office
>numbers have *always* favored male leads.
Women *were* integrating into non-combative roles in the military in
'85, so 'the writing's on the wall,'...
And who says 16x9 will be anymore standard in ~2057 than 1.33x1 is
nowadays? That would be 'no one.'
And i offer that Cameron's *always* shot for the 'commercial appeal'
of strong female leads (or maybe he just likes a 'spanking' now &
again ; >) by putting 'strong women' in prominence in his films.
>>>"Just another sci-fi action flick" that was the quality
>benchmark for every like-genred film to follow. Not to
>mention the first to have war as its theme.
>>>>Umm, remember 'War of the Worlds,' for one?
>No, because it wasn't an action flick, which you may note,
>was what I was *talking* about.
Gee, there was an awful lot of killing & destruction in it to not be
'active,'...
You use selective recollection to bolster your argument.
>>>The chestbursting scene is the granddaddy of all
>shockingly gory death scenes. There was *no* buildup to that
>scene. It just happened. And that is why it was so
>horrifying.
>>>>No. If Kane exploded in mid-sentence, without us knowing
>he'd been 'hugged', *that* would be emphatic on shock.
>We got a perfectly built up tension onscreen, a la
>Hitchcock, but with a messy ending seen onscreen.
>You apparently don't understand the meaning of 'buildup'
>either! ; >
>You're right googs. That dinner scene was all about
>"suspense." I remember the first time I heard about it,
>some kid came up to me and kept raving about "the buildup,
>the *buildup*" of this one scene that was just soooo
>memorable and amazing. "Then what happened?" I asked,
>amazed. "Oh, after the incredible suspense some creature or
>something burst out of this dude's chest. But did I mention
>the 'buildup?'"
Of course i'm right! ; >
Hitchcock once said something to the effect of 'If a bomb blows up
under a seat unexpectedly in a film, the audience won't be involved
emotionally as much as if they'd known it was there all along.'
I'm gonna have to side with a Master Filmmaker over someone who can't
recognise a cliche'd action-film anyday.
>>>>Species was overtly sexual; designed to titillate. Alien
>was covertly sexual; designed to play on our deepest
>Freudian based fears. That makes it 'classy,' as opposed to
>'trashy.'
>I never said ALIEN was trashy, I said sexual undertones
>didn't make it intelligent.
No, you disparaged Species by inferring that because it was about sex,
which as i pointed out was *overt*, and i differentiated the two films
for you.
*I* said Species was trashy, and i also say that you didn't seem to
recognise the difference between the depth of the sexual references.
>>>So adding sexual overtones to an idiot plot suddenly
>makes the movie intelligent???
>>>>*Undertones*. Something to *think* about.
>Come on, googs! Thinking about something does not make it
>intelligent! George Lucas said the ewok battle in Return of
>the Jedi had major Vietnam undertones. You can think about
>that fact till the cows come home, but *it doesn't make RotJ
>an "intelligent" movie.*
Heh.
Recognising subtexts, however, *does* make a viewer *think* about
things, and _That_ sir, is the difference between a Classic Film, and
an Action Flick.
Alien let you peel away layer upon layer of meaning.
Aliens sold popcorn, munched while the cliche's piled up, masturbating
us emotionally, without any payoff other than the ride.
Fun ride, but no more than that.
go...@happyland.com
You wrote:
>>>>"Just another sci-fi action flick" that was the quality
>>benchmark for every like-genred film to follow. Not to
>>mention the first to have war as its theme.
>>>>>Umm, remember 'War of the Worlds,' for one?
>>No, because it wasn't an action flick, which you may note,
>>was what I was *talking* about.
>Gee, there was an awful lot of killing & destruction in it to not be
>'active,'...
>You use selective recollection to bolster your argument.
Meaning, you're excluding any film with action in it as being
incomparable to just a non-stop action film.
That's just cutting the crust off your whitebread sandwich.
>>>>>Species was overtly sexual; designed to titillate. Alien
>>was covertly sexual; designed to play on our deepest
>>Freudian based fears. That makes it 'classy,' as opposed to
>>'trashy.'
>>I never said ALIEN was trashy, I said sexual undertones
>>didn't make it intelligent.
>No, you disparaged Species...
by inferring that it was about overt sex,
>...which as i pointed out was *overt*, and i differentiated the two films
>for you.
>*I* said Species was trashy, and i also say that you didn't seem to
>recognise the difference...
Covenant
Kevin Lamb wrote in message <9332112...@www.remarq.com>...
>Dr. Evil wrote:
>
>>>**shudders** WOW, Just READIND that made me feel
>stupid...I feel sorry for the guy that repiled to Kevin's
>letter...
>
>
>Ahhh, my adoring public.
Heh heh heh...
*I* was gonna put that at the end of Menacers post!!
*Sorry* for me... AS IF !!
Kev, I know we could throw this around forever, it really just comes down to
taste and opinion.
Yeah I thought Aliens was a superb film, but for *my* taste, the tension and
unknown quality of Alien pips Aliens to the post.
Like has been said a few times. If you see Alien first, it is usually gonna
be the best of the movies to you. Especially if you say it on the big
screen, with NO previous knowledge of the series. (Hell, when I saw it there
WAS no series!!)
Cheers!
Covenant
Kevin Lamb wrote in message <9332260...@www.remarq.com>...
>What's up, Adam? Looks like I touched a nerve. I don't
>know if I'll have time to respond to every lengthy reply to
>my initial post, but for now, there's still some rounds in
>the sentry gun.
>>>>James Cameron isn't worthy of *washing* Ridley Scott's
>cinematic feet, let alone having any chance of challenging
>his ability to put things on a movie screen.
>Yeah, the film negatives of 1492: Conquest of My Ass and
>White Squall should be sealed away by Congress as national
>treasures. Please, T2 (Cameron's worst film) can still hold
>its own against 90% of the action fare ever to come out of
>Hollywood.
Kev....
One Word....
Pirahna !!!!
(or was it pirahna 2 ?)
>The tired old "Since Cameron's popular, he must be an
>artistic sellout" argument. Yawn.
However true that comment is ???
>Why is my point so freakin' hard to understand? Of course
>Cameron was inspired by different sources. The point was
>that he organized the desired plot elements *himself*, then
>wrote them out, thereby doing much, much more for his
>picture than Scott did.
Kev.
Seriously, so what?
Just because he *did it himself* doesn't make the rest of your points valid.
Both Scott and Cameron drew from different sources.
I don't see why you stating that Cameron *did it himself* negates that .
>>>>Admitted by whom?
>Well, that would be Ridley Scott, Adam. I've got a video
>from 1997 that was a compilation of different filmmakers
>talking about the rerelease of Star Wars. In the special,
>Scott said that Star Wars was so innovative and
>inspirational that it nearly made him sick, and it forever
>changed his conception of what can be done both in sci-fi
>and on film.
Hmmm. not QUITE admitting Alien was Star Wars derivative though.
Sounds like *nice soundbite for use in a programme about star wars* to me.
>FYI, Cameron *is* an accomplished illustrator, also, he got
>his start in movies by building models for low-budget sci-fi
>movies. And much of the photography in ALIENS blows the
>crap out of anything ever seen in *any* monster movie. Case
>in point: the entire ventilation shaft sequence.
Wasn't that Alien ?????
; ' )))
>a) the best approach;
>b) well executed.
>True (though in this case it does.)
But it *doesn't* mean that he's better for doing that than Ridley not !
>Dude, Ripley was behaving as any chick with maternal
>instincts toward someone in danger would. She wasn't an
>altruistic freaking Wonder Woman willing to sacrifice
>herself for any old scrub. She just didn't have much of an
>attachment to the marines in the beginning. And besides,
>even if she did have the inclination, she had no way of
>locating the marines who were taken; Newt had a wrist
>locator.
Ummmmm Kev...
Remember.. Ripley got hers from a certain marine... They ALL had them...
and they also had their readout on the consoles.
Covenant.
A Man Who Can't Really Be Bothered With This One.. It Really IS A Matter Of
Opinion...
Eric Adams
the points. Not ALL, but most: For instance, I think that Event Horizon
IS far more like Alien than Aliens (yes, Ash sees cameras mounted on the
Nostromo crew's suits too) and that, if you HAVE to reference, Predator
is more like Alien than Aliens (although I don't think it ripped off
either of them).
I also think that there were SOME tiny parts in Aliens which were badly
handled (Hudson spouting off about weapons and Hudson (again) taking
swearing at every damn opportunity to swear in his death-scene, instead
of just shouting and shooting or whatever). But on the whole, they
needed to be done (needed to know they had more than just machine-guns -
but Hudson could've been given better lines and needed to see him going
psycho in the end, but should've been masked by gun-fire).
The bottom line, for me, is that you can break either film into its
constituent parts. But there is far MORE to break down with Aliens than
there ever was with Alien.
They're different movies. You can't really compare them, since they're
completely different styles. Alien was the best for ITS type of story,
while Aliens was the best for ITS type of story. But you do a poll on
which Alien film the public enjoyed the most and its bound to be Aliens.
That's just the way it is. Yes James Cameron set out to please the
audience, but hell - that's what a film SHOULD do. If it doesn't
entertain you, then it's failed. Cameron delivered. Get over it. :)
- Eric
-------
"What the hell are we supposed to use man, harsh language?"
Kevin Lamb
googs said:
>>Okay googs. Enlighten me. Who made a bughunter war *movie*
before Cameron? What's that? *Nobody?* Thank you.
>>>Being a bit thick, now, eh, KL? 'Hey! Look! I put a slice
of bread together with a plutonium pellet!! No one's ever
done *that* before!! I've done it first & Best! That ust
make me a Geenyus!!!!' Bugs are replacable by
Germans, Japanese, Americans, Swedes, whoever. Doesn't
matter. Formula is formula.
Your ridiculous "plutonium pellet" analogy is supposed
to echo Cameron mixing two major film genres, of which a
large number of Hollywood copycats unsuccessfully tried to
emulate? Good one. You go googs.
>>Because if ID4 was the first movie to include women in the
military, it would simply be a reflection of the times. But
Cameron used a little something called "foresight." Kind of
like giving all of the video monitors in the movie a 16x9
ratio, as all HDTV's will have.
And then there's that thing called "commercial appeal."
Cameron had no idea whether or not audiences would be ready
for a woman to duke it out "mano-a-mano" in an action
finale, but he went ahead anyway. And simple box-office
numbers have *always* favored male leads.
>>>Women *were* integrating into non-combative roles in the
military in '85, so 'the writing's on the wall,'...
But Cameron began his treatment before then, so 'the writing
was in his script.'
>>>And i offer that Cameron's *always* shot for the
'commercial appeal' of strong female leads (or maybe he just
likes a 'spanking' now & again ; >) by putting 'strong
women' in prominence in his films.
FACT: Female leads have never come close to drawing the
large audiences male leads do when it comes to action films.
>>>>Umm, remember 'War of the Worlds,' for one?
>>No, because it wasn't an action flick, which you may note,
was what I was *talking* about.
>>>Gee, there was an awful lot of killing & destruction in
it to not be 'active,'...
You use selective recollection to bolster your argument.
There was a hell of a lot of death and destruction in Deep
Impact too, but *that don't make it an action movie.*
You're an enigma googs, you bring up a lot of references to
past works, filmmakers, and methods, which would imply
you've done some homework, then you work them into your
argument in a manner suggesting you have less of a grasp on
film terms and statistics than the most casual
"popcorn-crunching seat filler."
A little lesson for ya: The term "action movie" as its
commonly used (and pertains to this discussion) implies a
movie that not only emphasizes action, but has an
accelerated pace and a certain degree of sensationalism.
The original definition of the term simply denoted a film
that "emphasized action over characterization," but that is
so broad and covers *so* many genres that the modern term
introduced at the beginning of the Lucas/Spielberg era is
all that is relevant to today's discussion.
Some examples: Deep Impact and Armaggeddon had the exact
same plots including death, destruction, and a lot of
heroics. However, Armaggeddon is widely recognized to be
the "action" movie (with its uptempo pacing and
sensationalism) while Deep Impact is the "thriller,"
(exciting, but without the action movie treatment. Well it
was *supposed* to be exciting.)
By the "googs" definition of an action movie, A1 would be
considered one with its high death count (most of the crew)
and destruction (the Nostromo.)
>>>Of course i'm right! ; > Hitchcock once said something to
the effect of 'If a bomb blows up under a seat unexpectedly
in a film, the audience won't be involved emotionally as
much as if they'd known it was there all along.' I'm gonna
have to side with a Master Filmmaker over someone who can't
recognise a cliche'd action-film anyday.
Alfred Hitchcock was a brilliant filmmaker *for his time*
but his films, to be most unkind, flat out suck compared to
the most intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
decades. The tricks and gimmicks used (and praised) in the
60's are laughable by today's standards. Psycho might have
made every girl in America afraid to take a shower, but
today its a joke. Give me 50 million bucks and I'll make a
flick that'll put the best of Hitchcock to shame.
And for the 100th and *last* time, I understand that ALIENS
contains a lot of cliches and formulaic moments, it was just
more deviant than the first film! And I readily admit that
cliches, formulaic plots, or flat out "cheesiness" don't
instantly make a movie inferior. Star Wars is still one of
my favorite movies and it possesses more of the
aforementioned qualities than either Alien flick.
>>Come on, googs! Thinking about something does not make it
intelligent! George Lucas said the ewok battle in Return of
the Jedi had major Vietnam undertones. You can think about
that fact till the cows come home, but *it doesn't make RotJ
an "intelligent" movie.*
>>>Heh. Recognising subtexts, however, *does* make a viewer
*think* about things, and _That_ sir, is the difference
between a Classic Film, and an Action Flick.
Respectfully googs, that's just bull. A classic movie
(using the objective term) refers to a fictional movie that
has withstood the test of time, that continues to contribute
to our understanding of both human behaviour and/or the
medium itself, and that still seems to contribute to the
development of film. Classic films tend to sum up the state
of the art at the time of their production and also to
advance the art and permanently change the future course of
film.
To say that any film containing subtext and hidden meaning
is a "Classic Film" is just, well, just like you googs.
Kevin Lamb
>>Yeah, the film negatives of 1492: Conquest of My Ass and
White Squall should be sealed away by Congress as national
treasures. Please, T2 (Cameron's worst film) can still hold
its own against 90% of the action fare ever to come out of
Hollywood.
>>>Kev....
>>>One Word....
>>>Pirahna !!!! (or was it pirahna 2 ?)
Cov....it was Piranha 2 but....Cameron *did not direct
it!!!* He was *hired* to direct it, but was quickly fired
two weeks into production because of creative clashes with
the producers. Then they had a Japanese guy do it but they
thought a Japanese name in the credits might hurt it
commercially so they tacked Cameron's name onto the film.
So T2 still stands as his "worst" production, which is
pretty *damn* impressive.
>>The tired old "Since Cameron's popular, he must be an
artistic sellout" argument. Yawn.
>>>However true that comment is ???
Look at the comment as its quoted, Cov. Popularity alone
doesn't denote "artistic sellout."
>>Why is my point so freakin' hard to understand? Of course
Cameron was inspired by different sources. The point was
that he organized the desired plot elements *himself*, then
wrote them out, thereby doing much, much more for his
picture than Scott did.
>>>Kev. Seriously, so what? Just because he *did it himself*
doesn't make the rest of your points valid.
The director's job is to impart his vision onto the big
screen, either by delegating authority to the proper
specialists or by handling different aspects of filmmaking
himself. The director who does most of the key jobs himself
(assuming he is capable) will insure a greater continuity of
plot and style throughout the picture.
I have yet to see any evidence suggesting that Scott is
capable of personally constructing a film while playing all
of the roles that Cameron did (writer, conceptual designer,
etc.) and have it be as well received as ALIENS.
In addition, its simply easier to direct than to do all of
the appropriate research, write the film, design most of it,
AND direct it. Don't get me wrong, as *directors* Scott and
Cameron are toe-to-toe. As *filmmakers* Cameron blows Scott
away.
>>>Kev, I know we could throw this around forever, it really
just comes down to taste and opinion.
As far as which film is more entertaining on an individual
basis, yeah, you're right on. But what fun is a newsgroup
without a heated debate now and then? ; )
Later Joe,
Kevin Lamb
>>>Well, just my thoughts, but I have to say I agree with
Kevin on most of the points. Not ALL, but most: For
instance, I think that Event Horizon IS far more like Alien
than Aliens (yes, Ash sees cameras mounted on the Nostromo
crew's suits too)
Ah, good point. For me, seeing how the team was
specifically sent on a rescue type mission with one "expert"
who had prior knowledge of the destination; then having the
expert brief the team as they crankily awake from cryosleep;
the funny technician cracks some jokes, they board the ship,
explore with helmet-cams that the leader monitors, they
realize they're in danger then BOOM their ship explodes, now
they're stranded, bla bla bla, made it more of an ALIENS
derivitave for me. Sorry about the ridiculously random
run-on sentence there, but I really need to get to bed and
I'm trying to finish this up as fast as I can.
>>>and that, if you HAVE to reference, Predator is more like
Alien than Aliens (although I don't think it ripped off
either of them).
Predator: A badass military squad is called to rescue some
people. They embark on the mission but soon realize they're
getting more than they bargained for and the danger is much
more ominous. They quickly pick up a local female who
initially tries to escape then decides she's safer with the
soldiers. There are two heavy gunners who are really good
pals. During an early altercation with the alien menace,
the larger gunner is killed, and this particularly bums out
the other gunner.
Joining the team is a somewhat green commander who has no
respect from the team, especially the surviving gunner.
After fully assessing what they're up against the soldiers
barricade themselves in a strategic location, but eventually
the alien shows up. During the mayhem half the group heads
for their emergency evac while the unlikable commander stays
behind to help the gunner; they both face the alien
together, they both die, and the commander finally endears
himself to the audience.
The movie ends with a mano-a-mano showdown between human and
alien. The human is victorious, pinning the monster down,
but soon has to flee from the pinned monster or risk death
himself. Oh yeah, there's a nuke-type blast in the climax
as well, and the entire movie is a fast paced action
thriller. Sound familiar? ; )
>>>I also think that there were SOME tiny parts in Aliens
which were badly handled
Oh, I totally agree. ALIENS may be great but it isn't
*perfect.*
>>>(Hudson spouting off about weapons
Yeah, I never much cared for the acting in that scene.
>>>and Hudson (again) taking swearing at every damn
opportunity to swear in his death-scene, instead of just
shouting and shooting or whatever)
I did, however, think that Hudson's last stand was awesome
and totally in character. The only thing that truly bugged
me was the ridiculous way Cameron had Newt fall down the
airshaft after the grenade goes off. But that's like a few
seconds out of a 2 hr 47 minute movie.
Later,
Eric Adams
<kevin...@hotmail.com> writes
>Eric Adams said:
>
>>>>Well, just my thoughts, but I have to say I agree with
>Kevin on most of the points. Not ALL, but most: For
>instance, I think that Event Horizon IS far more like Alien
>than Aliens (yes, Ash sees cameras mounted on the Nostromo
>crew's suits too)
>
>Ah, good point. For me, seeing how the team was
>specifically sent on a rescue type mission with one "expert"
>who had prior knowledge of the destination; then having the
>expert brief the team as they crankily awake from cryosleep;
>the funny technician cracks some jokes, they board the ship,
>explore with helmet-cams that the leader monitors, they
>realize they're in danger then BOOM their ship explodes, now
>they're stranded, bla bla bla, made it more of an ALIENS
>derivitave for me. Sorry about the ridiculously random
>run-on sentence there, but I really need to get to bed and
>I'm trying to finish this up as fast as I can.
If anything, it's a combination of BOTH Alien and Aliens, with bits of
Hellraiser and The Shining thrown in for good measure... But I still
like it. :)
All the same, this is why I think it's more like Alien (for some reason,
all of the others in my media studies class in college, think it's more
like Hellraiser than Alien...):
I can't remember if the number of the ENTIRE crew is the same, but
they're all men except for TWO women. This is exactly the same as Alien:
Ripley and Lambert.
Sam Neil is, you think, completely neutral (or at least, on 'their'
side). He then turns bad in the end and tries to kill the rest of the
crew for a 'better'/'grander' purpose. Transposed into Alien mythology,
this is the same as Ash: In Ash's case his link is via both the company
and, according to early scripts and the novel, he implies he
communicated with the Alien. Sam Neil's case is kind of similar. The
Company-link isn't all that clear, but he DID help design the ship, so
there's something along those lines. He DID also communicate with the
ship (read - 'alien creature') via his 'dead' wife and (apparently) the
ship itself.
The crew are NOT counted as 'military' to the audience (although on the
pay-roll, they're not a tactical, search & destroy, Marine squad with
huge guns or anything similar): They are search & rescue and were
diverted off their 'normal' mission (R&R in this case) for this event
(like the Nostromo was).
It's an 'idiot movie': By this, I don't mean it's idiotic; it just means
that the entire crew have to be idiots - or act stupidly - at major
points to make the film work. In both movies, they split the crew up at
key opportunities. Even though they KNOW that Something Nasty This Way
Comes (TM).
They go into hyper-sleep. OK, so this is for Alien and Aliens, but you
know what I mean! The waking up scenes don't have a 'Sarge', so it feels
a bit more like Alien (a tenuous link I know!).
They find a big, almost-organic, ship. It LOOKS very alien in design -
even though the story dictates it's man-made. THIS is where the source
of evil is found and is the source for all their problems.
In Alien they discover the Space-Jockey's warning signal with a message
encoded into it. In Event Horizon they have the ship's logs and a
similar thing occurs.
Every single 'terror' moment is typified by a SINGLE entity: You never
see IIRC several creatures/ghosts/whatever chasing the crew down a
corridor/room.
It leaves most of the horror up to your imagination (Aliens did this
too, but not as MUCH as Alien did).
They're forced to rely on a kind of 'rivet' tool as a weapon in the end
- like Ripley did with the harpoon gun.
>>>>and that, if you HAVE to reference, Predator is more like
>Alien than Aliens (although I don't think it ripped off
>either of them).
>
>Predator: A badass military squad is called to rescue some
>people.
Granted, but it turns out that was just a cover-story.
>They embark on the mission but soon realize they're
>getting more than they bargained for and the danger is much
>more ominous. They quickly pick up a local female who
>initially tries to escape then decides she's safer with the
>soldiers.
I hadn't thought about the Newt-reference before. Interesting, but not
strictly true: She has little prior experience (apart from village
legends and a vague childhood experience which may, or may not, be
attributable to the Predator). She has also NOT been under siege for
several weeks: She was loyal to the people that Dutch and his team had
killed. By the same token, I'm not sure if she counts as a 'civilian'.
She's also a fully-grown woman. :)
I also remember something about the writers wanting to make her into a
kind of love-interest for Dutch's character at times and then shying
away from it (except leaving a little 'look' from both of them in at the
end, on board the helicopter). Now, unless you're going to suggest
lesbian, paedophile leanings on the part of Ripley, I can't agree with
you on the Aliens reference here!
>There are two heavy gunners who are really good
>pals. During an early altercation with the alien menace,
>the larger gunner is killed, and this particularly bums out
>the other gunner.
Hmm... that's true. But I wouldn't really categorize the 'survivor' as a
heavy gunner. His weapon just look like an ordinary rifle: No mini-gun.
If he also had a mini-gun then sure, but he didn't. He also goes on a
suicide mission against the Predator and fails. Vasquez just wants to
get the hell out of Dodge. :)
>Joining the team is a somewhat green commander who has no
>respect from the team, especially the surviving gunner.
Ah - But he's NOT green! Look at Dutch's talk with him about 'the old
times'. They share an obvious history there. Not like having only 2
'combat drops' at all...
>After fully assessing what they're up against the soldiers
>barricade themselves in a strategic location, but eventually
>the alien shows up.
This is another thing: It's ONE alien, not loads of them!
>During the mayhem half the group heads
>for their emergency evac while the unlikable commander stays
>behind to help the gunner; they both face the alien
>together, they both die, and the commander finally endears
>himself to the audience.
Not together: They organise a trap together (which Gorman and Vasquez
didn't) and 'go it alone' separately. They don't commit suicide either.
>The movie ends with a mano-a-mano showdown between human and
>alien. The human is victorious, pinning the monster down,
>but soon has to flee from the pinned monster or risk death
>himself. Oh yeah, there's a nuke-type blast in the climax
>as well, and the entire movie is a fast paced action
>thriller. Sound familiar? ; )
There's virtually no character-building though. Most of it IS just
action: "To hell with the torpedoes and full steam ahead!" I liked the
way it was executed though.
The Alien and Predator live for two totally separate purposes too. you
see that the Pred doesn't kill unless there's sport involved. You carry
a weapon and you're fair game. No weapon and it kills you. That's not
like the Alien at all.
I admit though - you're stuff did give me food for thought and, damnit,
you ARE right about various sub-texts. Grrr.. ;)
>>>>I also think that there were SOME tiny parts in Aliens
>which were badly handled
>
>Oh, I totally agree. ALIENS may be great but it isn't
>*perfect.*
>
>>>>(Hudson spouting off about weapons
>
>Yeah, I never much cared for the acting in that scene.
Paxton probably did the best out of a bad job there. Monologue should've
been better with less of the "my team of ultimate bad-asses will protect
you" crap. I mean, it's just NOT something he'd say in real life!
>>>>and Hudson (again) taking swearing at every damn
>opportunity to swear in his death-scene, instead of just
>shouting and shooting or whatever)
>
>I did, however, think that Hudson's last stand was awesome
>and totally in character. The only thing that truly bugged
>me was the ridiculous way Cameron had Newt fall down the
>airshaft after the grenade goes off. But that's like a few
>seconds out of a 2 hr 47 minute movie.
Well he had to do it somehow I s'pose. At least he made the jacket look
like it really DID slip off her and not make it an obvious stunt. I
found it believable.
go...@happyland.com
Kevin Lamb <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Oh brother.
>googs said:
>>>Okay googs. Enlighten me. Who made a bughunter war *movie*
>before Cameron? What's that? *Nobody?* Thank you.
>>>>Being a bit thick, now, eh, KL? 'Hey! Look! I put a slice
>of bread together with a plutonium pellet!! No one's ever
>done *that* before!! I've done it first & Best! That ust
>make me a Geenyus!!!!' Bugs are replacable by
>Germans, Japanese, Americans, Swedes, whoever. Doesn't
>matter. Formula is formula.
>Your ridiculous "plutonium pellet" analogy is supposed
>to echo Cameron mixing two major film genres, of which a
>large number of Hollywood copycats unsuccessfully tried to
>emulate? Good one. You go googs.
The simile was to ridicule your adoration for Cameron just because he
did something no one else'd done. Yet.
That's what Cameron does; he tries to mix genres together for wider
audience appeal (Abyss, True Lies, Titanic), and by commercial
standards, apparently somewhat successfully.
However, *just because no one's done it before it doesn't make you an
artist.* But from your later comments, i see talking to you about
cinematic art is akin to teaching the proverbial pig to sing.
And you still didn't address my point about the bugs being
interchangeable with *any* foe in such a stereotypical war flick, so i
take that as a smokescreen,...
>>>Because if ID4 was the first movie to include women in the
>military, it would simply be a reflection of the times. But
>Cameron used a little something called "foresight." Kind of
>like giving all of the video monitors in the movie a 16x9
>ratio, as all HDTV's will have.
> And then there's that thing called "commercial appeal."
>Cameron had no idea whether or not audiences would be ready
>for a woman to duke it out "mano-a-mano" in an action
>finale, but he went ahead anyway. And simple box-office
>numbers have *always* favored male leads.
>>>>Women *were* integrating into non-combative roles in the
>military in '85, so 'the writing's on the wall,'...
>But Cameron began his treatment before then, so 'the writing
>was in his script.'
Sticking your head into the sand to avoid seeing the inevitable is no
valid defense for JC, now, is it?
>>>>And i offer that Cameron's *always* shot for the
>'commercial appeal' of strong female leads (or maybe he just
>likes a 'spanking' now & again ; >) by putting 'strong
>women' in prominence in his films.
>FACT: Female leads have never come close to drawing the
>large audiences male leads do when it comes to action films.
The gross return on Alien sure blows *that* defense out of the
water...
Jimmy once again only picked up the ball & ran...
But i doubt you'll ever concede that so,...
>>>>>Umm, remember 'War of the Worlds,' for one?
>>>No, because it wasn't an action flick, which you may note,
>was what I was *talking* about.
>>>>Gee, there was an awful lot of killing & destruction in
>it to not be 'active,'...
>You use selective recollection to bolster your argument.
>There was a hell of a lot of death and destruction in Deep
>Impact too, but *that don't make it an action movie.*
While there were indeed lots of character driven elements to WOTW, and
in actuality it was a metaphor for Communist witch-hunts of the era,
*in context of the times* its theme was reliant on the action of
*destruction, peril, & death* to propel its story.
Just like A2.
And A1, but the point here is to deflate your argument.
And *done.*
>You're an enigma googs, you bring up a lot of references to
>past works, filmmakers, and methods, which would imply
>you've done some homework, then you work them into your
>argument in a manner suggesting you have less of a grasp on
>film terms and statistics than the most casual
>"popcorn-crunching seat filler."
LOL!!
*That*, coming from a guy who says what he does later about AH!!
And that line about popcorn sure sounds familiar,...
We didn't have a talk about this awhile back, did we? >; >
>A little lesson for ya: The term "action movie" as its
>commonly used (and pertains to this discussion) implies a
>movie that not only emphasizes action, but has an
>accelerated pace and a certain degree of sensationalism.
>The original definition of the term simply denoted a film
>that "emphasized action over characterization," but that is
>so broad and covers *so* many genres that the modern term
>introduced at the beginning of the Lucas/Spielberg era is
>all that is relevant to today's discussion.
Your 'personal definition' is so obviously skewed to support youself,
that in light of your dismissal of AH later, you are instantly
dismissable yourself.
Besides, didn't you proudly wear (suede vests, leisure suits,
parachute pants, whatever embarrasing-today piece of clothing from
whatever generation you're from), only to be ridiculed today if you
wore it?
Your celebrating the current viewpoints toward 'pop' cinema as opposed
to universally-accepted historically-relevant film critiquing is as
silly as (some of) my similes.
And just as laughable.
Now run along & buy the newest Top Ten anything & some mothballs to
store them away in when something new comes along...
And look for a new edition of classical film criticism, and maybe then
you'll 'get a clue,'...
>Some examples: Deep Impact and Armaggeddon had the exact
>same plots including death, destruction, and a lot of
>heroics. However, Armaggeddon is widely recognized to be
>the "action" movie (with its uptempo pacing and
>sensationalism) while Deep Impact is the "thriller,"
>(exciting, but without the action movie treatment. Well it
>was *supposed* to be exciting.)
Oh for the love of...
LOL!!
But wait!!!
'Deep Impact' was a blending of Action & Character development about
an Asteroid collision with Earth!
*NO one* had done that before!
So that makes the director a genius, right K?
>By the "googs" definition of an action movie, A1 would be
>considered one with its high death count (most of the crew)
>and destruction (the Nostromo.)
I'll define things myself, thank you.
>>>>Of course i'm right! ; > Hitchcock once said something to
>the effect of 'If a bomb blows up under a seat unexpectedly
>in a film, the audience won't be involved emotionally as
>much as if they'd known it was there all along.' I'm gonna
>have to side with a Master Filmmaker over someone who can't
>recognise a cliche'd action-film anyday.
>Alfred Hitchcock was a brilliant filmmaker *for his time*
>but his films, to be most unkind, flat out suck compared to
>the most intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
>decades. The tricks and gimmicks used (and praised) in the
>60's are laughable by today's standards. Psycho might have
>made every girl in America afraid to take a shower, but
>today its a joke. Give me 50 million bucks and I'll make a
>flick that'll put the best of Hitchcock to shame.
Here's where i quit listening to you altogether.
You sir are a pop-culture poisoned idiot if you dismiss Hitchcocks
work.
You exemplify the type of thinking that gave us the cinematic
equivalent of styrofoam in those detestable examples of ID4 & Godzilla
'9X. 'Throw money at it, & that'll make it better.'
You obviously have no taste whatsover, and obviously no ability to
recognise real talent or vision.
<snip of irrelevant smokescreen>
>>>Come on, googs! Thinking about something does not make it
>intelligent! George Lucas said the ewok battle in Return of
>the Jedi had major Vietnam undertones. You can think about
>that fact till the cows come home, but *it doesn't make RotJ
>an "intelligent" movie.*
>>>>Heh. Recognising subtexts, however, *does* make a viewer
>*think* about things, and _That_ sir, is the difference
>between a Classic Film, and an Action Flick.
>Respectfully googs, that's just bull. A classic movie
>(using the objective term)...
Umm, what happened to your pop-cultural bias?
Oh- I see,...
>... refers to a fictional movie that
>has withstood the test of time, that continues to contribute
>to our understanding of both human behaviour and/or the
>medium itself, and that still seems to contribute to the
>development of film. Classic films tend to sum up the state
>of the art at the time of their production and also to
>advance the art and permanently change the future course of
>film.
You just shot youself in the foot, pal.
A1 meets all those criteria, and A2 simply does *not*.
>To say that any film containing subtext and hidden meaning
>is a "Classic Film" is just, well, just like you googs.
Coming from *you*, i couldn't be more proud.
googs
(who seems quite quarrelsome of late ; > )
Covenant
>Alfred Hitchcock was a brilliant filmmaker *for his time*
>but his films, to be most unkind, flat out suck compared to
>the most intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
>decades. The tricks and gimmicks used (and praised) in the
>60's are laughable by today's standards. Psycho might have
>made every girl in America afraid to take a shower, but
>today its a joke. Give me 50 million bucks and I'll make a
>flick that'll put the best of Hitchcock to shame.
Kev.
You wouldn't.
You seem to be saying that flat out horror and in your face effect-ed
violence are what it takes to make a horrifying film. You stating glibly
that Psycho is laughable... Hmmm.. then why did they see fit to remake it
just a year or so ago. And not only re-make it, but attempt to shot it
*shot-for-shot* the same as Hitchcock's movie.. except for adding some gore!
And it BOMBED!
NOT because it was a remake, but because tyou cannot improve *upon* Psycho!
And it had already all been seen.
You are extolling Jimmy Cameron for taking an action heroine to new levels,
well, in Psycho Hitchcock did EXACTLY the same thing by taking Janet Leigh,
(VERY big at the time) and killing her off not even halfway into the movie.
He showed the *terribly rude* scenes of an *Unmarried woman after having sex
in a hotel!* and *IN HER BRA!!!* where this kind of thing had NEVER been
seen before.
He took a relative unknown (Perkins) and cast him in one of the most
*pivotal* roles in cinema. One that had so much power that it effectively
hampered his career, because, due to his talent and Hitchcock's direction,
he was just SO good at his part.
Kev, no PLEASE do not take this as a personal insult, seriously....this is
where you are showing the *naivety* of your age, regarding movies.
Nowadays it appears that if a film isn't *In Your Face* and effects laden,
then it is either *Dull* or *Shit* or *Lame* etc etc etc...
And this *also* nappears to be why you view Aliens with such high esteem
over Alien.
It is a sad fact, that the movie industry has spiralled downwards, aiming at
the lowest common denominator, and thus lowering people's expectations even
further and thuis lowering the denominator even further!
It is *horrendous* to think that there are people alive today who would
watch such movies as The Exorcist and Clockwork orange and decry them as
Laughable or dull, merely due to the fact that they are older and the
effects are not as polished.
But ( well, I WAS gonna say "They forget" but they don't forget cos they
never KNEW), these films (as with much of Hitchcocks) were groundbreaking
and brave. They pushed the barriers of movie making to the limit. Yes, for
their time, but also for ALL time, if you have the ability to look beyond
the "Oooh" "Ahhh" elememnts of modern film-making and look at the actual
content!
A twelve year old girl plunging a crucifix into her bloodied c**t and
calling out "Let Jesus f**k you!" brings laughter in movie theatres
nowadays, but only because the audiences are not used to connecting with
characters on the same level. Whereas I (who have grown up with movies were
you have to actually THINK about the content, and not sit back and eat
popcorn (Sorry Googs !! ; ' ) ) find that scene to be one of the most
disturbing ever filmed.
The problem is not that films have dated.
The problem is that audiences are being fed more and more shit. so their
expectations are for more of the same, and their criteria for how good a
movie is is how big the explosions are.
Any of you guys seen "Face" or "Nil By Mouth" or "The Near Room"...
...thought not.
Oh. and Kev.....
>A classic movie
>(using the objective term) refers to a fictional movie that
>has withstood the test of time, that continues to contribute
>to our understanding of both human behaviour and/or the
>medium itself, and that still seems to contribute to the
>development of film. Classic films tend to sum up the state
>of the art at the time of their production and also to
>advance the art and permanently change the future course of
>film.
Sounds like Psycho to me!
And Alien....
But, sorry, not Aliens.
Because, quite simply, if there hadn't *been* an Alien, there would NEVER
have been an Aliens. By *your* definition, Alien does add to the
understanding of the human behaviour under threat from an unknown quantity,
and advances films by the sheer fact that it has inspired a HELL of a lot of
people to create their *own* stories and movies. Ridley Scott is held in
ENORMOUS esteem by his peers. And, ultimately, as I said above, it gave
Cameron an inspiration to make a sequel!
QED.
Covenant
Kevin Lamb wrote in message <9333231...@www.remarq.com>...
>Covenant said:
>
>>>Yeah, the film negatives of 1492: Conquest of My Ass and
>White Squall should be sealed away by Congress as national
>treasures. Please, T2 (Cameron's worst film) can still hold
>its own against 90% of the action fare ever to come out of
>Hollywood.
>
>>>>One Word....
>>>>Pirahna !!!! (or was it pirahna 2 ?)
>
>Cov....it was Piranha 2 but....Cameron *did not direct
>it!!!* He was *hired* to direct it, but was quickly fired
>two weeks into production because of creative clashes with
>the producers. Then they had a Japanese guy do it but they
>thought a Japanese name in the credits might hurt it
>commercially so they tacked Cameron's name onto the film.
>So T2 still stands as his "worst" production, which is
>pretty *damn* impressive.
>
>artistic sellout" argument. Yawn.
>
>
>Look at the comment as its quoted, Cov. Popularity alone
>doesn't denote "artistic sellout."
No. But the fact that he is an artistic sell-out is.
I mean come on Kev... what did YOU think of The Boat Movie?
>>>>Kev. Seriously, so what? Just because he *did it himself*
>doesn't make the rest of your points valid.
>The director's job is to impart his vision onto the big
>screen, either by delegating authority to the proper
>specialists or by handling different aspects of filmmaking
>himself. The director who does most of the key jobs himself
>(assuming he is capable) will insure a greater continuity of
>plot and style throughout the picture.
Nope. That isn't how it works in the industry Kev. Remember, I'm a part of
it.
The director who tries to do everything does not trust the people he works
with. And not having trust in others abilities is a failing.
Cameron is a control freak. And it shows in the rigidity of his movies. A
leads to B leads to C
>I have yet to see any evidence suggesting that Scott is
>capable of personally constructing a film while playing all
>of the roles that Cameron did (writer, conceptual designer,
>etc.) and have it be as well received as ALIENS.
Kev. It doesn't *matter* !
Doing it all doesn't make him better in my book, due to my points above, it
makes him worse.
>In addition, its simply easier to direct than to do all of
>the appropriate research, write the film, design most of it,
>AND direct it. Don't get me wrong, as *directors* Scott and
>Cameron are toe-to-toe. As *filmmakers* Cameron blows Scott
>away.
Kev. you are taking the term *filmmaker* WAY too literally.
You don't *know* if Scott can do the above purely because he hasn't.
Not the same thing.
>>>>Kev, I know we could throw this around forever, it really
>just comes down to taste and opinion.
>As far as which film is more entertaining on an individual
>basis, yeah, you're right on. But what fun is a newsgroup
>without a heated debate now and then? ; )
Well...
There's debate.
There's heated debate.
There's stubborn opinion, ignoring facts.
And then there is what you and googs are getting into...
Watch it guys... It'll all end in tears!
; ' )))
Covenant
>>>>(Hudson spouting off about weapons
>Yeah, I never much cared for the acting in that scene.
It ain't the acting
We *know* Paxton is a good actor. Not a *great* actor, but a Good one.
It was the dialogue. It was crap.
And who wrote it again????
; ' )))
>I did, however, think that Hudson's last stand was awesome
>and totally in character.
Actually, I *don't* think it was in character.
This is a guy who is shown to be gung-ho in the battle lead up.
Then for the rest of the film, after his FIRST taste of combat, he is shit
scared.
And then just before he dies he starts with the ridiculous "Oh you wants
some too!"
He isn't *In Character* he's lost his MIND !!
(Or is given even more bad lines.)
But again. It's Cameron bowing to the "Yeaaaah Keeeeewllll !!!" mentality.
Alien was NOTHING like that, thank God.
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands Who DOES Like Aliens But
Recognises It's Limitations As A Piece Of Artful Film Making...
Kevin Lamb
GOOGS:
Being a bit thick, now, eh, KL? 'Hey! Look! I put a slice of
bread together with a plutonium pellet!! No one's ever done
*that* before!! I've done it first & Best! That ust make me
a Geenyus!!!!' Bugs are replacable by Germans, Japanese,
Americans, Swedes, whoever. Doesn't matter. Formula is
formula.
ME:
Your ridiculous "plutonium pellet" analogy is supposed to
echo Cameron mixing two major film genres, of which a large
number of Hollywood copycats unsuccessfully tried to
emulate? Good one. You go googs.
GOOGS:
The simile was to ridicule your adoration for Cameron just
because he did something no one else'd done. Yet. That's
what Cameron does; he tries to mix genres together...
No. Other directors *try* to mix genres together, Cameron
actually does it.
GOOGS:
..for wider audience appeal (Abyss, True Lies, Titanic), and
by commercial standards, apparently somewhat successfully.
Titanic was, by commercial standards, "apparently"
"somewhat" successful? ROTFLMAO!
Your flat out refusal to acknowledge *any* of Cameron's
cinematic accomplishments (especially something so
peripheral, as far as this "debate" is concerned, as
box-office success) quickly illustrates why you have
virtually no credibility whatsoever in this discussion.
GOOGS:
However, *just because no one's done it before it doesn't
make you an artist.*
Okay, now you're implying that not only is Cameron inferior
to Scott, he isn't even an artist, on any level. See above.
GOOGS:
But from your later comments, i see talking to you about
cinematic art is akin to teaching the proverbial pig to
sing.
I'll address comments like this down below.
GOOGS:
And you still didn't address my point about the bugs being
interchangeable with *any* foe in such a stereotypical war
flick, so i take that as a smokescreen,...
Because, at best, all you're saying is that Cameron didn't
lift his monsters (clones of war movie villains) any higher
than Scott lifted the drone (interchangeable with any
slasher movie villain.) Wasn't it you who raised the issue
of "selective recollection?" Cute.
GOOGS:
Women *were* integrating into non-combative roles in the
military in '85, so 'the writing's on the wall,'...
ME:
But Cameron began his treatment before then, so 'the writing
was in his script.'
GOOGS:
Sticking your head into the sand to avoid seeing the
inevitable is no valid defense for JC, now, is it?
Why am I suddenly tempted to mention that sticking your head
in your ass to avoid the inevitable is no valid defense of
RS?
ME:
FACT: Female leads have never come close to drawing the
large audiences male leads do when it comes to action films.
GOOGS:
The gross return on Alien sure blows *that* defense out of
the water...
Jimmy once again only picked up the ball & ran... But i
doubt you'll ever concede that so,...
Okay, a couple of posts ago a response like this would have
actually surprised me. But your continued ignorance (or is
it denial?) of common cinematic terms and statistics is
becoming sadly familiar. Googs, read this carefully (two or
three times if you must): Sigourney Weaver did not draw
large audiences to see the movie ALIEN. It was a
combination of Scott's great direction, the phenomenal
production, set, and creature design, and the very
commendable acting from the *ensemble* cast. And I realize
that you have a very hard time making up your mind on this
next point but ALIEN WAS NOT AN ACTION MOVIE.
You're freakin' awesome, googs. You repeatedly claim that
Cameron deserves not a single ounce of credit for any
innovations in his movie (because, ya know, *somebody* would
have *eventually* broken the exact same ground.) Then you
imply that it was *Scott* who first showcased a female lead
in an action movie (a genre he wasn't even working on)
before simply passing the torch to Cameron. Okey-dokey.
GOOGS:
Gee, there was an awful lot of killing & destruction in it
[War of the Worlds] to not be 'active,'...
I love this too. I make an observation about something
Cameron did in an action movie, then you unsurprisingly try
to counter it by making an irrelevant reference to an old
sci-fi flick that followed a totally different formula. I
remind you I was talking about "action movies," and you give
the above quote, in which you not only imply that death and
destruction are the defining characteristics of action films
(guess that makes Days of Thunder a docu-drama) but
hilariously try to cover your tracks by inventing an all-new
movie term: the ACTIVE movie.
GOOGS:
While there were indeed lots of character driven elements to
WOTW, and in actuality it was a metaphor for Communist
witch-hunts of the era, in context of the times* its theme
was reliant on the action of destruction, peril, & death* to
propel its story.
Just like A2.
And A1, but the point here is to deflate your argument. And
*done.*
Trying to prove that A2 and WotW are of the same genre by
describing them in terms broad enough to include the
original A1 as well (a movie that is universally accepted as
an apples and oranges comparison to A2 with respect to
formula and genre) only further deflates any semblance of an
intelligent "case" you may have against Cameron.
ME:
You're an enigma googs, you bring up a lot of references to
past works, filmmakers, and methods, which would imply
you've done some homework, then you work them into your
argument in a manner suggesting you have less of a grasp on
film terms and statistics than the most casual
"popcorn-crunching seat filler."
GOOGS:
LOL!! *That*, coming from a guy who says what he does later
about AH!!
And that line about popcorn sure sounds familiar,... We
didn't have a talk about this awhile back, did we? >; >
If it wasn't you that coined the phrase on this ng, it was
your old pal ZapPowBam.
ME:
A little lesson for ya: The term "action movie" as its
commonly used (and pertains to this discussion) implies a
movie that not only emphasizes action, but has an
accelerated pace and a certain degree of sensationalism. The
original definition of the term simply denoted a film that
"emphasized action over characterization," but that is so
broad and covers *so* many genres that the modern term
introduced at the beginning of the Lucas/Spielberg era is
all that is relevant to today's discussion.
GOOGS:
Your 'personal definition' is so obviously skewed to support
youself, that in light of your dismissal of AH later, you
are instantly dismissable yourself.
Dude, what's the main criticism you hear about George Lucas
and Steven Spielberg? That they "ruined" Hollywood by
making sensationalism, lightspeed pacing, and elaborate
technical effects a prerequisite for a commercially
successful movie. I don't make that complaint against them,
but the genre of action flicks did pretty much evolve into
movies that universally contain those elements (not
exclusively, mind you) immediately after the commercial
success of George and Steve.
GOOGS:
Besides, didn't you proudly wear (suede vests, leisure
suits, parachute pants, whatever embarrasing-today piece of
clothing from whatever generation you're from), only to be
ridiculed today if you wore it?
I'm sure there's a point to that question, but I'll just let
it be "your little secret."
GOOGS:
Your celebrating the current viewpoints toward 'pop' cinema
as opposed to universally-accepted historically-relevant
film critiquing is as silly as (some of) my similes.
And just as laughable.
Now run along & buy the newest Top Ten anything & some
mothballs to store them away in when something new comes
along... And look for a new edition of classical film
criticism, and maybe then you'll 'get a clue,'...
These delusional mischaracterizations parallel those you
make about my comments on Hitchcock's work. See below.
ME:
Some examples: Deep Impact and Armaggeddon had the exact
same plots including death, destruction, and a lot of
heroics. However, Armaggeddon is widely recognized to be the
"action" movie (with its uptempo pacing and sensationalism)
while Deep Impact is the "thriller," (exciting, but without
the action movie treatment. Well it was *supposed* to be
exciting.)
GOOGS:
Oh for the love of... LOL!!
But wait!!!
'Deep Impact' was a blending of Action & Character
development about an Asteroid collision with Earth!
*NO one* had done that before!
So that makes the director a genius, right K?
Nice dodge. Regardless of the quality of the two asteroid
flicks, they perfectly reflect how plot alone does not an
action film make.
ME:
By the "googs" definition of an action movie, A1 would be
considered one with its high death count (most of the crew)
and destruction (the Nostromo.)
GOOGS:
I'll define things myself, thank you.
Oh that's right, ALIEN wasn't an action flick, it was one of
those fabled "active" movies.
ME:
Alfred Hitchcock was a brilliant filmmaker *for his time*
but his films, to be most unkind, flat out suck compared to
the most intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
decades. The tricks and gimmicks used (and praised) in the
60's are laughable by today's standards. Psycho might have
made every girl in America afraid to take a shower, but
today its a joke. Give me 50 million bucks and I'll make a
flick that'll put the best of Hitchcock to shame.
GOOGS:
Here's where i quit listening to you altogether.
Judging from your posts, you never started.
GOOGS:
You sir are a pop-culture poisoned idiot if you dismiss
Hitchcocks work.
Dismiss his work? "Brilliant filmmaker for his time?"
You exemplify the type of thinking that gave us the
cinematic equivalent of styrofoam in those detestable
examples of ID4 & Godzilla '9X. 'Throw money at it, &
that'll make it better.' You obviously have no taste
whatsover, and obviously no ability to recognise real talent
or vision.
WTF?!?!?!?!?!? I said Hitchcock's movies suck compared to
the most "intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
decades." ID4???? Godzilla???? What the hell are you
talking about?!? I was referring to movies like The
Shining, Amityville Horror, and The Exorcist (hear that
Cov?)
"Throw money at it, & that'll make it better?" Who in God's
name are you quoting? I never said *anything* to that
effect. Yeah, I like Cameron, and yes I think he's done a
lot for cinema, but in all honesty I miss the creative edge
so prominent in his first two films. I understand that the
Terminator was highly derivitave of old Outer Limits
episodes, and that ALIENS had its own inspirations (which,
I'm sure you've forgotten, I've readily admitted) but none
of the blank check budget movies he made in his King of the
World days ever came close to possessing the edgy, "raw"
creative power of his first two productions. I have enjoyed
all of his movies to varying degrees, and recognize that he
has accumulated a roster of films worthy of tremendous
praise, but I don't think that the increased budgets
improved his movies *in any way other than visually.*
Because of his track record, my attendance at future Cameron
films is pretty much guaranteed, but I'll be the first to
admit that his best days are (sadly) behind him. I don't
really fault him for it, I'm sure anyone with the amount of
money and power Cameron has garnered would be hard pressed
not to give in to a degree of complacency. But I'll always
have T1 and A2, and now I save my greatest anticipation for
the next Wachowski Brothers film.
Getting back to the whole Hitchcock thing, there's not
really much more to say. I recognize the man as an integral
piece in the history of film, but he just laid the
foundation for great cinematic suspense. Others (Cameron and
Scott included) have built cinematic structures on the
cornerstone of Hitchcock's work that have achieved much
higher degrees of intensity and terror. I mean, Henry Ford
will always be "the man" when it comes to automobiles, but
if you did a side by side comparison of an old T-Bird and a
1999 Audi A6 Quattro, the T-Bird becomes laughable. I
realize that the tone of my comments about AH was
unnecessarily harsh (having to explain the same damn points
over and over can get a little annoying) but I hope you can
better understand what I was getting at.
If you have a problem with the fact that I didn't find
Psycho the least bit scary (having first watched it after
seeing the truly frightening supernatural horror movies of
the seventies and the first two Alien films) then get over
it.
GOOGS:
Heh. Recognising subtexts, however, *does* make a viewer
*think* about things, and _That_ sir, is the difference
between a Classic Film, and an Action Flick.
So tell me googs, what's *your* excuse for this completely
off-the-wall statement?
ME:
Respectfully googs, that's just bull. A classic movie (using
the objective term) refers to a fictional movie that has
withstood the test of time, that continues to contribute to
our understanding of both human behaviour and/or the medium
itself, and that still seems to contribute to the
development of film. Classic films tend to sum up the state
of the art at the time of their production and also to
advance the art and permanently change the future course of
film.
GOOGS:
You just shot youself in the foot, pal. A1 meets all those
criteria, and A2 simply does *not*.
My feet are just fine, googs. I never said that Aliens will
be remembered as the "classic" of the series. I just said
it was a better film than ALIEN. How is that possible?
Take a look at the Star Wars saga. There are few films in
history that have so changed the medium the way STAR WARS
did. It is a classic in every sense of the word and will be
revered for as long as the artform exists. But you know
what? The Empire Strikes Back is pretty much universally
accepted as a superior film on every level of artistic and
technical production. To a somewhat lesser degree, my
position has been that the same holds true in comparing
Aliens to its classic predecessor.
Later,
Kevin
P.S. Covenant: it appears that you developed the same
misconceptions about my personal tastes that googs did. I
hope I gave you a better understanding of where I was coming
from (not to say that you'd agree of course.)
; )
go...@happyland.com
go...@happyland.com
>Well...
>There's debate.
>There's heated debate.
>There's stubborn opinion, ignoring facts.
>And then there is what you and googs are getting into...
So, uh, just what're ya *sayin',* here, Cov?...
?
go...@happyland.com
posts, i must reply...
Kevin Lamb <kevin...@hotmail.com> hit the keyboard & accidentally
typed:
>GOOGS:
>Being a bit thick, now, eh, KL? 'Hey! Look! I put a slice of
>bread together with a plutonium pellet!! No one's ever done
>*that* before!! I've done it first & Best! That ust make me
>a Geenyus!!!!' Bugs are replacable by Germans, Japanese,
>Americans, Swedes, whoever. Doesn't matter. Formula is
>formula.
>ME:
>Your ridiculous "plutonium pellet" analogy is supposed to
>echo Cameron mixing two major film genres, of which a large
>number of Hollywood copycats unsuccessfully tried to
>emulate? Good one. You go googs.
>GOOGS:
>The simile was to ridicule your adoration for Cameron just
>because he did something no one else'd done. Yet. That's
>what Cameron does; he tries to mix genres together...
>No. Other directors *try* to mix genres together, Cameron
>actually does it.
That calls for a 'Whatever!'
Since all this was in response to your initial posting of:
>>Okay googs. Enlighten me. Who made a bughunter war *movie*
>>before Cameron? What's that? *Nobody?* Thank you.
...I'll take that as another diversionary edit to obscure the fact
that i properly countered you.
"First does not = best."
But i'm sure you don't see it...
>GOOGS:
>..for wider audience appeal (Abyss, True Lies, Titanic), and
>by commercial standards, apparently somewhat successfully.
>Titanic was, by commercial standards, "apparently"
>"somewhat" successful? ROTFLMAO!...
Jeesh, don't you recognise comic understatement w/o a ": )"?
>...Your flat out refusal to acknowledge *any* of Cameron's
>cinematic accomplishments (especially something so
>peripheral, as far as this "debate" is concerned, as
>box-office success) quickly illustrates why you have
>virtually no credibility whatsoever in this discussion.
Listen up, troll-boy-
The founding topic of this ridiculous thread was your assertion that
Cameron is a better director than RScott; That's what i've been
countering.
The subject of what *I* think of Jimmy simply ain't an admissable
issue here, nor is it relevant here. But a nice diversionary attempt,
tho; Not!
And you can do better than turning my dismissal of you re: your
lack of respect for AH back at me, now, can't you?
No, i guess not, since i fully countered this particular section...
>GOOGS:
>However, *just because no one's done it before it doesn't
>make you an artist.*
>Okay, now you're implying that not only is Cameron inferior
>to Scott, he isn't even an artist, on any level. See above.
You know what? I'm not implying it; i'm *saying* it.
Cameron's a highly skilled *technician,* without a single artistic
thought in his head, as opposed to true visionaries (like RScott).
That's my trump card for this futile excercise of yours.
>GOOGS:
>But from your later comments, i see talking to you about
>cinematic art is akin to teaching the proverbial pig to
>sing.
>I'll address comments like this down below.
Oh i was sure you would.
>GOOGS:
>And you still didn't address my point about the bugs being
>interchangeable with *any* foe in such a stereotypical war
>flick, so i take that as a smokescreen,...
>Because, at best, all you're saying is that Cameron didn't
>lift his monsters (clones of war movie villains) any higher
>than Scott lifted the drone (interchangeable with any
>slasher movie villain.)...
I've got no problem with that.
But Scott made *more* of his B-grade plot; Cameron only showed he knew
how to make a B-grade plot very well. But *not* greater than the sum
of its parts. As opposed to RScott.
>GOOGS:
>Women *were* integrating into non-combative roles in the
>military in '85, so 'the writing's on the wall,'...
>ME:
>But Cameron began his treatment before then, so 'the writing
>was in his script.'
>GOOGS:
>Sticking your head into the sand to avoid seeing the
>inevitable is no valid defense for JC, now, is it?
>Why am I suddenly tempted to mention that sticking your head
>in your ass to avoid the inevitable is no valid defense of
>RS?
Because of your current visual perspective?
>ME:
>FACT: Female leads have never come close to drawing the
>large audiences male leads do when it comes to action films.
>GOOGS:
>The gross return on Alien sure blows *that* defense out of
>the water...
>Jimmy once again only picked up the ball & ran... But i
>doubt you'll ever concede that so,...
>Okay, a couple of posts ago a response like this would have
>actually surprised me. But your continued ignorance (or is
>it denial?) of common cinematic terms and statistics is
>becoming sadly familiar...
Familiar & expected condescensionfrom a troller, but *surely* not
*you*,...
>... Googs, read this carefully (two or
>three times if you must):...
Go ahead & act superior if your ego needs it, now,...
>... Sigourney Weaver did not draw
>large audiences to see the movie ALIEN. It was a
>combination of Scott's great direction, the phenomenal
>production, set, and creature design, and the very
>commendable acting from the *ensemble* cast. And I realize
>that you have a very hard time making up your mind on this
>next point but ALIEN WAS NOT AN ACTION MOVIE.
The Alien series is 'successful,' no?
Why?
Because there was a *first* film able to generate interest enough for
there to be a sequel in the *first* place! (Score 2 for RScott
there,..).
This very fact alone destroys your assertion that women were no big
audience draw;
>You're freakin' awesome, googs. You repeatedly claim that
>Cameron deserves not a single ounce of credit for any
>innovations in his movie (because, ya know, *somebody* would
>have *eventually* broken the exact same ground.)...
That would call for the proverbial 'Blowme.'
Don't put 'claims' in my mouth.
This is all about your trumpeting of JCameron as anything more than a
skilled filmmaker.
And somebody else *would* have done that.
>... Then you
>imply that it was *Scott* who first showcased a female lead
>in an action movie (a genre he wasn't even working on)
>before simply passing the torch to Cameron. Okey-dokey.
Scott was indeed successful w/ A1, and SWeaver was the lead, so that
in itself countered your prior assertion.
I see we have a problem defining 'action movie.'
I judge it by any movie that relies on action to reach its climax.
Typically, all B-grade ('classic' terminology there, pop-fans) films
rely on the visceral, reactive appeal of humans to dramatic (emotional
definition, now) representations of life-or-death situations onscreen.
As opposed to a non-action movie, which would be something entirely
*character* driven (like 'My Dinner With Andre'), with *no*
life-or-death situations.
Those are the definitions i use in this argument, and A1 certainly
fits that label. (as do the other films i referenced in that context)
>GOOGS:
>Gee, there was an awful lot of killing & destruction in it
>[War of the Worlds] to not be 'active,'...
>I love this too. I make an observation about something
>Cameron did in an action movie, then you unsurprisingly try
>to counter it by making an irrelevant reference to an old
>sci-fi flick that followed a totally different formula. I
>remind you I was talking about "action movies," and you give
>the above quote, in which you not only imply that death and
>destruction are the defining characteristics of action films...
'Life-or-death struggle'...
>...(guess that makes Days of Thunder a docu-drama) but
>hilariously try to cover your tracks by inventing an all-new
>movie term: the ACTIVE movie.
Troller. 'Active' makes 'Action.'
And the only 'tracks' that need covering are my footprints all over
your dodgy defense of Cameron.
>GOOGS:
>While there were indeed lots of character driven elements to
>WOTW, and in actuality it was a metaphor for Communist
>witch-hunts of the era, in context of the times* its theme
>was reliant on the action of destruction, peril, & death* to
>propel its story.
>Just like A2.
>And A1, but the point here is to deflate your argument. And
>*done.*
>Trying to prove that A2 and WotW are of the same genre by
>describing them in terms broad enough to include the
>original A1 as well (a movie that is universally accepted as
>an apples and oranges comparison to A2 with respect to
>formula and genre) only further deflates any semblance of an
>intelligent "case" you may have against Cameron.
Try to take in & process the Whole Picture, now.
Go back & reread my posts while remembering the definition of 'action
movie' that i (and film historians, BTW) used.
And then report back. There *will* be a quiz. ; >
>ME:
>You're an enigma googs, you bring up a lot of references to
>past works, filmmakers, and methods, which would imply
>you've done some homework, then you work them into your
>argument in a manner suggesting you have less of a grasp on
>film terms and statistics than the most casual
>"popcorn-crunching seat filler."
>GOOGS:
>LOL!! *That*, coming from a guy who says what he does later
>about AH!!
>And that line about popcorn sure sounds familiar,... We
>didn't have a talk about this awhile back, did we? >; >
>If it wasn't you that coined the phrase on this ng, it was
>your old pal ZapPowBam.
Yeah! And i thought his adoration of David Fincher was tantamount to a
crush, but compared to you&Jimmy,...
>ME:
>A little lesson for ya: The term "action movie" as its
>commonly used (and pertains to this discussion) implies a
>movie that not only emphasizes action, but has an
>accelerated pace and a certain degree of sensationalism...
*That's* the key,..
>... The
>original definition of the term simply denoted a film that
>"emphasized action over characterization," but that is so
>broad and covers *so* many genres that the modern term
>introduced at the beginning of the Lucas/Spielberg era is
>all that is relevant to today's discussion.
>GOOGS:
>Your 'personal definition' is so obviously skewed to support
>youself, that in light of your dismissal of AH later, you
>are instantly dismissable yourself.
<i'll take this back since i realise we were looking at a classical
definition of 'af' differently (see above)...>
>Dude, what's the main criticism you hear about George Lucas
>and Steven Spielberg? That they "ruined" Hollywood by
>making sensationalism, lightspeed pacing, and elaborate
>technical effects a prerequisite for a commercially
>successful movie. I don't make that complaint against them,
>but the genre of action flicks did pretty much evolve into
>movies that universally contain those elements (not
>exclusively, mind you) immediately after the commercial
>success of George and Steve.
You & i were using different definitions of 'af.' ('Duh!')
I use the classic (which is more distilled than yours above, BTW), but
then you throw away proper & accepted terms for a pop-cultured bias.
For you to discuss the laudable merits of JC over RS, you simply
*cannot* ignore the historically accepted definitions of *true*
cinematic quality.
And JS simply does not hold up the true and original definition of
'cinematic art form.'
But i'll bet that's why you keep introducing the 'modern view.'
>GOOGS:
>Besides, didn't you proudly wear (suede vests, leisure
>suits, parachute pants, whatever embarrasing-today piece of
>clothing from whatever generation you're from), only to be
>ridiculed today if you wore it?
>I'm sure there's a point to that question, but I'll just let
>it be "your little secret."
Heh.
Simply pointing out that current views aren't the forever-held ones.
>GOOGS:
>Your celebrating the current viewpoints toward 'pop' cinema
>as opposed to universally-accepted historically-relevant
>film critiquing is as silly as (some of) my similes.
>And just as laughable.
>Now run along & buy the newest Top Ten anything & some
>mothballs to store them away in when something new comes
>along... And look for a new edition of classical film
>criticism, and maybe then you'll 'get a clue,'...
>These delusional mischaracterizations parallel those you
>make about my comments on Hitchcock's work. See below.
Don't try to duck it, buddy; the point i made was that without your
qualifier of 'current view,' JC's work shows itself to be only
technically adept, and as artistic as any assembly-line 'product,'
>ME:
>Some examples: Deep Impact and Armaggeddon had the exact
>same plots including death, destruction, and a lot of
>heroics. However, Armaggeddon is widely recognized to be the
>"action" movie (with its uptempo pacing and sensationalism)
>while Deep Impact is the "thriller," (exciting, but without
>the action movie treatment. Well it was *supposed* to be
>exciting.)
>GOOGS:
>Oh for the love of... LOL!!
>But wait!!!
>'Deep Impact' was a blending of Action & Character
>development about an Asteroid collision with Earth!
>*NO one* had done that before!
>So that makes the director a genius, right K?
>Nice dodge. Regardless of the quality of the two asteroid
>flicks, they perfectly reflect how plot alone does not an
>action film make.
No dodge, in light of my (and most others) def. of 'af.'
Both had the L-or-D struggle inherent.
And you know i was poking at your 'First is Best' mentality re: Jimmy
& A2, right?
Well, i was.
>ME:
>By the "googs" definition of an action movie, A1 would be
>considered one with its high death count (most of the crew)
>and destruction (the Nostromo.)
>GOOGS:
>I'll define things myself, thank you.
>Oh that's right, ALIEN wasn't an action flick, it was one of
>those fabled "active" movies.
I'll withhold the 'blowme' there,..
>ME:
>Alfred Hitchcock was a brilliant filmmaker *for his time*
>but his films, to be most unkind, flat out suck compared to
>the most intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
>decades. The tricks and gimmicks used (and praised) in the
>60's are laughable by today's standards. Psycho might have
>made every girl in America afraid to take a shower, but
>today its a joke. Give me 50 million bucks and I'll make a
>flick that'll put the best of Hitchcock to shame.
>GOOGS:
>Here's where i quit listening to you altogether.
>Judging from your posts, you never started.
Well let's hope this cleared that up.
>GOOGS:
>You sir are a pop-culture poisoned idiot if you dismiss
>Hitchcocks work.
>Dismiss his work? "Brilliant filmmaker for his time?"
In *any* age, dismissal is idiotic.
>You exemplify the type of thinking that gave us the
>cinematic equivalent of styrofoam in those detestable
>examples of ID4 & Godzilla '9X. 'Throw money at it, &
>that'll make it better.' You obviously have no taste
>whatsover, and obviously no ability to recognise real talent
>or vision.
>WTF?!?!?!?!?!? I said Hitchcock's movies suck compared to
>the most "intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
>decades." ID4???? Godzilla???? What the hell are you
>talking about?!? I was referring to movies like The
>Shining, Amityville Horror, and The Exorcist (hear that
>Cov?)
You're drunk or lying.
That was all about AH: read it yourself. No mention of other directors
or films.
'Loss of credibility points: Kev!'
>"Throw money at it, & that'll make it better?" Who in God's
>name are you quoting? I never said *anything* to that
>effect...
Troller.
And unless you admit to this fallacy on your part, then we are *done.*
>... Yeah, I like Cameron, and yes I think he's done a
>lot for cinema, but in all honesty I miss the creative edge
>so prominent in his first two films. I understand that the
>Terminator was highly derivitave of old Outer Limits
>episodes, and that ALIENS had its own inspirations (which,
>I'm sure you've forgotten, I've readily admitted)...
<Thanks for thinking for me, there,...>
>... but none
>of the blank check budget movies he made in his King of the
>World days ever came close to possessing the edgy, "raw"
>creative power of his first two productions. I have enjoyed
>all of his movies to varying degrees, and recognize that he
>has accumulated a roster of films worthy of tremendous
>praise, but I don't think that the increased budgets
>improved his movies *in any way other than visually.*
>Because of his track record, my attendance at future Cameron
>films is pretty much guaranteed, but I'll be the first to
>admit that his best days are (sadly) behind him. I don't
>really fault him for it, I'm sure anyone with the amount of
>money and power Cameron has garnered would be hard pressed
>not to give in to a degree of complacency. But I'll always
>have T1 and A2, and now I save my greatest anticipation for
>the next Wachowski Brothers film.
>Getting back to the whole Hitchcock thing,...
Yes; let's. Since nothing you said there counts for sh*t in this
part...
>... there's not
>really much more to say. I recognize the man as an integral
>piece in the history of film, but he just laid the
>foundation for great cinematic suspense. Others (Cameron and
>Scott included) have built cinematic structures on the
>cornerstone of Hitchcock's work that have achieved much
>higher degrees of intensity and terror. I mean, Henry Ford
>will always be "the man" when it comes to automobiles, but
>if you did a side by side comparison of an old T-Bird and a
>1999 Audi A6 Quattro, the T-Bird becomes laughable...
Once again you exemplify your ridiculous bias for the new & against
the forebear. See my ridiculing re: pop-culture above.
>... I
>realize that the tone of my comments about AH was
>unnecessarily harsh (having to explain the same damn points
>over and over can get a little annoying) but I hope you can
>better understand what I was getting at.
Yes.
I understand that you're a troll or a liar if you say you did anything
other than totally dismiss AH's current worth in your 2nd to last
posting.
>If you have a problem with the fact that I didn't find
>Psycho the least bit scary (having first watched it after
>seeing the truly frightening supernatural horror movies of
>the seventies and the first two Alien films) then get over
>it.
Uhh, no.
What i *am* over is this ridiculous conversation.
>GOOGS:
> Heh. Recognising subtexts, however, *does* make a viewer
>*think* about things, and _That_ sir, is the difference
>between a Classic Film, and an Action Flick.
>So tell me googs, what's *your* excuse for this completely
>off-the-wall statement?
Well, since, according to my ng cache, you pulled this from somewhere
other than my last re:. you tell me.
And don't f*ck with the context of my posts, pal.
'And *that* is why you fail...' - Yoda
You do not see or uderstand true cinematic 'art,' and its inherent
worth over technical perfection.
And that's why i'm now done with you.
(Unless of course i have to correct your myopic translations of what i
say again, that is,...)
>Later,
Much.
>P.S. Covenant: it appears that you developed the same
>misconceptions about my personal tastes that googs did. I
>hope I gave you a better understanding of where I was coming
>from (not to say that you'd agree of course.)
As a final parting word, 'FY.'
You said it just like i answered to, oh Troll-or-liar...
And you're obviously 'coming from' an untenable position...
Kevin Lamb
>>>>(Hudson spouting off about weapons
>>>Yeah, I never much cared for the acting in that scene.
>>It ain't the acting
>>We *know* Paxton is a good actor. Not a *great* actor, but
a Good one. It was the dialogue. It was crap.
"Check it out. Hey, Ripley, check it out. I am the
ultimate badass."
Cov, you and Eric Adams are exactly right. Robert Deniro
couldn't have breathed life into that dialogue. It
*sucked.* Not one of Cameron's finest moments.
>>>I did, however, think that Hudson's last stand was
awesome and totally in character.
>>Actually, I *don't* think it was in character.
>>This is a guy who is shown to be gung-ho in the battle
lead up. Then for the rest of the film, after his FIRST
taste of combat, he is shit scared.
>>And then just before he dies he starts with the ridiculous
"Oh you wants some too!"
>>He isn't *In Character* he's lost his MIND !!
And who would be most susceptible to losing his mind in a
crisis situation? Somebody who has a history of being
precariously on edge and nearly petrified with fear.
>>But again. It's Cameron bowing to the "Yeaaaah Keeeeewllll
!!!" mentality.
Yeah, I still give my friends high-fives whenever we watch
that scene. ; ) BTW, that *was* a joke....
Later,
Kevin (wondering if there's any point at all in responding
to googs' last post.)
Eric Adams
go for True Lies over T2.
Anyone been to that T23D ride yet? I know somebody who did and it was,
apparently, just like Terminator 3 should be.
Can't say anything about Titanic because I haven't seen it yet (and
don't particularly want to either).
David Daugherty
Googs (assorted points peppered with;
"...listen up Troll-boy....that would call for the proverbial
"Blowme"....you're drunk or lying....Troller...yes...I understand that
you're drunk or lying....Troller....As a final parting word "FY"
troll-or-liar...
Covenant:
"...Well...there's debate
there's heated debate
there's stubborn opinion ignoring facts
then there is what you and Googs are getting into..."
Googs:
"...So ...uh...just what're ya sayin' here Cov?..."
Kevin;
(Wondering if there's any point at all in responding to Googs last post)
Kevin....I hope you're not asking me that question.....: - )
Eric Adams
<Lam...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>Yeah, I never much cared for the acting in that scene.
>
>
>It ain't the acting
>
>We *know* Paxton is a good actor. Not a *great* actor, but a Good one.
>It was the dialogue. It was crap.
>
>
>; ' )))
I'm sure that Cameron changes a lot of his scripts in rehearsals or, at
least, as last-minute things. A lot of scripts that I've seen of his
films have there fair share of dialogue which has definitely been
changed.
He's very good (probably faultless) technically, but when it comes to
realising characters, I think he has to go up and meet the actors first
or something.
As far as I can remember, it's only Hudson's 'gun' speech and his death-
scene dialogue that I disliked and, out of an ENTIRE film, that's a
pretty good score for me! Well, it is considering that I still think
they HAD to be done, but should've been SLIGHTLY changed. ;)
I'm not saying he's completely bereft of characterisation; his work
speaks for itself on that matter and he IS known to have had plenty of
'artistic differences' with actors (notably on THE ENTIRE CAST of The
Abyss). But he probably cares more for the tech side of things that
anything else. However, with a background like his in film, I can
understand that.
>>I did, however, think that Hudson's last stand was awesome
>>and totally in character.
>
>Actually, I *don't* think it was in character.
>
>This is a guy who is shown to be gung-ho in the battle lead up.
>Then for the rest of the film, after his FIRST taste of combat, he is shit
>scared.
I would disagree: He seemed scared in the Hatchery scene precisely
BECAUSE he didn't have any 'real' weapons. He (I think it's him anyway)
shouts out "Yeah!" when Vasquez says "Let's rock!", so he's obviously
not adverse to pissing out bullets in a tough situation. But he didn't
HAVE any in there - all he had was a flame-thrower. For a character like
his, in that situation, it's understandable that their psyche took a
little... Erm, 'battering' shall we say? If he had a pulse-rifle in the
nest, I assume that he'd be more or less like he was in his death scene.
>And then just before he dies he starts with the ridiculous "Oh you wants
>some too!"
>
>He isn't *In Character* he's lost his MIND !!
>
>(Or is given even more bad lines.)
Could the DEGREE of that have really been just Paxton going a bit OTT
and trying to obviously freak out in front of the camera? From my copy
of the script - and therefore Cameron's 'real' vision - it would seem
so. This is ALL I can find of him going mental:
HUDSON
(hysterical)
Let's go! Let's go!
HICKS
Fuckin' A!
Hudson screams as floor panels lift under him, and clawed
arms seize him lightning fast, dragging him down.
Another skeletal shape leaps on him from above. He
disappears into the subfloor crawlway. Hicks, Vasquez
and Gorman make it to the med lab access corridor.
Seems you owe Jim an apology Cov... ;)
>But again. It's Cameron bowing to the "Yeaaaah Keeeeewllll !!!" mentality.
Like I said, look at the script. I can imagine James Cameron (or maybe
the second unit director, or WHOEVER was meant to be supervising the
shot) watching this scene on his little monitor and either: (A) Thinking
it DID look good and gritting his teeth later in editing, realising how
bad it can look, but not wanting to go back and re-shoot it ALL OVER
again (especially as it would probably mean getting all the other
actors, etc back). Or: (B) Can see Bill Paxton flipping out and wanting
to say "Hey wait a minute Bill!", but Paxton ignoring him/ not able to
hear him and, seeing that all his models are blowing up and not wanting
to go running to the FX department to make some more (or to Fox for more
money to re-make them) because an actor f**ked up a scene, he decides to
leave it (it's 'only dialogue' he might guess). It kind of looks OK
anyway, so he thinks he can ride it out and work it in.
Personally I'm not sure, in that position, I would have thought of using
something like gun-fire to mask Hudson's incessant flow of madness. I
only thought it seemed realistic on the TV version (which I later found
out wasn't how it was 'meant' to be afterall). It might seem obvious in
retrospect, but at the time? I dunno'.
Hell, maybe he DID think it sounded good on-set, or he told Paxton to
spaz out like that because he rehearsed it the other way and, bizarrely,
it turned out even worse (or didn't keep the tension up as much?). Guess
we'll never know 'til somebody asks one of those involved in it.
>Alien was NOTHING like that, thank God.
One word: Parker. ;D
Eric Adams
<er...@shark5.demon.co.uk> writes
<SNIP>
>The Alien and Predator live for two totally separate purposes too. you
>see that the Pred doesn't kill unless there's sport involved. You carry
>a weapon and you're fair game. No weapon and it kills you. That's not
>like the Alien at all.
Before anyone picks me up on this: Yes, I DID mean to say "No weapon and
it doesn't kill you."
go...@happyland.com
>Actually, for the title of 'Worst Ever James Cameron Movie', I'd have to
>go for True Lies over T2.
I personally really don't care enough about Jimmy at this point to
watch *anything* besides T1 now... ; )
But then again, that JamieLee Curtis dance in TL tends to 'inspire'
me,...
>; >
>Anyone been to that T23D ride yet? I know somebody who did and it was,
>apparently, just like Terminator 3 should be.
I'm crying my eyes out that i can't get to that... (Really!)
>Can't say anything about Titanic because I haven't seen it yet (and
>don't particularly want to either).
Ditto!
Covenant
I do NOT mean this to be nasty okay... seriously...
WORK in movies before you start to make comments about sript changes etc...
It is NOT done without the directors
A) Knowledge.
b) say so.
What starts of as a *shooting script* can go through MANY changes before
what you see on screen.
*This* is one main reason why I do NOT view scripts as Canon in any sense.
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
ams wrote in message ...
Covenant
go...@happyland.com wrote in message
<4S1p3.115$a6.19...@news.netdirect.net>...
>Eric Adams <er...@shark5.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Actually, for the title of 'Worst Ever James Cameron Movie', I'd have to
>>go for True Lies over T2.
>
>I personally really don't care enough about Jimmy at this point to
>watch *anything* besides T1 now... ; )
>But then again, that JamieLee Curtis dance in TL tends to 'inspire'
>me,...
>>; >
Cameron's finest hour!!!!!
(Well.. it was after I'd looped and repeated it !!!!!!!)
Covenant.
A Man With Drooling !!!!!!
Kevin Lamb
>>>Gotta take issue with you on a point here Kev...
>>Alfred Hitchcock was a brilliant filmmaker *for his time*
but his films, to be most unkind, flat out suck compared to
the most intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
decades. The tricks and gimmicks used (and praised) in the
60's are laughable by today's standards. Psycho might have
made every girl in America afraid to take a shower, but
today its a joke. Give me 50 million bucks and I'll make a
flick that'll put the best of Hitchcock to shame.
>>>Kev. You wouldn't.
I did.
>>>You seem to be saying that flat out horror and in your
face effect-ed violence are what it takes to make a
horrifying film.
Not at all. I'm saying that I don't find any of Hitchcock's
movies to be scary or even very suspenseful.
>>>You stating glibly that Psycho is laughable...
Compared to many of the films that have come since.
>>>Hmmm.. then why did they see fit to remake it just a year
or so ago.
Because Hollywood thinks that releasing remakes of
successful films is a safer way to make money than
developing something new and untested. The fact that an old
movie or television show is remade in Hollywood does not
mean that the original was a great film or show, just a
successful one (though I do recognize that in Psycho's case,
it was great *in its time.*
>>>And not only re-make it, but attempt to shot it
*shot-for-shot* the same as Hitchcock's movie.. except for
adding some gore! And it BOMBED! NOT because it was a
remake, but because tyou cannot improve *upon* Psycho! And
it had already all been seen.
But a huge percentage of the twentysomething or less crowd
had not seen the original, and that is the age group most
receptive to horror films. Most people just knew some chick
was stabbed while taking a shower. The fact that the film
bombed is indicative of the fact that by today's standards,
the movie just isn't that scary.
>>>You are extolling Jimmy Cameron for taking an action
heroine to new levels, well, in Psycho Hitchcock did EXACTLY
the same thing by taking Janet Leigh,(VERY big at the time)
and killing her off not even halfway into the movie. He
showed the *terribly rude* scenes of an *Unmarried woman
after having sex in a hotel!* and *IN HER BRA!!!* where this
kind of thing had NEVER been seen before.
Hitchcock did "EXACTLY the same thing" as Cameron, just from
a different angle? WOW. Based on your opinion of
Hitchcock's work, I can't imagine how you could have
complimented Cameron more. Again, I understand that
Hitchcock was a pioneer, just not the MASTER OF SUSPENSE FOR
ALL GENERATIONS.
>>>He took a relative unknown (Perkins) and cast him in one
of the most *pivotal* roles in cinema. One that had so much
power that it effectively hampered his career, because, due
to his talent and Hitchcock's direction, he was just SO good
at his part.
Yes, Cov, Anthony Perkins and AH shook everybody up when
they released their film. That does *not* mean that it is a
*timeless* work of suspense and terror.
>>>Kev, no PLEASE do not take this as a personal insult,
Don't worry. I see it as more of a knee-jerk reaction to
someone who dared to speak less than reverantly about one of
your favorite directors.
>>>seriously....this is where you are showing the *naivety*
of your age, regarding movies.
No, this is where I'm showing that my personal taste in
horror films is different than yours.
>>>Nowadays it appears that if a film isn't *In Your Face*
and effects laden, then it is either *Dull* or *Shit* or
*Lame* etc etc etc...
Lost in Space, ID4, Godzilla = Dull, sh*t, lame. Who says
otherwise?
>>>And this *also* nappears to be why you view Aliens with
such high esteem over Alien.
Hmmm, sounds like another knee-jerk comment. I've stated
several times that the more intelligent and likable
characters, increased danger, emotional heart, *in addition
to* the pulse-pounding intensity and excitement were what
tipped A2 in my favor. Starship Troopers was much more
"effects-laden"and "in-your-face" than A2, and I thought it
sucked. Also, I consider the Terminator to be LIGHT-YEARS
ahead of T2 in terms of quality.
>>>It is a sad fact, that the movie industry has spiralled
downwards, aiming at the lowest common denominator, and thus
lowering people's expectations even further and thuis
lowering the denominator even further!
I don't know if I'd call it "sad," because in addition to
all of the lowest-common denominator crap Hollywood still
seems to release one to three total gems each year.
Seriously, how many "great" movies were released in 1979?
Not too many more than today. Look what's come out in just
the last few years: The Shawshank Redemption, Braveheart,
Heat, The Crucible, Gattaca, Face-Off, American History X,
Shakespeare in Love, The Matrix. Then you've got the small
little blink-and-you-missed-them movies like Smoke,
Nightwatch, The Brothers McMullin, and Buffalo 66, that are
also great. Now I would be shocked if you liked all of the
movies that I listed, I'm just further illustrating why *I*
am not so jaded to the current quality of cinema.
>>>It is *horrendous* to think that there are people alive
today who would watch such movies as The Exorcist and
Clockwork orange and decry them as Laughable or dull, merely
due to the fact that they are older and the effects are not
as polished.
Maybe so, but *I've* never said those films were laughable
or dull.
>>>A twelve year old girl plunging a crucifix into her
bloodied c**t and calling out "Let Jesus f**k you!" brings
laughter in movie theatres nowadays,
?????? Are you serious? *If* that's true, then that truly is
a surprise. My 19-year old sister recently saw The Exorcist
for the first time and that was the *first* scene she
mentioned as being *particularly* disturbing.
>>>but only because the audiences are not used to connecting
with characters on the same level. Whereas I (who have grown
up with movies were you have to actually THINK about the
content, and not sit back and eat popcorn (Sorry Googs !! ;
' ) ) find that scene to be one of the most disturbing ever
filmed.
As do I.
>>>The problem is not that films have dated. The problem is
that audiences are being fed more and more shit. so their
expectations are for more of the same, and their criteria
for how good a movie is is how big the explosions are.
I think the recent underachieving of Godzilla, Speed 2,
Batman and Robin, Wild Wild West etc, indicate that
audiences are starting to want more.
>>>Any of you guys seen "Face" or "Nil By Mouth" or "The
Near Room".....thought not.
Does this make you a more cultured, intelligent, or
artistically enlightened film critic than someone who hasn't
seen those movies? Thought not.
(SNIP)
>>>Because, quite simply, if there hadn't *been* an Alien,
there would NEVER have been an Aliens.
Just like if there hadn't been a Star Wars (classic movie)
there never would have been an Empire Strikes Back (better
movie.)
Kevin Lamb
that I neglected.
ME:
>>Look at the comment as its quoted, Cov. Popularity alone
doesn't denote "artistic sellout."
COVENANT:
>>>No. But the fact that he is an artistic sell-out is.
The fact? A guy who waived his entire directorial fee
because his movie was going over-budget and he didn't want
the film to suffer? Ah well, I think we have already
established that this is an area where we just *disagree.*
I *am* curious as to why you say Cameron's a sell-out,
though. Do you make that claim for his entire career or
just the post A2 stuff? If you deny the artistic merit of
T1 and A2 then I *am* shocked (not that you don't have every
right to. I'd just be surprised if our personal opinions
re: Cameron's work were *that* different.)
COVENANT:
>>>I mean come on Kev... what did YOU think of The Boat
Movie?
Not the best movie of '97, but I enjoyed it.
COVENANT:
>>>Kev. Seriously, so what? Just because he *did it himself*
doesn't make the rest of your points valid.
ME:
>>The director's job is to impart his vision onto the big
screen, either by delegating authority to the proper
specialists or by handling different aspects of filmmaking
himself. The director who does most of the key jobs himself
(assuming he is capable) will insure a greater continuity of
plot and style throughout the picture.
COVENANT:
>>>Nope. That isn't how it works in the industry Kev.
Remember, I'm a part of it.
Well that's all well and good but...
COVENANT:
>>>The director who tries to do everything does not trust
the people he works with. And not having trust in others
abilities is a failing.
...not trusting others in Hollywood sure ain't a failing
(necessarily.) Hemdale Pictures told Cameron that the
Terminator would be better if he ended it when the semi
exploded but Cameron said "F**k you!" and the film is better
for it. Twentieth Century Fox added an egg to the beginning
of Fincher's A3 work print and "trusted" that Joss Whedon's
Ripley-clone idea was good. Trust can be good, and is often
(admittedly) necessary, but *blind* trust is reserved for
artistic sellouts looking for a paycheck. Note: I'm not
disparaging Ridley Scott at all in this department, I'm just
countering your general assertion that any lack of trust in
Hollywood is a failing.
ME:
>>In addition, its simply easier to direct than to do all of
the appropriate research, write the film, design most of it,
AND direct it. Don't get me wrong, as *directors* Scott and
Cameron are toe-to-toe. As *filmmakers* Cameron blows Scott
away.
COVENANT:
>>>Kev. you are taking the term *filmmaker* WAY too
literally.
Filmmaker (as defined by the Complete Film Dictionary):
(1)In commercial cinema the term is generally applied to the
director, who is often responsible for the artistic vision
of the entire work. (2)The term, however, MORE ACCURATELY
applies to an individual who is responsible not only for the
artistic vision, but also the major technical operations,
such as filming and editing, in what is normally a
smaller-scale production, especially of a documentary or
experimental film.
So there you have it. Cameron quite simply is a filmmaker
in a much truer definition of the word than Scott. And in
big-budget mainstream movies, not the documentaries or small
films for which that title is normally reserved.
COVENANT:
>>>You don't *know* if Scott can do the above purely because
he hasn't. Not the same thing.
It doesn't matter. Do you know why? Because a man is
judged by his *actions* not his *abilities.* And since any
skill or talent deteriorates when neglected, the odds that
Ridley Scott even possesses the ability to achieve success
in as many cinematic elements as Cameron are slim indeed.
Later,
Kevin
P.S. Congratulations on your film career (seriously.) What
exactly do you do?
Eric Adams
<Lam...@hotmail.com> writes
>Eric.....
>
>I do NOT mean this to be nasty okay... seriously...
>
>WORK in movies before you start to make comments about sript changes etc...
>
>It is NOT done without the directors
>
>A) Knowledge.
>b) say so.
>
>What starts of as a *shooting script* can go through MANY changes before
>what you see on screen.
>
>*This* is one main reason why I do NOT view scripts as Canon in any sense.
I'm not disputing that. I was just saying that the script that I've got
doesn't have any mention of all that language we hear Hudson using. I
surmise from this that it wasn't something Cameron had set in his mind
to do from the beginning and must've happened at some later stage (for
WHATEVER reason).
It certainly was done with his knowledge. Whether or not he particularly
approved of it or whether it was kept in there for some other reason, I
wouldn't know - and nobody WILL know what happened until one of 'em gets
asked.
Adam Cameron
Erm... when I see fish in a barrel, I shoot at them?
>Yeah, the film negatives of 1492: Conquest of My Ass and
>White Squall should be sealed away by Congress as national
>treasures.
Three things:
1) Just because Scott has made some crap (I've not seen White Squall,
so I'll take your word for it) doesn't mean that he has been better
than Cameron could ever hope to me.
2) Duellists, Alien and Bladerunner are really quite excellent films.
I'll give Cameron Terminator as being excellent, Aliens bering really
very good (my normal caveats apply), and Abyss (long version) being
almost a very good film but not quite making it. I'm not sure how
much credit he can be due for Strange Days (I might come back to
this), but that is a very interesting film also. The rest of his
efforts are a bunch of arse.
>Please, T2 (Cameron's worst film) can still hold
>its own against 90% of the action fare ever to come out of
>Hollywood.
3) No it can't.
>>>>but he isn't a patch on Ridley Scott. Cameron can make
>movies that make money and appeal to a wide audience (and
>technically are very good), but Scott is a true artist of
>cinema.
>
>The tired old "Since Cameron's popular, he must be an
>artistic sellout" argument. Yawn.
Can you point out to me where I said that? Don't bother: no you
can't, cos I didn't say that.
If I *was* to dwell on that idea, I would say that *both* of them have
been more inclined to "follow the path of least possible resistance"
after a point in their careers.
All I mean is that Ridley Scott is more of an artist whilst Cameron is
more of a technician. The thing is that it doesn't take much other
than dogged determination to be technically sound, but artistry is
something that cannot be learned.
I could cut this entire line of discussion (between you and I,
anyhow), to a simple concept: *you* like the kind of film that is
present in Aliens, and *I* like the kind of film that is presented in
Alien. That is the basis of our disagreement (such as it is): we both
look for different things in a film. And I reckon we both find them.
But that is the boring route...
>>>>I think David Fincher made a better Alien Film than
>Cameron did. Which is not to say that Alien3 is a better
>film that Aliens. It isn't.
>
>Well, I disagree, but unlike you, *I don't care that your
>opinion differs from mine.*
I think you are being silly now. I may disagree with your opinions on
the films, but that is neither here nor there. It is your *argument*
(such that it is) that I have been commenting on. Of course there is
some overlap.
>Ready for me to piss you off
>even more?
Well you would have had to piss me off in the first place to be able
to "piss [me] off even more". Thi is just a newsgroup: I'm not going
to be pissed off by anything you (or anyone else) has to say.
>I think *Fincher* did a better job than Scott,
>at least since I've seen the A3 work print and heard about
>the creative conflicts he had with the studio.
Interesting comment, but I think you'll find very few adherents to
*that* particular notion.
Intersting though it is, I think you have a somewhat flawed idea as to
what makes good filmmaking and what doesn't if you really stand by
this comment, though. I guess you cold just be trying to be
contentious, though. This is what it really sounds like.
I like David Fincher's films (100% of them, so far!), but I wouldn't
say that he is better than either Ridley Scott or James Cameron,
though.
>Why is my point so freakin' hard to understand? Of course
Wat the actual point is, I would have thought, is the hard part ot
grasp.
>Cameron was inspired by different sources. The point was
>that he organized the desired plot elements *himself*, then
>wrote them out, thereby doing much, much more for his
>picture than Scott did.
As has been mentioned by other people "so what?". I've said in other
threads "I could make a feature film, and do *all* the work myself:
script, acting, producing, directing, DoP, etc etc, but what I would
be left with is A CRAP FILM. Because I am CRAP at doing all that".
Now James Cameron is not crap at doing all these things, but the mere
fact that he does them all amounts to nothing other than suggesting he
is a control freak (read: "not a good people manager", read: "not a
good director"). This doesn't help your argument.
>>>>What he did with the *aliens*, is make more of them,
>and dumbed them down to be more accessible to the popcorn
>munching (ticket buying / money-making-for-his-backers)
>audience.
>
>Yeah, <reaching for some popcorn> the drone in A1 was sooo
>intelligent.
Sorry: I wasn't clear there. I was meaning the notion of "what the
aliens are", not how they behaved.
>>>>There are a number of instances where scenes in Aliens
>were no more than augmentations of the same events in Alien,
>just "made bigger".
>Yeah, and a lot of people complain that the whole movie
>wasn't a scene-for-scene recreation of A1. You can't please
>everyone.
I've yet to come across someone who thinks that which you state above.
What I meant was clear. I notice you don't contest what I say.
>>>>James Cameron contributed fuck-all to the Alien idea, and
>what he did offer was pretty trite compared to what was
>concocted in Alien.
>
>I say A1 was just a slasher flick, you say it was just a
>haunted house flick. Not exactly "deep" cinema.
Somewhere above you wonder out loud why it is that people find it so
hard to see your point. Now I know what you mean.
I actually spent some length in my post suggesting how it was that
Alien rose above and beyond its meagre genre beginnings, but I see you
have edited them out.
To quoite myself:
[quote]
What he did is adopt the haunted-house-flick premise (which wasn't
used *that* much in 1950s sf / horror films, was it? It was
*overused* in the late 1970s and 1980s, though), and do something that
had *not* been done to this premise before: apply production values to
the concept. So we get an intelligent setting and story, plausible -
nay *real* - characters portrayed by good actors, fantastic design and
great direction. Along with a studio that was prepared to let their
"summer blockbuster" (as Alien was in 1979 - it was thei big budget
film of the year, planning to compete with Star Trek: The Motion
Picture) be a pretty grim and non-standard offering.
[/quote]
I see there is a common thread with your "argument": re-iterate what
you believe, back it up with (what amounts to) nonsense, whilst
ignroing whatever anyone has to say that gets in your way.
>>>Even the worn and grungy interior of the Nostromo was
>admittedly inspired by George Lucas's Star Wars.
>
>>>>Admitted by whom?
>
>Well, that would be Ridley Scott, Adam. I've got a video
Is that you trying to be condescending, sweetie?
>from 1997 that was a compilation of different filmmakers
>talking about the rerelease of Star Wars. In the special,
>Scott said that Star Wars was so innovative and
>inspirational that it nearly made him sick, and it forever
>changed his conception of what can be done both in sci-fi
>and on film.
He also said something similar in the 1999 comments on the DVD. I
took him to mean the treatment of the SFX. Not the *content* of the
SPX, but the handling of them.
>>>>Ridley Scott said he was sick of the spotless future
>offered by films like Star Wars and STar Trek (and even
>2001!), and wanted to make it different, "lived in", and
>"realistic.
>Well, considering that the Star Wars universe was anything
>but "spotless" I question the credibility of your quotes.
I was paraphrasing at best, not quoting (nor can I be bothered
watching it again and writing it down for you, sorry). He said he
wanted to give Nostromo a "lived in" and "real world" (or
"operational" if you like) feel that had been absent in those other
films.
The space ships (what I was comparing) in Star Wars were a lot more
white and shiny and futuristic looking than Nostromo, though, weren't
they?
>>>>Yeah right. I actually *did* LOL when I read that.
>>>>I think it was more that *Cameron* wasn't cinematically
>up-to-par with coming up with a treatment for the original
>alien, so he applied his inferior imagination and artistic
>(kind description) ability to come up with something that
>would fit his paint-by-numbers
>filmmaking.
>
>"inferior imagination and artistic ability?" ROTFLMAO!
>Please, you're killing me!
Nice response, though it might seem a bit cliched after my similar
response to what you wrote before. Of course the difference is that I
actually tried to substantiate *why* I was laughing at you.
This seems more and more to be the case in this "argument".
>FYI, Cameron *is* an accomplished illustrator, also, he got
>his start in movies by building models for low-budget sci-fi
>movies. And much of the photography in ALIENS blows the
>crap out of anything ever seen in *any* monster movie. Case
>in point: the entire ventilation shaft sequence.
>
>>>>Good on James Cameron for doing a DIY job,
>
>which is why I made the point
But it *isn't* a point!!!!
The fact that Cameron stuck his fingers into many pies (whether or not
her should have) in no way suggests that Aliens is better than Alien,
which is - after all - what we are discussing!
>>>>but the fact the he took so much on does not mean it was:
>a) the best approach;
>b) well executed.
>
>True (though in this case it does.)
You cannot argue that, as you do not have the version of Aliens where
Cameron hired "professionals" to fulfil those extra tasks he managed
himself.
>>>And while Scott played it safe in making a *totally*
>formulaic slasher-movie-in-space, Cameron went out *way* out
>on a limb on pretty pivottal aspects of the movie (more on
>that in a second.)
>
>>>>Well if I had to sum up the two films in as many words as
>you have there, I would say *EXACTLY* the opposite.
>
>And you have every right to, I just have yet to see some
>really compelling evidence in favor of your claim.
Compelling or otherwise, at least I have supplied *some* sensible
argument or fuel for discussion. I'm not usre that you have at all.
>>>>For me it is because it is really very good on a number
>of levels: a) It is lovely to watch, thanks to the
>production design, b) I like the characterisation and acting
>which I find to be some of the best in any film. I
>*believed* that the actors were the characters, not just
>actors portraying characters, c) it is actually scary,
>d) it doesn't treat the audience like a bunch of imbeciles.
>
>Well, I'll give you A and C (in general, not over Aliens.) I
>also agree with B, just not as much.
OK, but *why not*.
>>>>99% of films follow a formula (hence the concept of
>genre, I think), but it is the *treatment* of the formula
>that will make a film stand out from its peers.
>
>Yeah, and when I say ALIEN was formulaic, I mean it didn't
>do a good enough job of hiding what formula it was
>following.
Well I beg to differ, and the fact that it spawned three sequels
probably doesn't sit favourably in your argument's camp, either.
>>>>Aliens was just - well, *more* - formulaic than Alien
>was. I'm not sure many people would disagree with that
>(whether they thought Alien or Aliens to be the better
>film).
>
>Only because most people get hung up on the action element.
What, pray tell, are we left with when the action element is taken
out?
>>>>I think you missed the point. I guess you thought The
>Usual Suspects was crap after you guessed who Keyser Sose
>was, or The Crying Game wasn't worth watching after you
>guessed the "surprise".
>
>The Crying Game absolutely shocked me. You actually guessed
>the surprise before "it" was revealed? Wow, I am impressed.
Right from the first scene that Dil was in it was apparent that he was
male due to the male jaw line and male hands. Not to mention they
nature of the bar they were in and - I seem to recall - some rather
suggestive statements that the barman made. Subsequent scenes
reinforced this. The only shock that I had is that they showed his
tackle on the screen.
As for Keyser Sose, I wasn't aware that I was supposed to be guessing
who he was, so when I guessed (he was always going to be either Keaton
or Verbal) I didn't realise that I had "spoiled" the movie for myself.
I guess there are merits in missing advertising campaigns.
>>>>It is not the package, it is how it is delivered.
>True, somewhat. But I don't see how that supports your
>argument.
You know how I was arguing that Alien might have been born of a genre,
but it rose significantly above that genre into a highly successful
and highly regarded film? That was the bit.
>>>>Are you telling me that you were *shocked* that 90% of
>the characters ended up dead in Aliens?
>Ummm, no. I was impressed that none of them died because of
>script required mental lapses.
True, but - as I stated - what about the rather off hand "tidying up"
of quite a number of the characters at the beginning of the first
shoot out?
I'm not about to repeat that whole bit that I wrote comparing the
differences in the dramatic impact of the various deaths in the two
films. After all, you'll just ignore it in your follow-up, having
first deleting it.
That is a shame, actually, because I rather looked forward to seeing
what you had to say.
>>>>Yeah, you watched Aliens first, didn't you? Given that
>Sigourney Weaver was the nobody in the cast of otherwise
>established actors, and according to your own "rules", it
>should have been Ripley who got killed there.
>
>Oh come on! The good-looking, authoritative chick who comes
>up with all the good ideas separates from the black guy and
>plain looking woman and you were *surprised* at who got
>killed. Okay.
Well what happened to the "good looking, authoritative [bloke] who
comes up with all the good ideas" (Dallas)? Ripley was made out to
be the officious-pain-in-the-arse character in Alien (Scott's words).
That is usually good candidacy for an untimely demise, I think.
Especially with the old chesnut of going away by herself (and this is
an argument that YOU offered!!!).
Once again, I think you saw Aliens first (you've not confirmed this,
btw), and are projecting the ALIENS Ripley figure into ALIEN.
>SNIP
>>>but the totally unorthodox (cinematically) premise
>
>>>>You what?
>>>>James Cameron might be a few things, but unorthodox,
>inspired or inventive are not some of them.
>
>You know with sweeping comments like that, I'm starting to
>wonder if you're trolling me. And for the record, I said
>the *premise* was unorthodox for a movie.
Ah! Well done. This time you have inserted the matching remark (re:
troll) *ahead* of my similar comment. That will wash quite well with
anyone who hasn't watched the rest of the thread.
I'll not comment on the lack of bakcing up that comes with your
comment this time, because I offered none myself in my original
comment!
>>>of his film virtually gave birth to an entirely new
>*genre.*
>
>>>>That genre being?
>
>Gritty sci-fi action/horror/war films. You'd think
>something that specific wouldn't have had so many copycats.
Come on, that is not "creating a genre", that is sticking a whole
bunch of them together. But I agree in that that combination had not
been tried before and Aliens was a very good outing into it.
The "original" part of that is the "gritty sci-fi" aspect, which was
more created by Alien, and copied (with good justification!) less
artistically in Aliens.
Basically Aliens is a good war-action film with the setting transcibed
into space (/ sci-fi), due to the fact that the set up of the film it
is a sequel to happened to be set there.
I've never said that Aliens isn't a good action film (on the
contrary), but it leaves a bit to be desired in the other areas of its
"genre combination".
>>>>The multiplicity of the aliens has no effect on this. One
>alien would have achieved this just as well.
>
>???
>One alien would have been quickly killed by the marines,
>even if it did nab one in the process. Not exactly
>"overwhelmingly horrifying." Or were you talking about a
>drone that mostly sits around like the one in A1?
Sigh.
I wasn't suggesting having the same film except have one alien instead
of hundreds, you *drip*.
I'm saying that the horror effect could have been achieved just as
well - better I think, really - if there was only one alien. What I
am saying is the approach to horror was much better in Alien. Somehow
I would have liked Aliens more if the marines had been fully armed and
still all got killed, having never had the chance to get even one shot
off. I think that is what would have happened if the alien from Alien
was there.
Aliens developed a certain sense of dread (horror) when we knew that
the marines really had little chance, being mostly out of ammo and
severely outnumbered. I think the dread might be more if the case was
that no matter what they tried, it *still didn't work*.
It is summed up best by Ripley in Alien3. "Well then we're *FUCKED*".
>>>No matter where the characters in A2 hid or what
>precautions they took, there was always the sense of
>"they're coming...they're coming...they're coming."
>
>>>>As it was in Alien.
>
>No in Alien, it was more of an "its somewhere out there,
>lurking," which is frightening yes, just less so than a more
>pro-active threat.
They didn't really think it is was lukring after Brett got killed, did
they? Fine, it didn't charge mindlessly at them (where is the horror
or suspense in that, btw?), but it wasn't sitting on its hands,
either.
>>>>Not at all, actually. The deaths in Aliens were all
>pretty much the same,
>
>Yeah, totally. Tongue-jabs, chest bursting, acid showers,
>flamed by friendly fire, blowing yourself up, getting torn
>in half, getting killed by exploding magazines, being hauled
>off to be cocooned...attacks from the walls, ceilings,
>through windshields, behind doors, in ventilation shafts, on
>a dropship, the Sulaco hangar...come on James, where's the
>variety?
Oh you are very literal, aren't you? The deaths in Aliens were all a
case of the humans being overwhelmed by a squad of aliens. There is a
fight, the humans lose, and there is some death. That is what I
meant.
>>>>And the aliens in Aliens did a good impression of those
>targets they have at shooting ranges.
>
>You mean the targets that hunt and kill in all the ways
>listed above? Holy crap, dude! You live by some pretty
>nasty firing ranges!
[See first sentence above]
>>>In A2, the *only* people who venture off alone are Burke
>(because the marines have made it clear they plan to *kill*
>him)
>
>>>>Irrespective of the motivation, it still falls into the
>Carpenter cliche you cited above.
>
>No, because the slasher movie cliche is that the fodder guys
>wander off *when they have other options.* Burke didn't.
Sorry, you are bringing in new rules that I was not aware of (and I
suspect you have made up on the spot to help your argument). My take
on it is "person goes off alone = person gets killed". Isn't that
what they said in Scream?
>>>>Ripley going after the kid when she had vetoed the idea
>of rescuing the marines in the same situation before because
>it was a lost cause?
>
>Dude, Ripley was behaving as any chick with maternal
>instincts toward someone in danger would. She wasn't an
>altruistic freaking Wonder Woman willing to sacrifice
>herself for any old scrub. She just didn't have much of an
>attachment to the marines in the beginning. And besides,
>even if she did have the inclination, she had no way of
>locating the marines who were taken; Newt had a wrist
>locator.
No - dude - it was James Cameron's manky idea of story telling and
emotional manipulation. Ripley stopped the marines going after
Dietrich and Apone because they were *fucked*, just as she should have
assumed Newt was (and as Newt should have been). The other marines
would have had a much closer bond to D&A - being established friends
and squaddies - that Ripley and her new found pet.
As for the tracker... Hicks gave Ripley the tracker having taken it
from his own wrist, didn't he? (I can't recall). Would that not
imply the rest had them too? Even if it *wasn't* explicitly shown,
why the hell did they have them if they weren't using them? Given all
the other telemetry Gorman was reading from them, I think it is safe
to assume finding them would be no hassle.
Another thing is that the whole "giving of the tracker bracelet" scene
is a *real* obvious set up for what is to come.
>>>Cameron also made the only film that did a good job of the
>whole "heavily armed dudes vs. primitive yet overwhelming
>enemies.
>
>>>>Yeah well that idea wasn't original after the Scottish
>did it to the Romans in the first few decades of the AD
>scale. Or when French got their arses kicked out of
>Viet Nam in the 1950s. Or the Americans from Cuba in the
>1960s, or Vietnam in the 1970s. Or the Russians from
>Afganistan in the 1980s.
>
>News flash, dude. Those were real-life conflicts. Cameron
>was the first and only director to successfully showcase
>that angle in a fictional movie.
Return of the Jedi?
I notice you deleted my reference to Bad News Bears there. I guess
that is because it shows that the underdog coming out on top is not
really an original idea, and that doesn't really help your argument.
>>>Both Predator movies.
>>>>P1 was more derivative of Alien. Even *with* the
>soldiers.
>Oh, I get it, a joke. Ha ha.
Not at all: the predator - solitary unbeatable enemy - hunts the
players down one by one until one is left. That is far more Alien
than Aliens.
>>> Starship Troopers.
>RAH would turn in his grave.
>Newsflash number 2. Paul Verhoeven made the movie
>adaptation, which is what I was referring to.
The point is that it is based on a story written by Heinlein that
predates Aliens. Not to mention the fact that Cameron has cited ST as
an influence for Aliens.
>>>and Event Horizon.
>>>>This film seems to be nothing *but* film derivation, but
>as it is basically a haunted house in space pic, it is more
>derivative of Alien. And that is so obvious that I *really*
>wonder about you.
>
>Yeah, you wonder about me and I'll think back to EH's rescue
>mission, guys who explore with cameras that the leader
>monitors from his "cockpit", the A2 character ripoffs, etc.
All those elements were there in Alien before Aliens (even the "rescue
mission" part). And once again, the director of EH cited Alien as an
inspiration. Indeed he virtually admitted he was worried about being
too derivative. The characters in EH were *far* more like those in
Alien than Aliens: unarmed and unprepared tug-jockeys (for all the
pretensions of being an experienced rescue crew, they certainly didn't
act like it).
Let's look at EH:
1) mysterious "distress" call that noone understands.
2) once the nature of the call is identified (ECIU in Alien, a
Latin-speaking crew member in EH), it seems less like a distress call,
and more something ominous.
3) the punters don't know what they are dealing with.
4) one crew member ventures away and is is fucked ("Little Bear", I
believe, is sucked into the vortex thing, only to reappear and then
get fucked again.
5) The ship cannot leave until repairs are made.
6) Whinging engineer.
7) Traitorous scientific character.
8) strong-minded female character.
9) an unstoppable countdown.
10) only means of escape is in the escape shuttle.
I'm sure if I dwelt longer than it took to type those ten in I could
think of legion more.
>>>movies are pretty similar to the first Alien (like
>Leviathan) but since that was just a stylish update of IT:
>The Terror from Space, its disqualified.
>>>>Since Aliens is just a sequel to Alien (and not even a
>stylish one), it is invalidated also.
>
>>>>What a stupid premise for you to concoct.
>
>You and "Dr. Evil" outta hook up for lunch sometime.
Is that you agreeing or disagreeing with me? It is hard to tell.
>>>>And a big smiley to you also. I *could* almost buy what
>you wrote as an elaborate troll, but I still feel happy
>replying, as you have put so much effort into it.
>Trolls...
>They don't stick around and back up their claims with logic
>and compelling evidence.
So you *are* a troll then.
Adam
Covenant
Your starting to get a little personal here......
Kevin Lamb wrote in message <9336411...@www.remarq.com>...
>Covenant said:
>>>>Gotta take issue with you on a point here Kev...
>>>Alfred Hitchcock was a brilliant filmmaker *for his time*
>but his films, to be most unkind, flat out suck compared to
>the most intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
>decades. The tricks and gimmicks used (and praised) in the
>60's are laughable by today's standards. Psycho might have
>made every girl in America afraid to take a shower, but
>today its a joke. Give me 50 million bucks and I'll make a
>flick that'll put the best of Hitchcock to shame.
>>>>Kev. You wouldn't.
>I did.
You made a 50 million dolar movie?
Uh-huh...........
>>>>You seem to be saying that flat out horror and in your
face effect-ed violence are what it takes to make a
>horrifying film.
>Not at all. I'm saying that I don't find any of Hitchcock's
>movies to be scary or even very suspenseful.
Okay.
You've never seen Frenzy?
Have you *seen* Psycho?
(But again, the problem here is that you *know* the main crux of the
suspense and *terror* there.)
Kev. It's like saying to someone.
There's this movie called Aliens that's great and there's this MASSSIVE
Queen Alien at the end.
If you know what's gonna happen you are *not* gonna be as surprised, scared,
shocked, whatever.
>>>>You stating glibly that Psycho is laughable...
>Compared to many of the films that have come since.
Then that is your opinion.
*I* find Psycho to still be as well made a movie as ANY today.
I know it would be difficult. But if you could find someone that had never
heard of Psycho and showed it to them for the first time, I'm fairly sure
they would appreciate it for what it is.
Again, case in point.
Carrie. Half way decent movie. Not *badly* made, but not tremendous. (Still
lke it though!).
The last few minutes of Carrie are truly frightening.
Even now.
And how can I quite glibly state that? Because Carrie is *not* as well known
as the other movies we are discussing, and people tend not to talk about it,
and therefore if someone *hasn't* seen it they are less likely to know the
ending.
I take *GREAT* delight in showing friends Carrie for the first time, because
regardless of their experience movie wise etc they STILL jump out of their
skins at the end.
>>>>Hmmm.. then why did they see fit to remake it just a year
>or so ago.
>
>Because Hollywood thinks that releasing remakes of
>successful films is a safer way to make money than
>developing something new and untested.
Like Aliens ???
(heh heh heh ... low blow, I know...)
>The fact that an old
>movie or television show is remade in Hollywood does not
>mean that the original was a great film or show, just a
>successful one (though I do recognize that in Psycho's case,
>it was great *in its time.*
What has changed about Psycho that stops it from being a *great* movie.
Explain that to me.
>>>>And not only re-make it, but attempt to shot it
>*shot-for-shot* the same as Hitchcock's movie.. except for
>adding some gore! And it BOMBED! NOT because it was a
>remake, but because tyou cannot improve *upon* Psycho! And
>it had already all been seen.
>But a huge percentage of the twentysomething or less crowd
>had not seen the original, and that is the age group most
>receptive to horror films. Most people just knew some chick
>was stabbed while taking a shower. The fact that the film
>bombed is indicative of the fact that by today's standards,
>the movie just isn't that scary.
I doubt it!
It's the fact that people KNEW the most poignant part of the film!
(And the fact, that quite simply, Psycho couldn't be improved upon.)
>>>>You are extolling Jimmy Cameron for taking an action
>heroine to new levels, well, in Psycho Hitchcock did EXACTLY
>the same thing by taking Janet Leigh,(VERY big at the time)
>and killing her off not even halfway into the movie. He
>showed the *terribly rude* scenes of an *Unmarried woman
>after having sex in a hotel!* and *IN HER BRA!!!* where this
>kind of thing had NEVER been seen before.
>Hitchcock did "EXACTLY the same thing" as Cameron, just from
>a different angle? WOW. Based on your opinion of
>Hitchcock's work, I can't imagine how you could have
>complimented Cameron more. Again, I understand that
>Hitchcock was a pioneer, just not the MASTER OF SUSPENSE FOR
>ALL GENERATIONS.
What?
Saying that Cameron took inspiration from Hitchcock is a compliment to you?
I woulda thought that your take on Cameron being the Uber filmmeister who
needs help from no-one , would have made it a *crime* for him to take on any
of the characteristics as oneone else.
>>>>He took a relative unknown (Perkins) and cast him in one
>of the most *pivotal* roles in cinema. One that had so much
>power that it effectively hampered his career, because, due
>to his talent and Hitchcock's direction, he was just SO good
>at his part.
>Yes, Cov, Anthony Perkins and AH shook everybody up when
>they released their film. That does *not* mean that it is a
>*timeless* work of suspense and terror.
But it doesn't mean it *isn't* and it at least gives it a standing to BE
exactly that.
(Which *I* and I believe the majority of those in the business, agree with.)
>>>>Kev, no PLEASE do not take this as a personal insult,
>Don't worry. I see it as more of a knee-jerk reaction to
>someone who dared to speak less than reverantly about one of
>your favorite directors.
Oh, I see..
So *you* want to make it a personal insult?
Starngely, I own TWO hitchcock movies. He is *not* one of my favourite
directors, but I appreciate his craftsmanship and the artistry he brought to
the entire genre of cinema. (Who else used Salvador Dali (the Giger of his
day) to create scenes for their movies?)
>>>>seriously....this is where you are showing the *naivety*
>of your age, regarding movies.
>No, this is where I'm showing that my personal taste in
>horror films is different than yours.
Hmmm....
*Horror* films....
Psycho. not a horror film in my opinion.
Aliens. Not a horror film in my opinion.
Zombies: Dawn of the dead. A horror film IMO.
The problem with stating genre is that it is difficult to pigeonhole certain
movies.
>>>>Nowadays it appears that if a film isn't *In Your Face*
>and effects laden, then it is either *Dull* or *Shit* or
>*Lame* etc etc etc...
>
>Lost in Space, ID4, Godzilla = Dull, sh*t, lame. Who says
>otherwise?
Ummmm......
The millions who payed to see it at the box office?
The same ones who payed millions for the videos (In ID4's case at least)
(But not me. MY main problem with ID4 was the AMERICANS SAVE THE WORLD
take. (And yeah, some really bad dialogue!) Otherwise it was quite well
made, the effects , while being impressive, did not detract from the
*suspension of disbelief*
(And *everyone* knows that Windows is a universal OS !!)
>>>>And this *also* nappears to be why you view Aliens with
>such high esteem over Alien.
>Hmmm, sounds like another knee-jerk comment. I've stated
>several times that the more intelligent and likable
>characters, increased danger, emotional heart, *in addition
>to* the pulse-pounding intensity and excitement were what
>tipped A2 in my favor. Starship Troopers was much more
>"effects-laden"and "in-your-face" than A2, and I thought it
>sucked. Also, I consider the Terminator to be LIGHT-YEARS
>ahead of T2 in terms of quality.
More intelligent and likeable?
In Aliens?
Who?
More intelligent than Dallas and Ash And Kane?
More likeable than Brett and Kane?
More stroppy than Ripley?
Oh... wait... this is opinion again ain't it!
>>>>It is a sad fact, that the movie industry has spiralled
>downwards, aiming at the lowest common denominator, and thus
>lowering people's expectations even further and thuis
>lowering the denominator even further!
>
>I don't know if I'd call it "sad," because in addition to
>all of the lowest-common denominator crap Hollywood still
>seems to release one to three total gems each year.
2 or 3 in an industry that spawns hundreds of movies a year??
BAD percentage to my mind.
>Seriously, how many "great" movies were released in 1979?
>Not too many more than today. Look what's come out in just
>the last few years:
>The Shawshank Redemption,
A good movie. Qwell made, and for once a good rendering of a Stephen King
novel.
>Braveheart,
A historically innacurate, Call-It-Scottish-And-Americans -Will-Believe-It
movie.
(Remember, I'm Scottish... I know the real history. All Braveheart was,
(looking at it dispassionately), was a well made, dated action flick.
>Heat,
Sheer Class!
>The Crucible,
Bad beyond words. Terrible acting.
>Gattaca,
Tried SO hard. Tedious, and predictable. Like, *totally* predictable.
>Face-Off,
Good action movie. Not exactly an artistic feast though. (But Woo is a
master at his specific art!)
>American History X,
Haven't seen it unfortunately. I have read about it, but know little of the
story. It *seems* to be an intelligently made movie.
>Shakespeare in Love,
Better appreciated if you *know* something about Will's works.
Not being eliteist here, but, due to the fact that I have studied Mr Shakey
I *know* I got a hell of a lot more out of SIL than the general public.
HOW do I know that? Well.....
It's a long story. Just take my word for it.
>The Matrix.
Effects ridden. (Good Effects) Predictable, action movie. Which, unless you
have a grounding in cyberpunk, most would find merely confusing.
(Again, from experience. I saw the matrix with a few friends, I've been into
Cyberpunk for a LONG time, and they have NO experience of it. And whereas I
was coming out of the movie thinking. "Heh... I've got Tae Kwon Do
smartchipped too!" they were saying... "But what was all the computer stuff
about!!"
I mean, try and explain Net Running to people Sans Clue !!
>Then you've got the small
>little blink-and-you-missed-them movies like Smoke,
>Nightwatch, The Brothers McMullin, and Buffalo 66, that are
>also great. Now I would be shocked if you liked all of the
>movies that I listed, I'm just further illustrating why *I*
>am not so jaded to the current quality of cinema.
Never heard of them.
Does that make you more intelligent?
(Just repeating your words to me for mentioning some movies below... But
I'll explain that further down.....)
>>>>It is *horrendous* to think that there are people alive
>today who would watch such movies as The Exorcist and
>Clockwork orange and decry them as Laughable or dull, merely
>due to the fact that they are older and the effects are not
>as polished.
>Maybe so, but *I've* never said those films were laughable
>or dull.
>>>>A twelve year old girl plunging a crucifix into her
>bloodied c**t and calling out "Let Jesus f**k you!" brings
>laughter in movie theatres nowadays,
>
>?????? Are you serious? *If* that's true, then that truly is
>a surprise. My 19-year old sister recently saw The Exorcist
>for the first time and that was the *first* scene she
>mentioned as being *particularly* disturbing.
Unfortunately it *is* true.
The rerelease of the Exorcist over here (Banned on video) was an EVENT!!!
I hadn't seen it for YEARS except for my grainy pirate copy.
To see it at the cinema again was bliss...
Except for the rest of the 20 something audience who took it as a challenge
to laugh loudly at the head scene, the crucifix scene, the *Your mother
sucks* lines, the *FxxK him Karras* lines....
All Macho bullshit. And more nervous laughter than anythng else.
but totally spoiled my viewing of it. (Didn't make it any less of a good
movie.)
>>>>The problem is not that films have dated. The problem is
>that audiences are being fed more and more shit. so their
>expectations are for more of the same, and their criteria
>for how good a movie is is how big the explosions are.
>
>I think the recent underachieving of Godzilla, Speed 2,
>Batman and Robin, Wild Wild West etc, indicate that
>audiences are starting to want more.
Again Kev. I agree, but there is still too much utter dross being put out.
Anything with any intellectual content, or even *trying* to be artistic is
dismissed as boring, dull, etc etc etc...
How much of a release did *Cube* get?
In the UK AFAIK it didn't even *get* a general release!
>>>>Any of you guys seen "Face" or "Nil By Mouth" or "The
>Near Room".....thought not.
>Does this make you a more cultured, intelligent, or
>artistically enlightened film critic than someone who hasn't
>seen those movies? Thought not.
HJere we go.
First things first.
Why the insult Kev?
The reason I asked the above question was that these films are *Wonderfully*
made. With superb actors. (And Nil By Mouth* was written and directed by
Gary Oldman)
And they were given little to no distribution at all...
Why?
No main *money* stars. No gargantuan effects bills. No enormous set costs.
Just wonderful, person to person dramas.
Seriously. If you get a chance, at *least* see Nil By Mouth. (It may be a
little too *British* for americans to understand (By which I mean NO insult.
It is set in a housing estate in England. A totally different culture to
anything I think has seen in the US)
>>>>Because, quite simply, if there hadn't *been* an Alien,
>there would NEVER have been an Aliens.
>Just like if there hadn't been a Star Wars (classic movie)
>there never would have been an Empire Strikes Back (better
>movie.)
Yes there would Kev.
Cos Star Wars is, was, and always shall be a Lucas deal.
Empire was always going to be made. It was ready to go it was written, it
was set up. (If Star Wars had *bombed* then there might not have been an
Empire.)
But Aliens was Ridley's visioon, taken, twisted, reduced to an *Action
Flick* and punted to the drooling masses.
To me, even though I LIKE IT!!! That makes it an inferior product to the
artful and in a sense, ground breaking, and above all *brave* movie that
Alien was. Scott took a chance with it, and it was due to his vision and
bravery that it worked.
If it *hadn't* Aliens would NEVER have existed.
If Cameron really *did* wanna make a *Space War Movie* Why didn't he make
Starship Troopers long before??
So.
There we have it.
Kev, I'm dissapointed. I appreciate the fact that you are getting some flak
here, but all I have done is answer your points, and you dismiss them as
*Knee-Jerk* reaction.
That's insulting Kev.
I really expected better of you.
Covenant
>Cov, I just wanted to get back to a couple of your posts
>that I neglected.
>ME:
>>>Look at the comment as its quoted, Cov. Popularity alone
>doesn't denote "artistic sellout."
>
>COVENANT:
>>>>No. But the fact that he is an artistic sell-out is.
>
>The fact? A guy who waived his entire directorial fee
>because his movie was going over-budget and he didn't want
>the film to suffer?
For a man who was no doubt raking in money everywhere ELSE then it's not too
much of a surprise.
Still... I didn't actually *know* that Kev.
> Ah well, I think we have already
>established that this is an area where we just *disagree.*
>I *am* curious as to why you say Cameron's a sell-out,
>though. Do you make that claim for his entire career or
>just the post A2 stuff? If you deny the artistic merit of
>T1 and A2 then I *am* shocked (not that you don't have every
>right to. I'd just be surprised if our personal opinions
>re: Cameron's work were *that* different.)
Not at *all*
I thought Terminator was an excellent movie.
Well made, good dialogue, excellent acting. (Keeping Arnie's verbal
utterances to a total minimum!!! A VERY good idea!)
A film in which you did not know what was gonna happen, and an ending that
left you wondering. Or in fact *knowing* that the armaggedon WAS coming!
And then there is terminator two...
An Arnie Vehicle.
Cute kids, shit one-liners, BIG effects, predictable plotline, and a nice
happy ending. Wiping out *everything* Terminator had struggled against.
As intelligent movies (IMO of course) Terminator was a moment of sheer joy.
Terminator 2 was a stale belch.
>COVENANT:
>>>>I mean come on Kev... what did YOU think of The Boat
>Movie?
>Not the best movie of '97, but I enjoyed it.
Fair enough.
I didn't.
For so many reasons. Most of which I covered above and in other posts
concerning what *I* feel makes a good movie.
>COVENANT:
>>>>Kev. Seriously, so what? Just because he *did it himself*
>doesn't make the rest of your points valid.
>
>ME:
>>>The director's job is to impart his vision onto the big
>screen, either by delegating authority to the proper
>specialists or by handling different aspects of filmmaking
>himself. The director who does most of the key jobs himself
>(assuming he is capable) will insure a greater continuity of
>plot and style throughout the picture.
And the film will suffer for it.
Filmaking is not, (as you seem to so rigidly think) the process of ONE
person.
It is, at it's best , an act of Synergy, where the whole creates something
bigger than the sum of their parts.
>COVENANT:
>>>>Nope. That isn't how it works in the industry Kev.
>Remember, I'm a part of it.
>Well that's all well and good but...
>
>COVENANT:
>>>>The director who tries to do everything does not trust
>the people he works with. And not having trust in others
>abilities is a failing.
>...not trusting others in Hollywood sure ain't a failing
>(necessarily.) Hemdale Pictures told Cameron that the
>Terminator would be better if he ended it when the semi
>exploded but Cameron said "F**k you!" and the film is better
>for it. Twentieth Century Fox added an egg to the beginning
>of Fincher's A3 work print and "trusted" that Joss Whedon's
>Ripley-clone idea was good. Trust can be good, and is often
>(admittedly) necessary, but *blind* trust is reserved for
>artistic sellouts looking for a paycheck. Note: I'm not
>disparaging Ridley Scott at all in this department, I'm just
>countering your general assertion that any lack of trust in
>Hollywood is a failing.
But Kev... you didn't!
You gave to points where trust worked and didn't work
And the differences being
a) A Director trusting his own work and
b) a company NOT trusting their director
>ME:
>>>In addition, its simply easier to direct than to do all of
>the appropriate research, write the film, design most of it,
>AND direct it. Don't get me wrong, as *directors* Scott and
>Cameron are toe-to-toe. As *filmmakers* Cameron blows Scott
>away.
>
>COVENANT:
>>>>Kev. you are taking the term *filmmaker* WAY too
>literally.
>
>Filmmaker (as defined by the Complete Film Dictionary):
>(1)In commercial cinema the term is generally applied to the
>director, who is often responsible for the artistic vision
>of the entire work. (2)The term, however, MORE ACCURATELY
>applies to an individual who is responsible not only for the
>artistic vision, but also the major technical operations,
>such as filming and editing, in what is normally a
>smaller-scale production, especially of a documentary or
>experimental film.
>So there you have it. Cameron quite simply is a filmmaker
>in a much truer definition of the word than Scott. And in
>big-budget mainstream movies, not the documentaries or small
>films for which that title is normally reserved.
Left that in for a reason......
This bit in particular........
>but also the major technical operations,
>such as filming and editing, in what is normally a
>smaller-scale production, especially of a documentary or
>experimental film.
THIS is why Cameron is (in one sense) a BAD filmmaker.
In films the scale of those he creates, he quite simply truies to do TOO
much.
Films are made to a budget. Almost every director is at the behest of the
compnay. Deadlines etc must be met. And to do all the things he does without
trusting others to do it (and thus spread time and money in a more viable
and better, managed way) is , to my mind, BAD filmmaking.
One must trust ones fellow actors, techs, and yes, even directors.
If you don't, you are not doing the job properly.
A good filmmaker gets the BEST people thay can for the job. And if they
think THEY are the best person for ALL jobs, well, I'm afraid that's egotism
beyond abything even *I* could approach.
Small aside......
Cameron was married to Gale Anne Hurd.
She produced a LOAD of his works.
(Best person for the job? He obviously thought so!)
How many has she been invlolved with since their divorce??
(Nepotism? Nahhh.. surely not! He must've just found someone better at tthat
same time!)
>COVENANT:
>>>>You don't *know* if Scott can do the above purely because
>he hasn't. Not the same thing.
>It doesn't matter. Do you know why? Because a man is
>judged by his *actions* not his *abilities.*
Why?
Just because Cameron *did* it, doesn't mean he *did* it well!
If I may go back to Eric's posting of Hudsons' lines in Aliens...
How much of the final *seen on screen* was Cameron, and how much was Paxton?
If Paxton improvised that scene, was it Cameron to whom the Kudos go?
Or Paxton for feeling the character should do that?
Either way, Cameron left it in the movie. Somethng which *looks cool*, but
is *utterly* out of what we know to be that person's character.
And since any
>skill or talent deteriorates when neglected, the odds that
>Ridley Scott even possesses the ability to achieve success
>in as many cinematic elements as Cameron are slim indeed.
And Ridley to my mind has produced more intelligent, artistic and to me
*satisfying* movies than Cameron ever has.
Bladerunner (directors cut especially) Alien, hell, even The Duellists!
(And I will be MOST interested to see Gladiator. Now I know very little
about it, but from what I have heard it is a VERY brave move for not only
Rdiley, but the company distributing it!
A movie set in ancient Rome!
Nowadays!
Commercially Viable? I would have thought not... i hope I'm wrong.
>P.S. Congratulations on your film career (seriously.) What
>exactly do you do?
I'm an actor / writer / director.
But rarely all three on the same project.
(And not just film/video.
Also live theatre, etc etc etc...)
Covenant.
Jay Shukitis
Then you've got the small
>little blink-and-you-missed-them movies like Smoke,
>Nightwatch, The Brothers McMullin, and Buffalo 66, that are
>also great. Now I would be shocked if you liked all of the
>movies that I listed, I'm just further illustrating why *I*
>am not so jaded to the current quality of cinema.
You are seriously calling The Brothers McMullin a classic? (hehe)
>
>>>>It is *horrendous* to think that there are people alive
>today who would watch such movies as The Exorcist and
>Clockwork orange and decry them as Laughable or dull, merely
>due to the fact that they are older and the effects are not
>as polished.
>
>Maybe so, but *I've* never said those films were laughable
>or dull.
>
>>>>A twelve year old girl plunging a crucifix into her
>bloodied c**t and calling out "Let Jesus f**k you!" brings
>laughter in movie theatres nowadays,
>
>?????? Are you serious? *If* that's true, then that truly is
>a surprise. My 19-year old sister recently saw The Exorcist
>for the first time and that was the *first* scene she
>mentioned as being *particularly* disturbing.
>
>
It IS true. I have some friends that saw Scream and decided they like horror
movies. They came to me, knowing my unhealthy obsession. I showed them The
Exorcist. They laughed. Hard. Not nervous laughter, they were cracking up.
At the end they said "That was the dumbest movie i've ever seen!" And rented
Urban Legend.
I kicked them out of my house.
Just sticking in my two cents
go...@happyland.com
go...@happyland.com wrote:
<an unanswered reply to point out KL's insistance that bugs are any
different from other foes in a war movie and that JCameron deserves
credit for that>
<another unanswered reply to point out that KL's insistance that A2
deserves more respect than A1- ergo JCamerons a better director than
RScott>
<another unanswered statement to the effect of JCameron being less
than 'artistic' in his efforts....>
<another unanswered point that despite the lack of difference between
the basic themes of A1 & A2 to their respective genres, A1 was a
greater achievement than A2, simply because...>
Hmm. Well, i see here that i'm arguing in an unfair set of
groundrules: You say that A2 automatically deserves more respect than
A1, simply because of your (unfounded, IMO) belief that a 'successful
sequel' is simply impossible without a true genius making it so.
Even *i* see that no-one can win *that* one, given your inarguable
set of 'proofs.'
Concession: googs.
<another unanswered point about JCameron deserving no credit for
placing women in combat in a fictional work, since womens expanding
role in the military was inevitable, even at the time of the *idea*
for A2>
<another unanswered point throwing out KL's ridiculous dismissal of
the sucess of A1 being totally devoid of credit for a woman being the
central character in a movie based on 'action' [therefore, to KL, a
case of 'no successful women in the lead of an action movie']...>
<another unanswered point noting his erroneous attribution of
unstated posts from me [his view of my giving JCameron no credit for
innovations whatsoever]...>
<another unanswered point addressing our respective definitions of
'Action Movie', and his ridiculous pop-cultural bias towards his
personal opinion of such...>
<another unanswered point dismissing his continued defense of 'First
is Best'...>
<and another, and perhaps the most incriminating to himself & his
intentions in this dialogue, unanswered pointing out of his
backpedalling from saying he could, in essense, 'throw money at' [my
quote] anything & make it better, and that AH is dismissable from
current appreciations...>
<another unanswered post noting his diversionary tactics [other
filmmakers inherent worth over AHitchcock]...>
<Perhaps most incriminatingly, an unanswered post observing his
pulling quotes from me & criticizing them totally out of context of
the issue at hand...>
<another unanswered point that he doesn't know what the hell a
'classic' movie really *is*, and said as much,...>
+++++
Well, the post preceding this one in this thread *is* quite long, so i
thought i'd distill it down to its essence in the interests of focus,
brevity, and pointing out that you have your proverbial head up your
ass if you think you can deny that your [admittedly, by me, now
obvious] trolling of this ng (with your statements of JC deserving
more credit than RS as a filmmaker) was anything other than
*completely* thrown off course by your attempts to recant your
dismissal of AH as a currently relevant filmmaker.
A wise friend recently said that one cannot argue tastes.
Especially with one who has none.
Good day.
googs
(who really likes & appreciates A2 for all its accomplishments, but
who despises drooling Cameron-worship)
Kevin Lamb
>>>Woah there Bald Eagle...
>>>Your starting to get a little personal here......
>>>Kevin Lamb wrote in message
>>><9336411...@www.remarq.com>... >Covenant said:
>>>>Gotta take issue with you on a point here Kev...
>>Alfred Hitchcock was a brilliant filmmaker *for his
time* but his films, to be most unkind, flat out suck
compared to the most intense and nailbiting movies of the
last three decades. The tricks and gimmicks used (and
praised) in the 60's are laughable by today's standards.
Psycho might have made every girl in America afraid to take
a shower, but today its a joke. Give me 50 million bucks and
I'll make a flick that'll put the best of Hitchcock to
shame.
>>>>Kev. You wouldn't.
>I did.
>>>You made a 50 million dolar movie? Uh-huh...........
Okay, bam, right here. When you said, "Kev. You wouldn't,"
I thought you meant "you wouldn't" as in "you wouldn't
*dare*" as in "you wouldn't *dare disparage ALFRED
HITCHCOCK.*" Since you stated that right after a quote of
one of my paragraphs, I mistakenly assumed that your comment
was referring to *everything* I said in the paragraph, not
just the last line. Of course I haven't made a 50 million
dollar movie. How idiotic my "I did" comment must have
appeared.
From the totally mistaken notion that you were flabbergasted
that I might say something less than complimentary about AH,
I came to the conclusion that your "perceived" put-downs
about my taste and personal opinions was a "knee-jerk"
reaction. That was the only explanation I could come up
with because *I know you're not a jerk.* I TOTALLY and
COMPLETELY apologize for jumping to a conclusion that you
found insulting. It would be a shame if this severed our
friendly terms. Even though you rarely agree with my posts,
I always enjoy reading your replies, as they are
intelligent and well-mannered. *I just didn't know what to
make of that one post.* Now with a better understanding of
where you were coming from, I do have a few questions and
comments....
>>>>You seem to be saying that flat out horror and in your
face effect-ed violence are what it takes to makea
horrifying film.
>Not at all. I'm saying that I don't find any of Hitchcock's
movies to be scary or even very suspenseful.
>>>Okay. You've never seen Frenzy?
No, so I can't comment on that one.
>>>Have you *seen* Psycho?
Yes, Cov.
>>>(But again, the problem here is that you *know* the main
crux of the suspense and *terror* there.) Kev. It's like
saying to someone. There's this movie called Aliens that's
great and there's this MASSSIVE Queen Alien at the end.
If you know what's gonna happen you are *not* gonna be as
surprised, scared, shocked, whatever.
Okay, this is one of the reasons I stated my claim: I *did*
know that there was gonna be a queen at the end. As I once
stated in a previous thread, I had to endure the horrible
misfortune of watching Aliens for the first time on *video
on a 19-inch TV set!* By the time it was released for
rental, I had already had some major plot points spoiled.
For one: Like an idiot, I asked one of my friends who saw
it at the theater "How many people live?" He said,
"Sigourney Weaver, a little girl, one of the marines, and a
robot guy." But even with that major revelation of
*pivotal* plot info, I was *still* drawn into the story and
was genuinely scared (in an on-the-edge-of-your-seat kind of
way.) And I'm pretty sure I had seen the scene with Ripley
and Newt standing before the queen in the egg chamber either
in a television preview or special.
Now unsurprisingly, I already knew about Janet Leigh's
demise when I saw Psycho, but at no point was I scared at
all while watching the movie. The fact that the whole point
of the film is to scare/terrorize you, and it did *nothing*
for me, is why I consider it to be out-of-date.
And I wasn't watching it with a bunch of drunk friends at a
party or anything, I saw it late at night by myself and I
was actually quite looking forward to it.
>>>>You stating glibly that Psycho is laughable...
>Compared to many of the films that have come since.
>>>Then that is your opinion.
Absolutely.
>>>*I* find Psycho to still be as well made a movie as ANY
today. I know it would be difficult. But if you could find
someone that had never heard of Psycho and showed it to them
for the first time, I'm fairly sure they would appreciate it
for what it is.
That *would* be an interesting theory to test. Who knows?
>>>Again, case in point. Carrie. Half way decent movie. Not
*badly* made, but not tremendous. (Still lke it though!).
The last few minutes of Carrie are truly frightening. Even
now. And how can I quite glibly state that? Because Carrie
is *not* as well known as the other movies we are
discussing, and people tend not to talk about it, and
therefore if someone *hasn't* seen it they are less likely
to know the ending.
Personally, I find it to be more sad than scary. When I say
"sad" I don't mean in terms of quality but just from
watching her endure the abuse and ridicule of her
classmates.
>>>I take *GREAT* delight in showing friends Carrie for the
first time, because regardless of their experience movie
wise etc they STILL jump out of their skins at the end.
Heh heh. I assume you mean when she reaches her hand out of
the ground?
>>>>Hmmm.. then why did they see fit to remake it just a
year or so ago.
>Because Hollywood thinks that releasing remakes of
successful films is a safer way to make money than
developing something new and untested.
>>>Like Aliens ??? (heh heh heh ... low blow, I know...)
LOL! Yeah, that was pretty low.
>The fact that an old movie or television show is remade in
Hollywood does not mean that the original was a great film
or show, just a successful one (though I do recognize that
in Psycho's case, it was great *in its time.*
>>>What has changed about Psycho that stops it from being a
*great* movie. Explain that to me.
I pretty much did up above. *I* feel that since it is no
longer scary (again, according to me) and therefore doesn't
deliver on its intended level, it is not a great movie by
today's standards.
(SNIPPING SOME STUFF THAT'S ALREADY BEEN COVERED)
>>>>You are extolling Jimmy Cameron for taking an action
heroine to new levels, well, in Psycho Hitchcock did EXACTLY
the same thing by taking Janet Leigh,(VERY big at the time)
and killing her off not even halfway into the movie. He
showed the *terribly rude* scenes of an *Unmarried woman
after having sex in a hotel!* and *IN HER BRA!!!* where this
kind of thing had NEVER been seen before.
>Hitchcock did "EXACTLY the same thing" as Cameron, just
from a different angle? WOW. Based on your opinion of
Hitchcock's work, I can't imagine how you could have
complimented Cameron more. Again, I understand that
Hitchcock was a pioneer, just not the MASTER OF SUSPENSE FOR
ALL GENERATIONS.
>>>What? Saying that Cameron took inspiration from Hitchcock
is a compliment to you?
I said it appeared that *you* were complimenting him. And I
don't know if I'd call making a woman a lead in an action
movie for the first time "taking inspiration" from someone
who killed the star halfway through the movie. I'm not
saying that Cameron's little novelty was any better than
Hitchcock's, I was just surprised that you acknowledged that
Cameron did something *Hitchcockian,* so to speak.
>>>I woulda thought that your take on Cameron being the Uber
filmmeister who needs help from no-one , would have made it
a *crime* for him to take on any of the characteristics as
oneone else.
Okay, let me straighten this out. My whole thing about
Cameron doing so much work on his movie was just to show one
of the reasons I was more impressed with what he did as to
what Ridley Scott did on their respective movies.
Think about Olympic diving. One guy might jump off and do a
flip before hitting the water. Then his competitor follows
him and does two flips and a twist in his dive. Both guys
might have flawless entry into the water, but the judges
would give more points to the second guy's dive. Kind of a
random analogy, I know, but I think it gets the point
across. By doing more work on his film than Scott did, I
consider Cameron to have achieved a cinematic feat that had
a much higher "degree of difficulty."
That was my whole reason for bringing it up. Not because I
claim Cameron has a more artistic visual style (admittedly
he doesn't) or because I worship him or anything but just
because he did a harder job.
And I have readily admitted that Cameron drew much of his
inspiration from actual events (the Vietnam war, dreams
about terminators) and the work of others (Outer Limits
episodes, George Lucas, etc.) I think that if Cameron did
have more creative input from others while making his films
they very well could have been much better. The fact that
he didn't let others infringe upon his vision and they
*still* turned out so well is what really impresses me.
>>>>He took a relative unknown (Perkins) and cast him in one
of the most *pivotal* roles in cinema. One that had so much
power that it effectively hampered his career, because, due
to his talent and Hitchcock's direction, he was just SO good
at his part.
>Yes, Cov, Anthony Perkins and AH shook everybody up when
they released their film. That does *not* mean that it is a
*timeless* work of suspense and terror.
>>>But it doesn't mean it *isn't* and it at least gives it a
standing to BE exactly that.
True enough.
>>>(Which *I* and I believe the majority of those in the
business, agree with.)
>>>>Kev, no PLEASE do not take this as a personal insult,
>Don't worry. I see it as more of a knee-jerk reaction to
someone who dared to speak less than reverantly about one of
your favorite directors.
>>>Oh, I see.. So *you* want to make it a personal insult?
Again, not my intention at all. But honestly, why did you
claim that I was *naive* regarding movies? You just don't
seem like the type to condescend (as I apparently mistakenly
thought) to someone because he had a different opinion than
yours. And that's how I took it. "When he grows up and
gets a clue, he'll see it the way I do." I really wasn't
offended, but I did think that it was odd *for you* to say.
(SNIP YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT OWNING A COUPLE OF AH'S MOVIES)
>>>>seriously....this is where you are showing the *naivety*
of your age, regarding movies.
>No, this is where I'm showing that my personal taste in
horror films is different than yours.
>>>Hmmm.... *Horror* films....
>>>Psycho. not a horror film in my opinion. Aliens. Not a
horror film in my opinion. Zombies: Dawn of the dead. A
horror film IMO. The problem with stating genre is that it
is difficult to pigeonhole certain movies.
Yeah, I should have learned my lesson with the whole googs
thing. I should have just said "scary movies" but I thought
it sounded kind of juvenile.
>>>>Nowadays it appears that if a film isn't *In Your Face*
and effects laden, then it is either *Dull* or *Shit* or
*Lame* etc etc etc...
>Lost in Space, ID4, Godzilla = Dull, sh*t, lame. Who says
otherwise?
>>>Ummmm...... The millions who payed to see it at the box
office? The same ones who payed millions for the videos (In
ID4's case at least)
This section confused me too. In one sentence you mention
that if a film isn't "in your face" and effects ladden it is
considered crappy, then you immediately said that it
appeared that that was why I liked A2. Since I have stated
at length many different reasons why I liked A2 over A1 (and
*none* of them were "effects laden and in your face) I could
only guess that you were making this assumption as an
impulse reaction to our difference of opinion re: AH and
movies in general.
>>>>And this *also* nappears to be why you view Aliens with
such high esteem over Alien.
>Hmmm, sounds like another knee-jerk comment. I've stated
several times that the more intelligent and likable
characters, increased danger, emotional heart, *in addition
to* the pulse-pounding intensity and excitement were what
tipped A2 in my favor. Starship Troopers was much more
"effects-laden"and "in-your-face" than A2, and I thought it
sucked. Also, I consider the Terminator to be LIGHT-YEARS
ahead of T2 in terms of quality.
>>>More intelligent and likeable? In Aliens? Who? More
intelligent than Dallas and Ash And Kane? More likeable than
Brett and Kane? More stroppy than Ripley?
Oh... wait... this is opinion again ain't it!
Yeah its all totally my opinion, nothing more.
>>>>It is a sad fact, that the movie industry has spiralled
downwards, aiming at the lowest common denominator, and thus
lowering people's expectations even further and thuis
lowering the denominator even further!
>I don't know if I'd call it "sad," because in addition to
all of the lowest-common denominator crap Hollywood still
seems to release one to three total gems each year.
>>>2 or 3 in an industry that spawns hundreds of movies a
year?? BAD percentage to my mind.
Of course its a bad percentage. But it doesn't seem to be
any lower than 20 years ago. Its not like 20 classic film
were released each year of the 70's. The point I was
getting at was that even though the crappy stuff gets
crappier, we still get the good (and even great) stuff.
>Seriously, how many "great" movies were released in 1979?
Not too many more than today. Look what's come out in just
the last few years:
>The Shawshank Redemption
>>>A good movie. Qwell made, and for once a good rendering
of a Stephen King novel.
Don't forget about Carrie! ; )
>Braveheart,
>>> A historically innacurate,
Call-It-Scottish-And-Americans -Will-Believe-It movie.
(Remember, I'm Scottish... I know the real history. All
Braveheart was, (looking at it dispassionately), was a well
made, dated action flick.
I was really moved by this movie. I *know* it was not
historically up-to-snuff, but I thought it was a great
*movie* (kind of the opposite of Saving Private Ryan.)
>Heat,
>>> Sheer Class!
Heck yeah.
>The Crucible,
>>>Bad beyond words. Terrible acting.
This doesn't surprise me. I've only known one other person
that actually liked it. And I thought the acting was
superb! Oh well.
>Gattaca,
>>>Tried SO hard. Tedious, and predictable. Like, *totally*
predictable.
Not only intelligent and engaging, but inspiring (to me.)
>Face-Off,
>>>Good action movie. Not exactly an artistic feast though.
(But Woo is a master at his specific art!)
Yeah, nobody does ballistic ballet like John.
>American History X,
>>> Haven't seen it unfortunately. I have read about it, but
know little of the story. It *seems* to be an intelligently
made movie.
I found it to be absolutely phenomenal.
>Shakespeare in Love,
>>>Better appreciated if you *know* something about Will's
works. Not being eliteist here, but, due to the fact that I
have studied Mr Shakey I *know* I got a hell of a lot more
out of SIL than the general public. HOW do I know that?
Well.....
It's a long story. Just take my word for it.
Okay (taking your word for it.)
>The Matrix.
>>> Effects ridden. (Good Effects) Predictable, action
movie. Which, unless you have a grounding in cyberpunk, most
would find merely confusing. (Again, from experience. I saw
the matrix with a few friends, I've been into Cyberpunk for
a LONG time, and they have NO experience of it. And whereas
I was coming out of the movie thinking. "Heh... I've got Tae
Kwon Do smartchipped too!" they were saying... "But what was
all the computer stuff about!!" I mean, try and explain Net
Running to people Sans Clue !!
Don't EVEN get me going about the Matrix. One of the few
movies I enjoy more than Aliens.
I forgot to mention The Player. Whadja think of that one?
Another one I thoroughly enjoyed. Same with Suicide Kings.
>Then you've got the small little blink-and-you-missed-them
movies like Smoke, Nightwatch, The Brothers McMullin, and
Buffalo 66, that are also great.
>>>Never heard of them. Does that make you more intelligent?
(Just repeating your words to me for mentioning some movies
below... But I'll explain that further down.....)
NO, NO, NO!!! I honestly assumed that you *had* seen those
flicks, but I'd never imply that I was superior or anything
for having seen some movies you hadn't.
(SNIP SOME TALK ABOUT THE EXORCIST AND CURRENT REACTIONS)
>>>>Any of you guys seen "Face" or "Nil By Mouth" or "The
Near Room".....thought not.
>Does this make you a more cultured, intelligent, or
artistically enlightened film critic than someone who hasn't
seen those movies? Thought not.
>>>Here we go. First things first. Why the insult Kev?
I didn't mean to be insulting at all. I shouldn't have
repeated the "thought not" at the end because it sounds a
little pissy, but your use of the phrase really through me.
I couldn't figure out why you just *assumed* that I hadn't
seen those movies. "Have you guys seen a movie that's
actually good with no special effects...thought not."
That's kind of how I took it. One thing to consider, the
day I read your post I had just been called a "pop-culture
poisoned idiot" and was said to have "no taste whatsoever"
by a certain individual who agreed with you (on the whole
Hitchcock thing at least.)
>>>The reason I asked the above question was that these
films are *Wonderfully* made. With superb actors. (And Nil
By Mouth* was written and directed by Gary
Oldman)
Gotcha. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
>>>And they were given little to no distribution at all...
Why? No main *money* stars. No gargantuan effects bills. No
enormous set costs. Just wonderful, person to person dramas.
Seriously. If you get a chance, at *least* see Nil By
Mouth. (It may be a little too *British* for americans to
understand (By which I mean NO insult. It is set in a
housing estate in England. A totally different culture to
anything I think has seen in the US)
I'd be really curious as to what you thought of the movies I
listed that you haven't seen.
>>>>Because, quite simply, if there hadn't *been* an Alien,
there would NEVER have been an Aliens.
>Just like if there hadn't been a Star Wars (classic movie)
there never would have been an Empire Strikes Back (better
movie.)
>>>Yes there would Kev. Cos Star Wars is, was, and always
shall be a Lucas deal. Empire was always going to be made.
It was ready to go it was written, it was set up.
No. Empire was *not* ready to go, it was *not* written, it
was *not* set up. Lucas had some rough outlines of where he
wanted to take the series, but he had no idea if there would
be an opportunity to make ESB and what it would be like
until *after* SW was released. Harrison Ford wasn't even
signed on to do any sequels to SW, and major plot elements
(like whether to make Darth Vader Luke's father) had not
been decided upon until after SW. Friendly warning: I know
a *LOT* about Star Wars, its been a passion of mine since
the age of three (too bad Episode 1 turned out the way it
did) : (
>>>(If Star Wars had *bombed* then there might not have been
an Empire.)
There literally would not have been an ESB if SW bombed.
>>>But Aliens was Ridley's vision, taken, twisted, reduced
to an *Action Flick* and punted to the drooling masses.
Tell us how you really feel, Cov. : )
>>>To me, even though I LIKE IT!!! That makes it an inferior
product to the artful and in a sense, ground breaking, and
above all *brave* movie that Alien was.
Scott took a chance with it, and it was due to his vision
and bravery that it worked.
>>>If it *hadn't* Aliens would NEVER have existed. If
Cameron really *did* wanna make a *Space War Movie* Why
didn't he make Starship Troopers long before??
Cameron developed a desire to do his own Vietnam movie when
doing the research for his first draft of Rambo.
>>>So. There we have it. Kev, I'm dissapointed. I appreciate
the fact that you are getting some flak here,
Ah, I can handle the googs stuff, and Adam Cameron did raise
some legitimate gripes to my response of his post; I just
misinterpreted your response.
>>>...but all I have done is answer your points, and you
dismiss them as *Knee-Jerk* reaction. That's insulting Kev.
I really expected better of you.
I hope we're cool now.
Kevin Lamb
>Then you've got the small little blink-and-you-missed-them
movies like Smoke, Nightwatch, The Brothers McMullin, and
Buffalo 66, that are also great. Now I would be shocked if
you liked all of the movies that I listed, I'm just further
illustrating why *I* am not so jaded to the current quality
of cinema.
>>>You are seriously calling The Brothers McMullin a
classic? (hehe)
LOL. Oh, I wouldn't go *that* far. ; )
Kevin Lamb
I think I see where you came up with the "Throw money and
make it better" quote. Because I said "give me 50 million
bucks and I'll make a better movie than him [AH]?" Okay,
that wasn't to suggest that money by itself will make a
great movie, but *I* could, given the proper financing. You
see, I actually hope to make my own films in Hollywood
someday, and truly believe I've got the talent and ideas to
create movies that would blow Hollywood away (of course you
must be laughing, but you just don't know what I've got on
paper.)
As for everything else, I've already explained more than
enough to you. Its time to move on googs. Good day.
Kevin
GOOGS SAID:
To sum it up:
go...@happyland.com wrote: <an unanswered reply to point out
KL's insistance that bugs are any different from other foes
in a war movie and that
JCameron deserves credit for that>
<another unanswered reply to point out that KL's insistance
that A2 deserves more respect than A1- ergo JCamerons a
better director than RScott>
<another unanswered statement to the effect of JCameron
Concession: googs.
+++++
"His Evil Brains Glow In The Dark! (with exposure to light)"
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Kevin Lamb
You made some really good points. I'll address them all in their entirety
in due time, but for now, there's a couple I want to address:
1. I have no idea where I acquired the notion that I had "pissed you off" by
my initial post. I reread your first response, and I got no indication that
you were upset. It was really stupid of me to say that. I don't know what
I was thinking.
2. I was told a while back that reposting a person's long post in its
entirety was bad netiquette. I didn't mean to give the impression that I
was trying to "hide" certain elements of your argument. Some of your points
were glossed over on account of laziness (reading and responding to
many/long posts can get tiring) and because I was being a bit sarcastic in
some of my responses. Considering how intelligent and well-thought out most
of your initial response was, I kind of feel like I cheated you out of a
good discussion.
I'll try to respond to all of your comments (without deleting anything) in
the near future. Right now I'm kind of tired from work and posting to
Covenant; I just didn't want you to think I had blown you off.
Later,
Kevin
ADAM CAMERON SAID:
Yeah, the drone in A1 was sooo intelligent.
OK, but *why not*.
Sigh.
[See first sentence above]
Return of the Jedi?
>>>and Event Horizon.
Adam
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Covenant
Snipping to salient points......
Me
>>>>Okay. You've never seen Frenzy?
Kev
>No, so I can't comment on that one.
try and see it.
It is a very suspenseful movie with a *horrific* ending.
(Note my stressing!)
>>>>Psycho...
>I pretty much did up above. *I* feel that since it is no
>longer scary (again, according to me) and therefore doesn't
>deliver on its intended level, it is not a great movie by
>today's standards.
I think that's a pretty damning POV Kev. It's like saying the original
Frankenstein movies are not classic, or Nosferatu is not classic because
they are *not scary*.
But if you decried either of those as *not clasic* to any serious film buff
they'd string you up !!!
>Okay, let me straighten this out. My whole thing about
>Cameron doing so much work on his movie was just to show one
>of the reasons I was more impressed with what he did as to
>what Ridley Scott did on their respective movies.
Okay, we're getting to the actual point here methinks........
>That was my whole reason for bringing it up. Not because I
>claim Cameron has a more artistic visual style (admittedly
>he doesn't) or because I worship him or anything but just
>because he did a harder job.
Kev..
This is the crux of our entire debate.
To *me* artistic impression is a LOT more important in the finished product.
So, you see why I see Alien as superior to Aliens? I feel, (And you seem to
agree) it is a more *artistic* and Aesthetic movie.
Now, if it IS that, then to ME it shows that Ridley produces a better movie
*witout* having total control in the way you like Cameron having!
So therefore..... see what I mean?
>This section confused me too. In one sentence you mention
>that if a film isn't "in your face" and effects ladden it is
>considered crappy, then you immediately said that it
>appeared that that was why I liked A2.
Oh no Kev. If that was the impression I gave then *I* apologise.
I liked Aliens for a few reasons. And it annoyed me for others.
I don't hate the movie. I hate what Cameron did to a well established
(within those that knew about the Alien) lifecycle, in order to make a War
picture.
>Braveheart was, (looking at it dispassionately), was a well
>made, dated action flick.
>I was really moved by this movie. I *know* it was not
>historically up-to-snuff, but I thought it was a great
>*movie* (kind of the opposite of Saving Private Ryan.)
Which is why I said *Looking at it dispassionately*. It was a well made
movie, with some good performances. But, being Scottish I had to suspend my
disbelief a little more than the rest of the world.
(At the point where the Lairds turn their backs on Wallace so that he is
captured The cinema in Dundee (PACKED OUT) was TOTALLY silent!
And then this small voice from the back said... "You BASTARDS!"
Yes, an emotive movie....
>Don't EVEN get me going about the Matrix. One of the few
>movies I enjoy more than Aliens.
AND it was SO much better than Johnny Mnemonic !!
>I forgot to mention The Player. Whadja think of that one?
>Another one I thoroughly enjoyed. Same with Suicide Kings.
I am just about to buy Suicide Kings! Haven't sen it yet, but Chris Walken
is a God !!
>One thing to consider, the
>day I read your post I had just been called a "pop-culture
>poisoned idiot" and was said to have "no taste whatsoever"
>by a certain individual who agreed with you (on the whole
>Hitchcock thing at least.)
I must admit... I feel kinda weird about this whole thing.
Here are two people who I have shared really *good* debates with (And even
disagreed with on occasion!) TOTALLY ay each others throats!
It ain't easy!!!
But I understand your being miffed.
(NOTE: I am NOT taking sides here!)
>>>>Yes there would Kev. Cos Star Wars is, was, and always
>shall be a Lucas deal. Empire was always going to be made.
>It was ready to go it was written, it was set up.
>No. Empire was *not* ready to go, it was *not* written, it
>was *not* set up. Lucas had some rough outlines of where he
>wanted to take the series, but he had no idea if there would
>be an opportunity to make ESB and what it would be like
>until *after* SW was released. Harrison Ford wasn't even
>signed on to do any sequels to SW, and major plot elements
>(like whether to make Darth Vader Luke's father) had not
>been decided upon until after SW. Friendly warning: I know
>a *LOT* about Star Wars, its been a passion of mine since
>the age of three (too bad Episode 1 turned out the way it
>did) : (
Ohhh Kev........
I've been with Star Wars since day one that it opened in Dundee.
I was first in the cinema when Empre opened, and I have a HELL of a lot of
stuff about it.
Yes, Empire was not a *polished* product while Star Wars was being made. but
it was *Always* gonna be made. Remember, the plot etc all came from Lucas'
basic premise... The Adventures of Luke Skywalker... Yes things like Darth
being Dad were not finalised (It *was* gonna be Ben for a while. But
A) I'm sure you actually know this
B) This ain't a Star Wars NG !!
C) Yep. TPM was a bit *too* dissapointing. A *good* movie. but that was all.
(Again, trying to go for a lower common denominator. When I complain about
stuff like JJB being in purely for kids I usually get the argument "But it's
*made* for kids!" To which I reply... So was A New Hope... Where were *it's*
Jar Jar ?? Was it R2 and Threepio? If so... They were IN TPM !
>>>>But Aliens was Ridley's vision, taken, twisted, reduced
>to an *Action Flick* and punted to the drooling masses.
>Tell us how you really feel, Cov. : )
Aliens was a good movie, but it ruined *my* vision of the whole Alien
mythos.
That's it in a nutshell.
>I hope we're cool now.
Jeez... I wish to god we *wer*... It's quarter past 2.. (am) and I have a
16" fan going full blast. I'm stripped to the waist and I'm STILL too hot
!!!!
(Bloody Summer!!)
Cheers Kev...
Reasoned Debate wins out again!!!!
; ' )
Adam Cameron
>entirety was bad netiquette.
This is correct.
>Considering how intelligent and well-thought out most
Comments like that will get you a long way :-)
>of your initial response was, I kind of feel like I cheated you out of a
>good discussion.
Well that is kind of what I thought, but in not such a positive light.
It seemed to me - rightly or wrongly - as if you ignored the elements
of my post that didn't so easily fit with your argument, so you
brushed them under the mat.
>I'll try to respond to all of your comments (without deleting anything) in
Christ: the way I carry on (using ten words when none would suffice),
I don't begrudge you cutting down the text. My issue was when you cut
it down so severely that the thrust of my argument disappeared, and
you dwelt on a few (retreaded) points.
>the near future. Right now I'm kind of tired from work and posting to
I know the feeling. I went through a flurry recently of finding posts
I thought were interesting and contentious, and replied right left and
centre. Now, either the novelty has worn off, or the topics people
discuss have gone back to being not that interesting (to me). Heaven
forbid it is actually cos I have run out of things to say!?!
>Covenant; I just didn't want you to think I had blown you off.
Did you know that, in some cultures, to "blow someone off" means
something... err... different from what I hope you mean. I don't
think you are my type ;-)
Adam
ADWatts
Covenant said:
<Snipping almost everything . . . sorry!>
> Reasoned Debate wins out again!!!!
>
> ; ' )
>
> Covenant.
> A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
Heehee. And that's exactly why I kept my nose outta
this one! I knew you could defend "our" side in a
much calmer manner than I ever could! :D
But, man, it was difficult to keep my mouth shut!!!
Oh, yeah . . . one other minor point, Cov -- we
actually *disagree* on something! I'm with Kevin
when it come to Gattaca -- which I thought was
brilliant and intelligent. There hadn't been a sci-fi
film that good (IMO, of course) since Blade Runner.
I'm just kicking myself for having missed it on the
big screen, aaarrrggghhh!
And then Cube was never shown (to my knowledge)
anywhere near me! Two of the best sci-fi flicks in
recent years, and I missed both at the theater! Oh,
the horror . . . :-(
Have a great day!
ADWatts
Willow
reason you didn't see Gattica was probably because you didn't hear much
about it. It was kind of a flop. like lost in space. But hey we all have our
own taste:)
Willow
ADWatts <adw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rqgib4j...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Covenant said:
>
> <Snipping almost everything . . . sorry!>
>
> > Reasoned Debate wins out again!!!!
> >
> > ; ' )
> >
> > Covenant.
> > A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
>
Eric Adams
writes
>I thought that Gattica and the cube were third rate movies at best! The
>reason you didn't see Gattica was probably because you didn't hear much
>about it. It was kind of a flop. like lost in space. But hey we all have our
>own taste:)
Lost In Space was a flop? I thought it made its money back?
Don't ask me, I haven't seen it yet.
John Redman
Kevin Lamb
>>>>Psycho...
>I pretty much did up above. *I* feel that since it is no
longer scary (again, according to me) and therefore doesn't
deliver on its intended level, it is not a great movie by
today's standards.
>>>I think that's a pretty damning POV Kev. It's like saying
the original Frankenstein movies are not classic,or
Nosferatu is not classic because they are *not scary*.
I don't recall stating that Psycho wasn't a "classic." I've
acknowledged that Hitchcock was a pioneer in the realm of
suspense and that he paved the way for many of the
frightmeisters of our day. His movies just aren't that
*good* (IMO of course) compared to many of the scary movies
made since. Remember, according to the textbook definition
of a "classic movie" that I quoted in an earlier post, it
has to do one of two things: 1. stand the test of time in
terms of quality 2. have a major impact on the future course
of film. I'd say in Psycho's case, it only fulfill's
requirement number 2.
As far as Hitchcock's other films, I've also seen Vertigo
(didn't care for it,) North by Northwest (horrible,) the
Birds (again, not the least bit scary) and Rear Window (the
only movie that I truly recall to be suspenseful, but since
I saw this one at about the age of 10 or so, who knows....)
I don't have anything against old movies, (I *still* love
The Time Machine) but, aside from Rear Window, I've just
never been much into the whole Hitchcock thing.
>>>But if you decried either of those as *not classic* to
any serious film buff they'd string you up !!!
I understand that, but as far as quality/entertainment value
goes, one man's classic is another man's Good Burger.
*Personally,* I consider Gremlins a classic.
>Okay, let me straighten this out. My whole thing about
Cameron doing so much work on his movie was just to show one
of the reasons I was more impressed with what he did as to
what Ridley Scott did on their respective movies.
>....That was my whole reason for bringing it up. Not
because I claim Cameron has a more artistic visual style
(admittedly he doesn't) or because I worship him or anything
but just because he did a harder job.
>>>Kev.. This is the crux of our entire debate.
To *me* artistic impression is a LOT more important in the
finished product. So, you see why I see Alien as superior to
Aliens? I feel, (And you seem to agree) it is a more
*artistic* and Aesthetic movie. Now, if it IS that, then to
ME it shows that Ridley produces a better movie *without*
having total control in the way you like Cameron having!
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I wouldn't have thought
that artistic impression was the crux of our debate. *To
me,* filmmaking is a storyteller's medium, not an artist's
medium. Visual artistry is important, to be sure, but not
the defining characteristic of a great film, IMO. If that
was my litmus test, I might even go so far as to say that
with regard to artistic impression, A2 might be *last* in
the series. But that doesn't disqualify it as being the
*best.*
Its always a treat to view a movie overflowing with
enchanting camera angles, pans, and production design, (one
of the reasons I love Ridley's Legend) but I consider it to
be just another form of "eye candy;" albeit for a much more
discriminating clientelle. For me, it always comes down to
plot, script, characters, and how well the director draws us
into the story. As an example:
In The Terminator, Kyle Reese goes back in time to protect
Sarah Connor from Arnold not only because the future of
mankind hangs in the balance, but because through a polaroid
picture of her, he has fallen in love with her. Late in the
film, when they are hiding out in a hotel room, Reese
professes his love for Sarah, and mentions the polaroid. He
tells her, "...you seemed just a little sad. I used to
always wonder what you were thinking at that moment..." then
Reese goes on to profess his love for her and they have sex.
At the end of the film, after Reese has died and the
Terminator has been destroyed, Sarah is parked at a gas
station recording a message for her unborn son. In telling
the future John Connor about who his father is (Reese,) she
says, "In the few hours we had together, we loved a
lifetime," then CLICK a boy takes what turns out to be the
polaroid given to Reese in the future. So, as the Reese of
the future wonders what Sarah is thinking about in his
treasured picture, it turns out she was thinking about their
intimate night together, the *exact moment that Reese tells
her he wondered what she was thinking in the picture.* I
LOVE THAT! Now, those may not be incredibly artistic scenes
visually, but I consider that to be one of the most touching
and poetic twists in all of science-fiction.
So....since I consider the plot and characters of A2 to be
superior to A1, which Cameron had full control over in
conception and execution, I find A2 to be much more
entertaining and Cameron's job as "storyteller" to have been
more successfully completed. If anything, I believe
Cameron's raw, kinetic filming technique to have been
perfectly suited to the story and events as they were
written.
>>>So therefore..... see what I mean?
I think so, I hope I've made my "position" more clear as
well.
>>>Aliens was a good movie, but it ruined *my* vision of the
whole Alien mythos. That's it in a nutshell.
I can totally understand that, but for me, it all comes down
to the first part of your statement, "How good a movie is
it?" The Empire Strikes Back really shook up what we knew
about the SW universe and how the characters related to one
another, but is was just soooooo much better than A New
Hope.
And speaking of the whole SW thing, I agree that Lucas
conceived a rough story much bigger than Episode 4 before it
was filmed, but my point was that ESB *as it came to be*
would never have existed if SW had not come first. And that
was just to show that just because the existence of one
movie was dependent on another, it doesn't mean that the
first film was necessarily better.
>>>Cheers Kev... Reasoned Debate wins out again!!!!
Yep. ; )
Kevin Lamb
comments that I had glossed over:
ADAM CAMERON SAID:
ME:<Lets look at what each director did on their respective
films. Ridley was given a premise that was a blatant
derivative of an old 50's sf/horror flick and made a very
memorable and entertaining movie, even if it was totally by
the book.
ADAM:<<<*Jesus*. You're the first person to say *that*. What
he did is adopt the haunted-house-flick premise (which
wasn't used *that* much in 1950s sf / horror films, was it?
It was *overused* in the late 1970s and 1980s, though), and
do something that had *not* been done to this premise
before: apply production values to the concept.
I agree that Alien boasted some pretty impressive production
values and visual style. But is that really any more
impressive, on a *narrative* level, than giving dinosaurs,
Godzilla, or Jabba the Hutt a state of the art CGI update?
<<<So we get an intelligent setting and story, plausible -
nay *real* - characters portrayed by good actors, fantastic
design and great direction.
I agree with the above, for the most part. I just don't
believe that A1 surpassed A2 on any of the levels you
mentioned. I will admit that the colonial marines as a
group seemed more cliched than the Nostromo crew, but this
didn't detract from the film, for me. Why not? Because
there's a reason cliches become cliches! I don't have any
military background, but I do have a long history of
experience in organized sports, and I can honestly say that
virtually every team I was a part of contained guys that
shared characteristics with the marine squad (a joker, a
tough guy, quiet leader, etc.)
Basically what I'm getting at is that the marines seemed
just as real as any other group of guys in an organized
unit. You know, most football teams are interchangeable
with each other, same with frat houses, firemen, and, from
what I understand, military personnel.
Of course Cameron manipulated the events to tell the story
he wanted, but I also felt he did it plausibly. Ripley had
a good reason for going back, the marines had good reasons
for being cocky:
A. Experience. "Is this a stand-up fight sir, or ANOTHER bug
hunt?"
B. History of success. The fact that Hudson, who was a
month away from ending his tour, didn't even *know* how long
standard rescue procedures take suggests that the squad had
performed so well in the past that the possibility of
failure had never before entered their minds.
And so on.
ADAM:<<<Along with a studio that was prepared to let their
"summer blockbuster" (as Alien was in 1979 - it was thei big
budget film of the year, planning to compete with Star Trek:
The Motion Picture) be a pretty grim and non-standard
offering.
Hmmm. Weren't Jaws, The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, and The
Godfather's I and II pretty big budget mainstream releases?
They were all pretty grim or scary. IIRC, it was Rocky and
Star Wars that started the shift in Hollywood toward the
happier crowd-pleasing stories. So while the trend in
Hollywood may have been changing, the tone of Alien wasn't
exactly unheard of. Even Star Trek I was pretty downbeat
(maybe because it was a colossal bore.)
ADAM:<<< He [Cameron] admits that he was making a homage to
Vietnam war films, but setting it in space. What he did with
the *aliens*, is make more of them, and dumbed them down to
be more accessible to the popcorn munching (ticket buying
/ money-making-for-his-backers) audience.
Cameron may have simplified the aliens, but I don't think
that in any way makes them less horrifying. They maintained
the frightening image of the first alien, and were even more
vicious. With regard to their own level of intelligence, I
believe that a creature that exhibits the behavior of a
"mindless killer" is probably *more* frightening, given the
circumstances, than a more intelligent adversary. Because a
creature capable of more intelligent reason also stands a
*much* greater chance of being *reasoned* with.
Cameron's aliens are often criticised as being cannon fodder
shooting dummies, but think about this: Let's say there are
two guys standing in different halls at the colonial
complex, each of them facing a group of aliens with a
smartgun. Marine A has 50 rounds in his gun and is facing
ten Ridley Scott aliens and Marine B has the same amount of
ammo against ten Cameron aliens. Both alien groups advance,
and both marines open fire, immediately blowing away the
closest aliens. Based on what we've seen on film, the
Ridley Scott aliens would probably fall back earlier (not
knowing how many rounds the marine had in his gun) and try a
more subtle approach. The Cameron aliens, OTOH, would just
keep advancing, the marine would kill some more then run out
of ammo, and the creatures would kill him. Given the story
as it was presented in A2, wouldn't you rather face
creatures that could be "bluffed"? It has been said that
"the most dangerous adversary is the one who isn't afraid to
die." And that's what made the notion of brain-sucking
zombies or a terminator programmed to kill you so
threatening. There simply was no negotiation, even on the
back-off-I've-got-a-bigger-gun level. Also the main reason
the "Blob" was so frightening.
I think the primary intent of both films was to scare/thrill
you, and for me, A2 accomplished this more successfully. A1
may have had its sexual subtext, but I find that to be more
peripheral and purely artistic, not necessarily serving the
overall story (not that subtext hurts a film in any way, but
just like Robocop, whose Christ/paradise-lost motif didn't
elevate it above its comic book action, A1's subtext didn't
make the story any more cerebral than A2's.)
ADAM:<<<There are a number of instances where scenes in
Aliens were no more than augmentations of the same events in
Alien, just "made bigger".
True, but also better, IMO. The motion trackers in A2 were
*much* more tension building than the make shift one in A1,
and much more was made of the ventilation shaft sequence and
the showdown between Ripley and alien.
ADAM:<<<Not at all, actually. The deaths in Aliens were all
pretty much the same, but there was some variety of impact
in Alien.
<<<Kane: he's fucked now (face hugger). Oh no he isn't (no
more face hugger). Oh yes he is (*really* fucked).
Brett - who is looking for a greebly about eight inches
long: *Shit*. How the hell did *that* happen??
For me, Brett's death was *such* stock horror movie fare.
Dude wanders off, in the face of danger, for a totally
pointless reason. I understand that he wasn't expecting to
see an 8-foot alien, but look what the relatively small
facehugger did to Kane. And the chestburster had teeth!
They had know idea what the chestburster was capable of. If
my cat wandered into a dark cave that I knew was inhabited
by a gila monster (an incredibly poisonous desert lizard not
too different in size than a chestburster) I sure as *hell*
wouldn't go after it.
<<<Dallas: *aha* now we've got guns, you bastard, *now* your
gonna pay... oh... no you're not. Bugger. That didn't work
at all.
Again, Dallas was about as marked for death as you can get,
at least when he decided to venture out alone well before
the films climax.
<<<Ash: Just when we are running *really* short of options,
we find out that it just gets *worse*. We're being fucked by
the alien, our own crew *and* our bosses. And we now know we
don't have any real chance.
Yeah, the whole Ash thing was pretty sweet. *Totally*
unexpected.
<<<Parker and Lambert: so it *doesn't* just kill the one who
goes off by herself.
Hmmm, on the one hand I can appreciate the fact that Ridley
had the monster kill the two who stuck together, but it
seems that it would have been pretty obvious who the lead
was at that point. The black guy? No way. The plain
looking chick who freaks out the most? No....or the
attractive, calm, intelligent Ripley? It *seems* obvious to
me, but--I *did* see A2 first, so I can't really make that
claim with full assurance.
ADAM:<<<Aliens: Surviving colonist: yeah, ok, we guessed
what was going to happen as soon as we saw her (including
the waking up part, cos we could see that she was a person
not a model).
Yeah, the colonist was there for people who hadn't seen the
first film and wanted to see what the whole "chestbursting"
thing was about.
<<<Dietrich: OK, a surprise (only that it was Dietrich: it
was obviously going to happen to *someone*).
Crowe / Wierzb. / Frost: nice touch getting toasted by their
own people / equipment. Maybe this is a Desert Storm film?
Not really dramartically involving, though. More like "need
to kill some non-important characters".
I really got the "tragedy" of their deaths, not so much
because I cared greatly for them, but just because they died
so pointlessly (as many do in war) and their loss made it
that much harder for the characters that I *did* care about.
Of course the group needed to be thinned out a little, at
least they earned their "fodder" label by lack of
characterization as opposed to just being dumb.
<<<Apone: no dramatic impact as there was no build up to it.
Just another number. Although it could be argued that his
character had been developed quite a bit, which means in
Hollywood there is a chance he might be one of the
survivors. But this is a film where odds on no-one is going
to survive, so still not that surprising or involving.
I can't really remember if Apone's death surprised me when I
first saw the movie, but it seems like he "had" to die if
for no other reason than to allow Ripley and Hicks to take
over. So, no, not an incredible surprise and not a lot of
dramatic impact.
<<<Spunkmeyer / Ferro: hardly any screen time for either, so
who cared? Still, Ferro's death was quite well shot. I think
we probably cared about the dropship more, though (and what
does *that* say?).
Again, their deaths were disheartening not in and of
themselves but because of the repercussions on the core
group of characters.
<<<Drake: nasty way to go, and not expected... well he was
the last one left (so *by himself*)
outside the APC. What happens to people *by themselves*?
I don't know if I'd equate providing suppressing fire for
your buddies (who are only three feet away) with wandering
off alone for no good reason.
<<<Hudson: cliche: ignoble character goes out in blaze of
glory.
I wouldn't consider Hudson to be ignoble, just scared
sh*tless. I always liked his last stand (note: I'm not
saying it was the most original, just well done.)
<<<Burke: it was obvious he was going to get it as soon as
he was revealed as being *bad*. Just a
matter of when, which still ended up not being a surprise,
because we saw it coming in the shootout scene.
You were comparing the deaths of the characters based on
dramatic impact, right? Sure, we could see Burke's death
coming, but it definitely evoked a "Yeah, you bastard!"
emotion from the audience. The difference between Burke's
predictable demise and that of Brett and Dallas's, was that
Burke *literally had no other option.*
<<<Vasquez: Noble character tries as hard as
possible and still dies. This is a good one. I wished she
had made it, somehow. Them carting her out really injured
instead of Hicks would have been better, cos she did more to
"deserve" it.
I agree that Vasquez was a character that you really
*wanted* to survive, but since I consider her death to be
one of the most cinematic ever in an action film, I
appreciate the dramatic "oomph" of her fate.
<<<Gorman: (see Hudson), but less impact as he a) wasn't as
engaging as Hudson; and b) was unconscious a lot.
Okay, Gorman totally fits the cliche you cited for Hudson.
But I felt that his death had great impact because he died
on his own terms, in a manner that any one of us would have
preferred over the gruesome alternative.
<<<Newt: OK, she didn't die. It is just wishful thinking. If
she *did* die it would be a surprise.
I really liked Newt's character and her inclusion in the
story. I know we're talking about deaths here, but her
rescue gave the movie its only real payoff for the
characters (living or dead.) She put a face and some
history to the dead colonists, and really symbolized just
how dark and tragic the movie was. Basically, as far as the
rescue mission went it was: worst case scenario--save none
of the 158 colonists and best case scenario--save *one*
colonist. Victory came in the form of just *not losing
everything and everybody.* Strange that a super sci-fi
space war movie handled this element much better than the
academy award nominated Saving Private Ryan.
<<<Hicks: given the track record of films where people start
dying one by one, it is a good thing that he survived. But
Cameron slots in the nod to predictable film
making by making him *virtually* dead for the rest of the
film.
Yeah, Hicks got soooo unlucky. Just a bummer, (an obvious
plot device to allow Ripley to have the final showdown, yes)
but, like you said, its cool that Cameron let him live. And
on a personal level for Ripley's character, a somewhat
uplifting and touching twist. I was *so* impressed that
Cameron neglected the obvious romantic possibilities between
Hicks and Ripley and instead let their bond and obvious
chemistry develop into a more platonic friendship.
<<<Hadley's Hope: Having the threat of the whole place
blowing up to hurry alog the film would be an original idea,
if it hadn't happened in films before... notably in Alien.
Original idea no, but as you seem to agree, not for A1
either.
<<<Bishop: A good touch that he *was* good.
Yeah, but since I saw A2 first, that twist was lost on me
initially.
<<<Queen Alien: given the rest of the film, it is obvious
that Cameron needed a "bigger brighter faster more" ending,
so had a *BIG* alien, which manages to still not look as
menacing as the original one.
Not as menacing as the drone? I beg to differ there! But
hey, to each his own.
<<<But he doesn't know what to do with it, so he blows it
out the airlock like in the first film.
That was because his priority was in setting up the shocking
false ending, and once they were on the Sulaco, what was
Ripley to do? Her character would have known that shooting
the queen/blowing it up would spray enough acid to rip
through all the way to the outer hull, and it would be only
natural for her to try to kill the queen in a proven manner
that worked in the past. But yes, I can see how as an
audience member veteran of A1 you'd be thinking "uh, haven't
we seen this before?"
<<<Ripley: Well Ripley was the star, so she wasn't going to
die, was she?
Well, she was also the star of A3..... ; )
I realise that my initial response was kind of a letdown
because I was feeling both tired AND sarcastic (not a good
combo in a supposedly "intelligent" discussion) the day I
posted to you so I just wanted to re-address some of your
points. I'm not posting so much as to show you where you're
*wrong* (since there is no right or wrong in this debate,)
just where we disagree. I've covered what would have been
responses to your other points in other posts on this thread
so I won't repeat them here. Its been fun, talk to you
later.
kibo_i...@my-deja.com
well what the hell.
In article <7ntcii$oql$4...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Covenant" <Lam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No. But the fact that he is an artistic
>sell-out is.
The fact that he's an artistic sell out makes him
an artistic sell out? I think what the
afformentioned 'Kevin' was looking for was some
objective test other than the misappropriation of
his name. Circular logic is all well in good,
but it's not the most hollowed ground of reasoned
debate.
As for the boat movie, it should have been
something akin to what it was. The real storys
of many of those people are just as dramatic.
When I first heard of it I thought it might have
to do with the romance of the Astor's and Mr.
(IIRC John) Astor placing his then pregnant wife
on one of the few boats and refusing a seat on
the same boat, as it wasn't fitting for a
gentelman to place his saftey above women and
children and lying to her, telling her he would
be in another boat, when he knew he would die.
The setting was opulent, as it was in real life,
the people were diverse and by all accounts there
were heros and villans. All Cameron did was add
a dose of fiction to probably one of the most
dramatic scenes in human history. I might have
prefered a 250 million dollar documentory, but
that wouldn't have nessicarily made it a better
film. In fact considering the how dramatic the
acctual events were, I think it is probably a
credit to Cameron that people who knew about
those facts were not only not offended but
were/are proud to have been involved with the
film.
> Nope. That isn't how it works in the industry
> Kev. Remember, I'm a part of it. The director
> who tries to do everything does not trust the
> people he works with. And not having trust in
> others abilities is a failing.
Hmm. Let's take a quick look at 'the industry's'
track record and Cameron's. Steve Guttenberg
films have made 2 billion dollars.....hmmm.
Where is the green grass? Many successful people
and programs have been run on mistrust. The
Manhatten Project being but one example.
> Cameron is a control freak. And it shows in the
> rigidity of his movies. A leads to B leads to C
Cameron's movies show a certain consistancy of
vision that isn't the norm. But a few of
directors have a 'my way or the highway' approach.
Perhaps it's egotism, perhaps it's
perfectionism. But the only reason it is few, is
because there have been many directors that have
a proven track record like Cameron.
As for A leading anywhere, if it's unfortunate
enough to be lost in one of your disscussions
it's bound to end up back at A where in started.
Trust is a funny thing. It's tends to be more
reliable when it's earned.
> Kev. It doesn't *matter* !
> Doing it all doesn't make him better in my
> book, due to my points above, it
> makes him worse.
So Leonardo DaVinci was a crappy painter for an
engineer? Was Issac Newton a crappy physicist
for a mathamatician? Perhaps Albert Einstein was
a crappy patant clerk for a physicist. Cameron
didn't exclude people from his movies, he used
his skills to help them clearly see his vision.
In fact one might strongly argue that such
clarity of vision is what makes independent films
so rich, and such a threat to the studios. For
only in independent films can someone like Kevin
Smith wield a degree of control like Cameron can
with the studios.
> Kev. you are taking the term *filmmaker* WAY
> too literally. You don't *know* if Scott can do
> the above purely because he hasn't. Not the
> same thing.
You're taking the term *literally* WAY TOO
figuratively. Literally would his [Kev's]
insistance that Cameron was a better filmmaker
because he was more adept at producing film stock
from raw celluloid.
Adam Smith would tend to think 'those that can
do'. I think Yoda most asstutely pointed out
that the line between 'can't' and 'don't want
too', it razor thin.
> Well...
> There's debate.
> There's heated debate.
> There's stubborn opinion, ignoring facts.
> And then there is what you and googs are
>getting into...
>
> Watch it guys... It'll all end in tears!
A season of Three's Company ended that way, but
when Suszan Sommers landed 'She's the Sheriff' it
was all smooth sailing...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Thomas S. McDonald esquire
this dead horse, so I thought I'd dig it up and start beating
the hell out of it.....
In article <CbJo3.77$a6.14...@news.netdirect.net>,
go...@happyland.com wrote:
> Well, K, since you so conveniently excised all contextual sense of my
> posts, i must reply...
>
> Kevin Lamb <kevin...@hotmail.com> hit the keyboard & accidentally
> typed:
> >No. Other directors *try* to mix genres together, Cameron
> >actually does it.
> That calls for a 'Whatever!'
> Since all this was in response to your initial posting of:
> >>Okay googs. Enlighten me. Who made a bughunter war *movie*
> >>before Cameron? What's that? *Nobody?* Thank you.
> ...I'll take that as another diversionary edit to obscure the fact
> that i properly countered you.
> "First does not = best."
> But i'm sure you don't see it...
He's wasn't being diversionary. He called your bluff, he had a fist
full of aces and you had queen high. He had moved on. You'd already
admited Cameron was original in that respect. It was fairly gracious
of him to not belabor the point of you consession.
> >Titanic was, by commercial standards, "apparently"
> >"somewhat" successful? ROTFLMAO!...
>
> Jeesh, don't you recognise comic understatement w/o a ": )"?
Hmm. He found your 'joke', as it were, ammusing and you're taking
exception with that? Are you surprised or humble?
> Listen up, troll-boy-
> The founding topic of this ridiculous thread was your assertion that
> Cameron is a better director than RScott; That's what i've been
> countering.
It passes for interesting later in the evenings....but that last
declaritive statement I find somewhat inaccurate.
> The subject of what *I* think of Jimmy simply ain't an admissable
> issue here, nor is it relevant here. But a nice diversionary attempt,
> tho; Not!
> And you can do better than turning my dismissal of you re: your
> lack of respect for AH back at me, now, can't you?
> No, i guess not, since i fully countered this particular section...
As a matter of fact, you're in error. If you're biased against any
artistic accomplishment James Cameron might be credited with you can't
very well claim to be any color of objective in any discussion of his
merits as a director. Strangely, you dismiss Cameron's accolades out
of hand, with little (and I'm being generous describing it so) if any
reason, and then seek protection in objectivity. To truely participate
in this discussion you have to respond to your advasaries points with
specific reasons, not the broad brush of predjudice.
Your post on alt.arts.rennesaince.famous.and-dead.advocacy might go a
little like this.
go...@happyland.com might have writen something similar to:
Micheal Angelo was a punk, any dumbass could have clearly painted the
Cistien Chapel. Hell according to the laws of thermodynamics a million
monkeys would eventually have painted the same damn picture people.
You wanna-be trollers can speak 3l337 4ll u l1k3, but the Last Supper
is where it's at, unless you're one of those fools who considers
popular opinion.
I want to be clear, this isn't intended as a personal attack. I just
think that you're the next Leonard Maltin and would like to see you
reach your full potential.
> >Okay, now you're implying that not only is Cameron inferior
> >to Scott, he isn't even an artist, on any level. See above.
>
> You know what? I'm not implying it; i'm *saying* it.
> Cameron's a highly skilled *technician,* without a single artistic
> thought in his head, as opposed to true visionaries (like RScott).
> That's my trump card for this futile excercise of yours.
Hmmm art is funny. Dog's playing poker is art. Not particularly
inspired art. But if they're smoking and you've got a sweet pool table
and some nice mahogany paneling with some leather recliners, it makes
for a pretty snappy decoration. Math is more art than science, and
certainly nothing is more formula than math. Art can mean skill, the
act of creating, its fruit, or plain ole ingenuity. If Cameron is
skilled, by common definitions of the word he is an artist, regardless
of his craft. If you see no act of creation in his work, why do you
conceed his originality? If you see no beauty, what do you see?
> >Because, at best, all you're saying is that Cameron didn't
> >lift his monsters (clones of war movie villains) any higher
> >than Scott lifted the drone (interchangeable with any
> >slasher movie villain.)...
>
> I've got no problem with that.
> But Scott made *more* of his B-grade plot; Cameron only showed he knew
> how to make a B-grade plot very well. But *not* greater than the sum
> of its parts. As opposed to RScott.
Again with the assertions. Isn't this supposed to be a disscussion.
I'll admit 'Kevin' may be brief, but he's certainly more forth comming.
> >Why am I suddenly tempted to mention that sticking your head
> >in your ass to avoid the inevitable is no valid defense of
> >RS?
>
> Because of your current visual perspective?
Hey that's a joke right. Strange it doesn't *seem* funny. Maybe it
has some sort of switch to make it funny.... Odd that you didn't
counter him with mention of the rare ancient cultures who's women would
engage in warfare. The fact that females were very near if not
acctually in front line battles of most of modern warfare. The odd
story of a woman posing as a man to fight for her cause. Or the
greatly over used and tired example of Joan of Arc? There were plenty
of credible examples you could have used, but I suppose a poor attempt
at humor was equally compelling.
> The Alien series is 'successful,' no?
> Why?
> Because there was a *first* film able to generate interest enough for
> there to be a sequel in the *first* place! (Score 2 for RScott
> there,..).
> This very fact alone destroys your assertion that women were no big
> audience draw;
His assertion was that women didn't similarly draw men to action films,
with the obligitory exception of the possibility of seeing skin. Even
then men really went to see James Bond because of Sean Connery blowing
shit up and killing people, not so much Pussy Gallor. It would be
silly to assert people in line for Alien were all tittering with the
latest buzz on Ms. Weaver. You both are talking about different sets
of data that while they intersect have quite different causialities.
If you were right there would be multiple successful pre 80's films
with an action premiss carried by the female lead. This is clearly not
the case. In fact, Ridley Scott's closest action attempt was GI Jane.
Only recently has this become even somewhat fashionable. And if anyone
were to be credited it would certainly be Mr. Cameron. He would get
the credit because he proved it not only commercially viable but
EXTREAMLY profitable. If not for him, you'd almost be limited to
independent or foreign films for such fare.
> >You're freakin' awesome, googs. You repeatedly claim that
> >Cameron deserves not a single ounce of credit for any
> >innovations in his movie (because, ya know, *somebody* would
> >have *eventually* broken the exact same ground.)...
>
> That would call for the proverbial 'Blowme.'
> Don't put 'claims' in my mouth.
Ok. Clearly you have some misconceptions about oral sex. I'd post
some instructional pictures, but this really isn't the propper venue.
> This is all about your trumpeting of JCameron as anything more than a
> skilled filmmaker.
> And somebody else *would* have done that.
Let me get this absolutely clear. You don't want Kevin to go around
saying that your claim is 'someone else could do what Cameron has
done'. In fact you're so livid about this you ask if not demand oral
sex as recompense, and then you turn around and say *EXACTLY* that.
Have you just gotten back from the desert and a successful vision
quest, or is there a medical explaination?
I think we will need a doctors note, that 'medication' is classified as
Schedual I.
> >... Then you
> >imply that it was *Scott* who first showcased a female lead
> >in an action movie (a genre he wasn't even working on)
> >before simply passing the torch to Cameron. Okey-dokey.
>
> Scott was indeed successful w/ A1, and SWeaver was the lead, so that
> in itself countered your prior assertion.
>
> I see we have a problem defining 'action movie.'
> I judge it by any movie that relies on action to reach its climax.
Perhaps its the word action that is the crux of the problem. Are you
defining it as 'any act'.
> Typically, all B-grade ('classic' terminology there, pop-fans) films
> rely on the visceral, reactive appeal of humans to dramatic (emotional
> definition, now) representations of life-or-death situations onscreen.
> As opposed to a non-action movie, which would be something entirely
> *character* driven (like 'My Dinner With Andre'), with *no*
> life-or-death situations.
> Those are the definitions i use in this argument, and A1 certainly
> fits that label. (as do the other films i referenced in that context)
I understand. I don't feel limited by other peoples unimaginitive
spelling, I am quite unfettered by the rules which which others let
consonants and vowels rule them. For I rule the letters. They do MY
bidding. It seems you are the same when it comes to common
situationally specific definitions. Why be limited by common
conventions when you can pioneer uncommon ones. Uniqueness is its own
reward.
> >I love this too. I make an observation about something
> >Cameron did in an action movie, then you unsurprisingly try
> >to counter it by making an irrelevant reference to an old
> >sci-fi flick that followed a totally different formula. I
> >remind you I was talking about "action movies," and you give
> >the above quote, in which you not only imply that death and
> >destruction are the defining characteristics of action films...
>
> 'Life-or-death struggle'...
Hmm Untamed Heart: Christian Slater, and Marisa Tome. He struggles
with a congenital heart defect, as they struggle with romance.
While You Were Sleeping: Sandra Bullock, et al. A romantic comedy
where a woman falls in love with a man whos life she saves and
hillarity ensues as she falls into his life through a series of
coincidences and misunderstanding.
Boiling Point Weasly Snipes. He's a cop, I was sleeping. I think
someone died. Who the hell cares?
The Great Outdoors: Man survives eleven lightning strikes and comes
to grips with his fear of the outdoors. John Candy is mauled by a
bear with a bald ass.
Steel Magnolias. All-star cast, Julia Roberts. Little princess of a
southern family and town is struck down when she choses motherhood over
well being.
The Seventh Sign: Demi Moore, Micheal Beihn. Woman tormented by
feelings of failure, and rememberd fragments of her past life,
sacrifices her own life to save the world from the wrath of god.
I could go on until we all felt like we've watched the uncut version of
Boiling Point, but must I?
> >...(guess that makes Days of Thunder a docu-drama) but
> >hilariously try to cover your tracks by inventing an all-new
> >movie term: the ACTIVE movie.
>
> Troller. 'Active' makes 'Action.'
> And the only 'tracks' that need covering are my footprints all over
> your dodgy defense of Cameron.
You asked for it.
The Wizard of Oz. We all know it. Girl makes friends after brutally
murdering a stranger, after a deadly tornado. All four risk life and
limb to find a heart, a brain, courage, and a way home only to find out
they had them all along. They also learn midgits appear kind, but a
clearly untrustworthy even if they are harmless. A warning I would
have done well to heed.....
> >Trying to prove that A2 and WotW are of the same genre by
> >describing them in terms broad enough to include the
> >original A1 as well (a movie that is universally accepted as
> >an apples and oranges comparison to A2 with respect to
> >formula and genre) only further deflates any semblance of an
> >intelligent "case" you may have against Cameron.
>
> Try to take in & process the Whole Picture, now.
> Go back & reread my posts while remembering the definition of 'action
> movie' that i (and film historians, BTW) used.
> And then report back. There *will* be a quiz. ; >
But when film historians use the term they're acctually talking about
action movies. Not movies where people are at least resperating.
According to you even some still photographs constitute action movies.
> >ME:
> >A little lesson for ya: The term "action movie" as its
> >commonly used (and pertains to this discussion) implies a
> >movie that not only emphasizes action, but has an
> >accelerated pace and a certain degree of sensationalism...
>
> *That's* the key,..
Well if you can't settle for one side of a mutually exclusive
position.....
> >Dude, what's the main criticism you hear about George Lucas
> >and Steven Spielberg? That they "ruined" Hollywood by
> >making sensationalism, lightspeed pacing, and elaborate
> >technical effects a prerequisite for a commercially
> >successful movie. I don't make that complaint against them,
> >but the genre of action flicks did pretty much evolve into
> >movies that universally contain those elements (not
> >exclusively, mind you) immediately after the commercial
> >success of George and Steve.
>
> You & i were using different definitions of 'af.' ('Duh!')
> I use the classic (which is more distilled than yours above, BTW), but
If by distilled you mean broad, inclusive, non-descript, or general,
you're quite correct.
> then you throw away proper & accepted terms for a pop-cultured bias.
> For you to discuss the laudable merits of JC over RS, you simply
> *cannot* ignore the historically accepted definitions of *true*
> cinematic quality.
Like over done choreography and stunning musical numbers? Or silent
slapstick comedy? Quality is specific and subjective to the object
being discussed. For instance a good musical may have a gun fight, but
a good action movie probably won't have a musical number.
> And JS simply does not hold up the true and original definition of
> 'cinematic art form.'
> But i'll bet that's why you keep introducing the 'modern view.'
Gone with the wind may well be a compelling story but it is not a
compelling movie; however, it is reguarded as a treasured and reveared
classic. I would submit that over time viewers become more and more
sophisticated, and in the information age particularly, this pace has
been accelerated. While once in a while it's nice to turn off ones
brain and just kick back in the dark for some pretty colors, it's only
worth while to make comparisons over such time frames in a statistical
manner. Ie comparing the worst to the worst and the best to the best.
Even the toxic avenger series, which reveals in its crapulence has more
levels than much of Chaplain's work. In either case, the modern era is
where we live, so to chastise someone for adopting the prevailing
veiws, which were developed from previous popular views (ie classical),
is simply moronic.
> Heh.
> Simply pointing out that current views aren't the forever-held ones.
True enough, but you don't see many people claiming the Earth is the
center of the universe any more. The old veiws don't get a great deal
of replay, except on oldies stations.
> >These delusional mischaracterizations parallel those you
> >make about my comments on Hitchcock's work. See below.
>
> Don't try to duck it, buddy; the point i made was that without your
> qualifier of 'current view,' JC's work shows itself to be only
> technically adept, and as artistic as any assembly-line 'product,'
I find litheographs of 'waterlilies' to be quite artistic. Oddly,
you've already mentioned if not outrightly commended Jamed Cameron's
originality. In an inronic twist Henry Ford, father of the assembly
line and mass production was something of a pioneer. So in a certain
point of view you're argument isn't self defeating, it's self
contradicting. I like that, it's original.
> >Nice dodge. Regardless of the quality of the two asteroid
> >flicks, they perfectly reflect how plot alone does not an
> >action film make.
>
> No dodge, in light of my (and most others) def. of 'af.'
Is your definition of 'most' as accurate as your definition of
'distilled'?
> Both had the L-or-D struggle inherent.
> And you know i was poking at your 'First is Best' mentality re: Jimmy
> & A2, right?
> Well, i was.
First is first. And while it might not be best, it certainly tends to
be more enjoyable than last.
> >Oh that's right, ALIEN wasn't an action flick, it was one of
> >those fabled "active" movies.
>
> I'll withhold the 'blowme' there,..
Right, you don't want to be too demanding when it comes to oral sex,
right out of the gate like that. It's a goal to work up to....
> >Dismiss his work? "Brilliant filmmaker for his time?"
>
> In *any* age, dismissal is idiotic.
Ok this is fairly ammusing here.....watchout for the irony, you're
standing in it.
> >WTF?!?!?!?!?!? I said Hitchcock's movies suck compared to
> >the most "intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
> >decades." ID4???? Godzilla???? What the hell are you
> >talking about?!? I was referring to movies like The
> >Shining, Amityville Horror, and The Exorcist (hear that
> >Cov?)
>
> You're drunk or lying.
> That was all about AH: read it yourself. No mention of other directors
> or films.
> 'Loss of credibility points: Kev!'
I'm not sure if this is getting funny haha or funny sad....
> >"Throw money at it, & that'll make it better?" Who in God's
> >name are you quoting? I never said *anything* to that
> >effect...
>
> Troller.
> And unless you admit to this fallacy on your part, then we are *done.*
But you haven't got your oral sex yet....btw you must find a faq that
discribes trolling, I'll refer you to alt.religion.kibology. They will
help you, by example if nothing else.
> >... Yeah, I like Cameron, and yes I think he's done a
> >lot for cinema, but in all honesty I miss the creative edge
> >so prominent in his first two films. I understand that the
> >Terminator was highly derivitave of old Outer Limits
> >episodes, and that ALIENS had its own inspirations (which,
> >I'm sure you've forgotten, I've readily admitted)...
> <Thanks for thinking for me, there,...>
> >... but none
> >of the blank check budget movies he made in his King of the
> >World days ever came close to possessing the edgy, "raw"
> >creative power of his first two productions. I have enjoyed
> >all of his movies to varying degrees, and recognize that he
> >has accumulated a roster of films worthy of tremendous
> >praise, but I don't think that the increased budgets
> >improved his movies *in any way other than visually.*
>
> >Because of his track record, my attendance at future Cameron
> >films is pretty much guaranteed, but I'll be the first to
> >admit that his best days are (sadly) behind him. I don't
> >really fault him for it, I'm sure anyone with the amount of
> >money and power Cameron has garnered would be hard pressed
> >not to give in to a degree of complacency. But I'll always
> >have T1 and A2, and now I save my greatest anticipation for
> >the next Wachowski Brothers film.
>
> >Getting back to the whole Hitchcock thing,...
>
> Yes; let's. Since nothing you said there counts for sh*t in this
> part...
right it was only a descriptive summery of what he liked about Cameron
direction and how that's changed over the years in his view. What
possible relevence could that have in a discussion of the relative
merits of Ridley Scott and James Cameron. Good call. Point Googs.
Yer really a stickler for those fine details. I can tell.
> >... there's not
> >really much more to say. I recognize the man as an integral
> >piece in the history of film, but he just laid the
> >foundation for great cinematic suspense. Others (Cameron and
> >Scott included) have built cinematic structures on the
> >cornerstone of Hitchcock's work that have achieved much
> >higher degrees of intensity and terror. I mean, Henry Ford
> >will always be "the man" when it comes to automobiles, but
> >if you did a side by side comparison of an old T-Bird and a
> >1999 Audi A6 Quattro, the T-Bird becomes laughable...
>
> Once again you exemplify your ridiculous bias for the new & against
> the forebear. See my ridiculing re: pop-culture above.
That's like claiming: "old buildings are better because they have worn
artifices that at one time were impressive, and common, where modern
buildings have a purity, clarity, and playfulness with geometry that
could hardly be drempt of while serving their occupants more expertly
and safely." while certain people certainly have that veiw, one
would hardly claim that it was a majority (as googs does) since if it
was a market economy it would dictate that similar structures be
constructed and older ones be preserved, yet the opposite happens.
Puzzling.....or not.
> >... I
> >realize that the tone of my comments about AH was
> >unnecessarily harsh (having to explain the same damn points
> >over and over can get a little annoying) but I hope you can
> >better understand what I was getting at.
>
> Yes.
> I understand that you're a troll or a liar if you say you did anything
> other than totally dismiss AH's current worth in your 2nd to last
> posting.
Psst. If he's a troll. Then you and I have lost. As has everyone
else on this thread. Are you saying we should 'Have a Nice Day'?
Also, and expert fisherman, ie troll(er) will cast his line a little as
possible to get fish to jump in his boat. If Kevin is a troller he's
the hardest working one on the net. So Kudos to him and his fisherman
dad's work ethic.
> >If you have a problem with the fact that I didn't find
> >Psycho the least bit scary (having first watched it after
> >seeing the truly frightening supernatural horror movies of
> >the seventies and the first two Alien films) then get over
> >it.
>
> Uhh, no.
> What i *am* over is this ridiculous conversation.
Well thanks for contributing. Oddly I've only seen news reading
software with post buttons. I think I would find your software, or at
least its 'Not Post' button a bit tiresome. You have options, there is
no need to suffer any longer.
> >So tell me googs, what's *your* excuse for this completely
> >off-the-wall statement?
>
> Well, since, according to my ng cache, you pulled this from somewhere
> other than my last re:. you tell me.
> And don't f*ck with the context of my posts, pal.
Or he'll steal all the U's. Then we'll all be wearing N'derware and
people with think we've succumb to some arcane German Tommie Hilfiger
clone virtually assuring an invasion by french-canadians. He is NOT to
be triffled with. I'm not just scared for me, I'm scared for Deja
News. South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut: A film about foul mouthed
eight year olds or misinterpritation of the apocalyps, you make the
call!
> >My feet are just fine, googs. I never said that Aliens will
> >be remembered as the "classic" of the series. I just said
> >it was a better film than ALIEN. How is that possible?
> >Take a look at the Star Wars saga. There are few films in
> >history that have so changed the medium the way STAR WARS
> >did. It is a classic in every sense of the word and will be
> >revered for as long as the artform exists. But you know
> >what? The Empire Strikes Back is pretty much universally
> >accepted as a superior film on every level of artistic and
> >technical production. To a somewhat lesser degree, my
> >position has been that the same holds true in comparing
> >Aliens to its classic predecessor.
>
> 'And *that* is why you fail...' - Yoda
> You do not see or uderstand true cinematic 'art,' and its inherent
> worth over technical perfection.
Which you've defined as old. So I can only assume your primary gauge
of a films merit is by appearent lack of contrast control. You
certainly haven't been specific enough to suggest otherwise.
I guess a rotoscope of hieroglyphics would be a cinimatic experiance so
compelling you'd loose all bladder control. And that's fine, I'm not
here to judge. I'm just a member of the jury.
> And that's why i'm now done with you.
> (Unless of course i have to correct your myopic translations of what i
> say again, that is,...)
I guess US naval cryptographers were fortunate the Japanese didn't have
a matched set of you circa 194x. JN 25c my ass!
> >P.S. Covenant: it appears that you developed the same
> >misconceptions about my personal tastes that googs did. I
> >hope I gave you a better understanding of where I was coming
> >from (not to say that you'd agree of course.)
>
> As a final parting word, 'FY.'
> You said it just like i answered to, oh Troll-or-liar...
> And you're obviously 'coming from' an untenable position...
and by untenable you mean 'of clarity'?
Let this be a lesson to all of you. When you by someone a word of the
day calander, don't buy a knock off, spring for the real deal, the one
that includes the definitions too. We of usenet will thank you for it.
Kevin Lamb
Since I've learned that engaging googs in a harmless
discourse about 13 to 20 year old films on an anonymous
newsgroup is an exercise in mind-numbing futility, I'm not
about to jump back in to address any of googs' (ahem)
"points."
I will, however, clarify one thing: The point of me
starting this thread. A couple of months ago, me, Covenant,
and googs had a pretty good-natured debate about which Alien
film was better. As it was drawing to a close, I ordered a
computer and cancelled my Webtv account. Since the
discussion ended with some points hanging, I thought I'd
start up the debate again, just for the fun of it. So
instead of just posting a long diatribe of why I liked A2
best, chalk-full of "IMHO" disclaimers, that wouldn't lend
themselves to any discussion or debate whatsoever, I thought
I'd post my thoughts as a friendly challenge. Let's look at
a couple of statements from my original post, recently
quoted by googs:
>>Obviously, I can't tell anyone which film to like best
(nor would I want to.) But I can definitely prove (heh heh)
that beyond a shadow of a doubt, Jim Cameron accomplished a
much greater cinematic feat than Ridley Scott, and made a
film that was flat out better.
Now, I think I've addressed why Cameron succeeded in a much
more difficult cinematic endeavor than Scott but I
*obviously* cannot prove that Cameron made a better film,
since that's totally subjective; I assumed that the "heh
heh" would reflect the tongue-in-cheek tone I posted that
particular statement in. Covenant seemed to get the joke,
and I mistakenly assumed googs would as well, as again, the
three of us had a very intelligent and friendly debate about
the EXACT SAME SUBJECT a couple of months earlier.
While I was "inviting" someone to disagree, I sure as hell
wasn't trolling. Trolling is more malicious and divisive.
I really was looking forward to engaging in a stimulating
discourse about one of my favorite movies and lightly blew
off the first couple of "flame posts." One of them, by Adam
Cameron, I later realized was quite insightful, so I went
back and addressed it more specifically. Again, since the
whole point of my initial post was to stimulate discussion,
I allowed myself a degree of sarcasm and argumentativeness
(hope that's a word) in my first few responses. My last
couple of posts on this thread were thoughtful, serious
rants about my own personal reasons for preferring A2 and
Cameron's work, and they got no response. That was all well
and cool (as I thought the thread was winding down anyway)
but not what I was hoping for when the thread started.
Anyway, I have enjoyed reading and discussing points with
most of the people on this thread, and only *one* person got
all bent out of shape (for totally random reasons,) so I'm
for the most part happy with the results.
I shake my head at the googs stuff, mostly because it was
just a waste of time. To be drawn in to any further
discussions with him regarding taste, film terms, or simple
terms of debate would be a grueling and never-ending
exercise in tedium. I have nothing personal against you,
googs, and for however long I hang out on the ng, I hope we
can at least call it a "truce" with regard to future
threads. If not, oh well.
To Thomas Esquire: Obviously we share some common opinions
re:James Cameron and A2, and I sure got a kick out of your
last post. You may regret getting into it with googs, but I
appreciate the comedy.
Later,
go...@happyland.com
(apparently as a Derisive Writing project):
>I was out in the grave yard doing an interprative dance, and I found
>this dead horse, so I thought I'd dig it up and start beating
>the hell out of it.....
'Dead Horse' indeed...
Since i've got as much time to kill now as i did when i stepped up to
KL's rhetorical plate, i'll take a few swings at the horse m'self...
> go...@happyland.com wrote:
>> Well, K, since you so conveniently excised all contextual sense of my
>> posts, i must reply...
>>
>> Kevin Lamb <kevin...@hotmail.com> hit the keyboard & accidentally
>> typed:
>> >No. Other directors *try* to mix genres together, Cameron
>> >actually does it.
>> That calls for a 'Whatever!'
>> Since all this was in response to your initial posting of:
>> >>Okay googs. Enlighten me. Who made a bughunter war *movie*
>> >>before Cameron? What's that? *Nobody?* Thank you.
>> ...I'll take that as another diversionary edit to obscure the fact
>> that i properly countered you.
>> "First does not = best."
>> But i'm sure you don't see it...
>He's wasn't being diversionary. He called your bluff, he had a fist
>full of aces and you had queen high. He had moved on. You'd already
>admited Cameron was original in that respect. It was fairly gracious
>of him to not belabor the point of you consession.
'Bluff'? Umm, okay,...
And 'pretty metaphors,' BTW.
>> >Titanic was, by commercial standards, "apparently"
>> >"somewhat" successful? ROTFLMAO!...
>>
>> Jeesh, don't you recognise comic understatement w/o a ": )"?
>Hmm. He found your 'joke', as it were, ammusing and you're taking
>exception with that? Are you surprised or humble?
I took it as sarcastic. A concept you seem *quite* familiar with.
>> Listen up, troll-boy-
>> The founding topic of this ridiculous thread was your assertion that
>> Cameron is a better director than RScott; That's what i've been
>> countering.
>It passes for interesting later in the evenings....but that last
>declaritive statement I find somewhat inaccurate.
Well, quit typing for a while and maybe you'll see...
>> The subject of what *I* think of Jimmy simply ain't an admissable
>> issue here, nor is it relevant here. But a nice diversionary attempt,
>> tho; Not!
>> And you can do better than turning my dismissal of you re: your
>> lack of respect for AH back at me, now, can't you?
>> No, i guess not, since i fully countered this particular section...
>As a matter of fact, you're in error. If you're biased against any
>artistic accomplishment James Cameron might be credited with you can't
>very well claim to be any color of objective in any discussion of his
>merits as a director. Strangely, you dismiss Cameron's accolades out
>of hand, with little (and I'm being generous describing it so) if any
>reason, and then seek protection in objectivity. To truely participate
>in this discussion you have to respond to your advasaries points with
>specific reasons, not the broad brush of predjudice.
Oh. And so if *anyone* cites something that came first, they
automatically win! *Now* i see how brilliant KL's defense is!
*Thank You* for setting me straight & teaching me the proper ways of
Debate!
I'll quote KL's initiating post from July 27th:
*Obviously, I can't tell anyone which film to like best (nor
*would I want to.) But I can definitely prove (heh heh) that
*beyond a shadow of a doubt, Jim Cameron accomplished a much
*greater cinematic feat than Ridley Scott, and made a film
*that was flat out better.
A successful blending of Logical (Debatable) Opinion and Personal
(Undebatable) Opinion that marks the Artistic Quality of a truly
discerning and accomplished Troller. What was that you say later about
sending out a little line, waiting for the fish to jump in the boat?
Well, I had some time to kill & i *do* hate idol-worshippers, so...
KL may have had good reasons to feel the way he does, but then
there's that untenable bit about 'better than...'. That's what fired
me into discussion, and that's what i argued against, and futilely, as
all arguments over personal taste end up being.
>Your post on alt.arts.rennesaince.famous.and-dead.advocacy might go a
>little like this.
>go...@happyland.com might have writen something similar to:
>Micheal Angelo was a punk, any dumbass could have clearly painted the
>Cistien Chapel. Hell according to the laws of thermodynamics a million
>monkeys would eventually have painted the same damn picture people.
>You wanna-be trollers can speak 3l337 4ll u l1k3, but the Last Supper
>is where it's at, unless you're one of those fools who considers
>popular opinion.
Actually, the million monkeys thing *would* have happened, IMO. Laws
is Laws, right?
And, withholding my usual sexually oriented reply to such
inaccurate interpretations (since you apparently can't see use of a
colloquialism as rhetorically observant of insult,), i point out that
the Sistine Chapel and A2 are as artistically similar as something
hanging in the Louvre compared to a paint-by-number book, because
that's the true nature of Michaelangelo's works compared to Camerons.
>I want to be clear, this isn't intended as a personal attack. I just
>think that you're the next Leonard Maltin and would like to see you
>reach your full potential.
A bit contradictory, but Hey, you're getting paid by the word, right?
>> >Okay, now you're implying that not only is Cameron inferior
>> >to Scott, he isn't even an artist, on any level. See above.
>>
>> You know what? I'm not implying it; i'm *saying* it.
>> Cameron's a highly skilled *technician,* without a single artistic
>> thought in his head, as opposed to true visionaries (like RScott).
>> That's my trump card for this futile excercise of yours.
>Hmmm art is funny. Dog's playing poker is art. Not particularly
>inspired art. But if they're smoking and you've got a sweet pool table
>and some nice mahogany paneling with some leather recliners, it makes
>for a pretty snappy decoration. Math is more art than science, and
>certainly nothing is more formula than math. Art can mean skill, the
>act of creating, its fruit, or plain ole ingenuity. If Cameron is
>skilled, by common definitions of the word he is an artist, regardless
>of his craft. If you see no act of creation in his work, why do you
>conceed his originality? If you see no beauty, what do you see?
Must be a Philosophy major, what with all the pretty scenarios &
what...
'Art' is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
And JC is no artist. Only a skilled technician. But that is
personal opinion again, and i believe i see your perspective in that
matter.
I think. I mean, that's a lotta words to sift through...
>> >Because, at best, all you're saying is that Cameron didn't
>> >lift his monsters (clones of war movie villains) any higher
>> >than Scott lifted the drone (interchangeable with any
>> >slasher movie villain.)...
>>
>> I've got no problem with that.
>> But Scott made *more* of his B-grade plot; Cameron only showed he knew
>> how to make a B-grade plot very well. But *not* greater than the sum
>> of its parts. As opposed to RScott.
>Again with the assertions. Isn't this supposed to be a disscussion.
>I'll admit 'Kevin' may be brief, but he's certainly more forth comming.
Assertions of a personal view, to counter personal view assertions.
What the heck, i've time to spare...
>> >Why am I suddenly tempted to mention that sticking your head
>> >in your ass to avoid the inevitable is no valid defense of
>> >RS?
>>
>> Because of your current visual perspective?
>Hey that's a joke right. Strange it doesn't *seem* funny. Maybe it
>has some sort of switch to make it funny.... Odd that you didn't
>counter him with mention of the rare ancient cultures who's women would
>engage in warfare. The fact that females were very near if not
>acctually in front line battles of most of modern warfare. The odd
>story of a woman posing as a man to fight for her cause. Or the
>greatly over used and tired example of Joan of Arc? There were plenty
>of credible examples you could have used, but I suppose a poor attempt
>at humor was equally compelling.
Gee, Esq., i'm beginning to feel a bit warm & fuzzy with all this
attention you're giving me...
And i left citing examples to *your* deft hand; Thanks!
Next time, jump right in & tell me when it's not okay to counter a
joke with a joke *before* i commit such a faux pas again, wouldja?
>> The Alien series is 'successful,' no?
>> Why?
>> Because there was a *first* film able to generate interest enough for
>> there to be a sequel in the *first* place! (Score 2 for RScott
>> there,..).
>> This very fact alone destroys your assertion that women were no big
>> audience draw;
>His assertion was that women didn't similarly draw men to action films,
>with the obligitory exception of the possibility of seeing skin. Even
>then men really went to see James Bond because of Sean Connery blowing
>shit up and killing people, not so much Pussy Gallor. It would be
>silly to assert people in line for Alien were all tittering with the
>latest buzz on Ms. Weaver. You both are talking about different sets
>of data that while they intersect have quite different causialities.
>If you were right there would be multiple successful pre 80's films
>with an action premiss carried by the female lead. This is clearly not
>the case. In fact, Ridley Scott's closest action attempt was GI Jane.
>Only recently has this become even somewhat fashionable. And if anyone
>were to be credited it would certainly be Mr. Cameron. He would get
>the credit because he proved it not only commercially viable but
>EXTREAMLY profitable. If not for him, you'd almost be limited to
>independent or foreign films for such fare.
Gosh, i thought that he said [~] 'Women in action films don't draw as
big an audience as men...' I *thought* i said that A1 was an action
movie, and Weaver was the star, so that would've countered his
statement, but maybe i'm not recalling properly... 9v9
^
So Jimmy put SigWeav in the forefront of his alleged groundbreaking
a.f.? So what? W/O SW there would never have been an A2 to contest,
now, would there? So any discussion of JC's brilliance in this matter
must be moot, then, since we cannot seperate what is from what *might*
have been. Which is to say, that assertion by him that JC deserves
credit for putting SW in the lead of his sequel is a ridiculous
truism, since there wouldn't be a female in the lead if it weren't the
sequel to A1 in the first place!
But you're right in that they're 'apples & oranges'; different sets of
intersecting data indeed. The intersection? SW.
>> >You're freakin' awesome, googs. You repeatedly claim that
>> >Cameron deserves not a single ounce of credit for any
>> >innovations in his movie (because, ya know, *somebody* would
>> >have *eventually* broken the exact same ground.)...
>>
>> That would call for the proverbial 'Blowme.'
>> Don't put 'claims' in my mouth.
>Ok. Clearly you have some misconceptions about oral sex. I'd post
>some instructional pictures, but this really isn't the propper venue.
Gee, can't you appreciate a mixed metaphor?
>> This is all about your trumpeting of JCameron as anything more than a
>> skilled filmmaker.
>> And somebody else *would* have done that.
>Let me get this absolutely clear. You don't want Kevin to go around
>saying that your claim is 'someone else could do what Cameron has
>done'. In fact you're so livid about this you ask if not demand oral
>sex as recompense, and then you turn around and say *EXACTLY* that.
>Have you just gotten back from the desert and a successful vision
>quest, or is there a medical explaination?
You really like talking about sex, don't you?
And, i've never said that JC *wasn't* skilled. What i *do* say is that
JC's not as deserving of 'artist'ic status as KL seems to think. *Do*
try to follow along. But Hey, there's typing to be done, right?
>I think we will need a doctors note, that 'medication' is classified as
>Schedual I.
I can see how you might have a familiarity with such things...
>> >... Then you
>> >imply that it was *Scott* who first showcased a female lead
>> >in an action movie (a genre he wasn't even working on)
>> >before simply passing the torch to Cameron. Okey-dokey.
>>
>> Scott was indeed successful w/ A1, and SWeaver was the lead, so that
>> in itself countered your prior assertion.
>>
>> I see we have a problem defining 'action movie.'
>> I judge it by any movie that relies on action to reach its climax.
>Perhaps its the word action that is the crux of the problem. Are you
>defining it as 'any act'.
No...
>> Typically, all B-grade ('classic' terminology there, pop-fans) films
>> rely on the visceral, reactive appeal of humans to dramatic (emotional
>> definition, now) representations of life-or-death situations onscreen.
>> As opposed to a non-action movie, which would be something entirely
>> *character* driven (like 'My Dinner With Andre'), with *no*
>> life-or-death situations.
>> Those are the definitions i use in this argument, and A1 certainly
>> fits that label. (as do the other films i referenced in that context)
>I understand. I don't feel limited by other peoples unimaginitive
>spelling, I am quite unfettered by the rules which which others let
>consonants and vowels rule them. For I rule the letters. They do MY
>bidding...
*That's* painfully obvious from your spelling,...
>... It seems you are the same when it comes to common
>situationally specific definitions. Why be limited by common
>conventions when you can pioneer uncommon ones. Uniqueness is its own
>reward.
So is creative insulting, apparently,...
And this sways not my definition of 'action film' in the respects of
B-movie plotlines, as A1 *was*, *regardless* of what critic you talk
to.
I'm *sure* you were trying to make a point and insult me
simultaneously, there, but *darned* if it actually is *contextual*...
'Untamed Heart,' 'WYWS', 'Steel Magnolias' et al are all *character
driven* films, quite unlike and different from Alien's roots as a
B-movie (an 'action flick' in the basest definition... You *do*
remember my given definition, right?); Those ain't, and the Alien
series is.
But Hey, paid by the word, and all,...
>> >...(guess that makes Days of Thunder a docu-drama) but
>> >hilariously try to cover your tracks by inventing an all-new
>> >movie term: the ACTIVE movie.
>>
>> Troller. 'Active' makes 'Action.'
>> And the only 'tracks' that need covering are my footprints all over
>> your dodgy defense of Cameron.
>You asked for it.
But not for this critiquing of my post.
Do you hate me?
Gosh, i'll be ever so sad if we can't be palsy-walsys...
>The Wizard of Oz. We all know it. Girl makes friends after brutally
>murdering a stranger, after a deadly tornado. All four risk life and
>limb to find a heart, a brain, courage, and a way home only to find out
>they had them all along. They also learn midgits appear kind, but a
>clearly untrustworthy even if they are harmless. A warning I would
>have done well to heed.....
So short people must bear the brunt of your interesting attempts at
humor as well as me? *Very* tactful, ....
And obviously TWoOz is character driven, as the realm of 'Fantasy
Film' is by nature. But Hey, go ahead and ignore my point there, too.
I wouldn't want you to break tradition.
>> >Trying to prove that A2 and WotW are of the same genre by
>> >describing them in terms broad enough to include the
>> >original A1 as well (a movie that is universally accepted as
>> >an apples and oranges comparison to A2 with respect to
>> >formula and genre) only further deflates any semblance of an
>> >intelligent "case" you may have against Cameron.
>>
>> Try to take in & process the Whole Picture, now.
>> Go back & reread my posts while remembering the definition of 'action
>> movie' that i (and film historians, BTW) used.
>> And then report back. There *will* be a quiz. ; >
>But when film historians use the term they're acctually talking about
>action movies. Not movies where people are at least resperating.
>According to you even some still photographs constitute action movies.
So am I.
Remember that the very nature of B-movie fare is that of *visceral*
interest as opposed to *intellectual* interest; therefore at its very
core, all the examples of a.m. that I cite are valid. Not your
bewildering examples above.
But Hey, you've got deriding to do!
>> >ME:
>> >A little lesson for ya: The term "action movie" as its
>> >commonly used (and pertains to this discussion) implies a
>> >movie that not only emphasizes action, but has an
>> >accelerated pace and a certain degree of sensationalism...
>>
>> *That's* the key,..
>Well if you can't settle for one side of a mutually exclusive
>position.....
>> >Dude, what's the main criticism you hear about George Lucas
>> >and Steven Spielberg? That they "ruined" Hollywood by
>> >making sensationalism, lightspeed pacing, and elaborate
>> >technical effects a prerequisite for a commercially
>> >successful movie. I don't make that complaint against them,
>> >but the genre of action flicks did pretty much evolve into
>> >movies that universally contain those elements (not
>> >exclusively, mind you) immediately after the commercial
>> >success of George and Steve.
>>
>> You & i were using different definitions of 'af.' ('Duh!')
>> I use the classic (which is more distilled than yours above, BTW), but
>If by distilled you mean broad, inclusive, non-descript, or general,
>you're quite correct.
At this point, the fact that you don't follow along in my clear &
accepted definition is actually quite flattering, considering your
predilection for unwarranted attack.
>> then you throw away proper & accepted terms for a pop-cultured bias.
>> For you to discuss the laudable merits of JC over RS, you simply
>> *cannot* ignore the historically accepted definitions of *true*
>> cinematic quality.
>Like over done choreography and stunning musical numbers? Or silent
>slapstick comedy? Quality is specific and subjective to the object
>being discussed. For instance a good musical may have a gun fight, but
>a good action movie probably won't have a musical number.
'True' as in 'standardly accepted and understood by historians.'
Am I a film historian? No.
But I *do* understand the basic quality of a piece of film. In KL's &
my discussion, that would be the delineation of A1 adding up to more
than the sum of its parts (in an almost universally-accepted forum of
both film fans & film historians) over the end product of A2 being
only a fine example of screen cliches & overdone territory (a near
perfect example of a well-made shoot-em-up, trumpeted mostly by its
fans and not so much the historians...).
The term 'Quality' is most certainly *not* subjective in regards to
History. It's my opinion that A1 will be remembered as an (man, i hate
this term) important film more than A2 will ever be. But on the
subject of remembering Technically Well Made Fims, A2 may well be
remembered over A1, but that ain't my problem w/ KL; He said A2 was
'better,' remember? *That's* the issue. And the futile debate.
But Hey, don't let that stop you from meandering about your
keyboard (not that *anything* could, apparently...). I mean, you must
be up to around 25 or 30 cents worth of words by now, right?
>> And JS simply does not hold up the true and original definition of
>> 'cinematic art form.'
>> But i'll bet that's why you keep introducing the 'modern view.'
>Gone with the wind may well be a compelling story but it is not a
>compelling movie; however, it is reguarded as a treasured and reveared
>classic. I would submit that over time viewers become more and more
>sophisticated, and in the information age particularly, this pace has
>been accelerated. While once in a while it's nice to turn off ones
>brain and just kick back in the dark for some pretty colors, it's only
>worth while to make comparisons over such time frames in a statistical
>manner. Ie comparing the worst to the worst and the best to the best.
>Even the toxic avenger series, which reveals in its crapulence has more
>levels than much of Chaplain's work. In either case, the modern era is
>where we live, so to chastise someone for adopting the prevailing
>veiws, which were developed from previous popular views (ie classical),
>is simply moronic.
GWTW? I personally dislike the film, but it is most definately a
*classic* examination of human character *regardless* of the age it's
viewed in. And TToxAven is certainly less 'deep' than anything Chaplin
had done, since the filmmaker's (Troma's) intentions have always been
*stated* to have been about shock and money...
(Not that Chaplin would have been entirely seperated from monetary
interests, but after he'd made his fortune, he still made films. Why?
The art of it. He had something to say. 'Depth', you know,... Or do
you take issue with that observation as well?)
...and Chaplin's films examine human nature as its base, ergo, a
*meaningful* film. Meaningful films (interchangeable with 'classic'
films, in my definition for you there,...) are relevant thruout the
ages, so long as they speak to human interest.
A1 has *lots* of ponderables to examine & discuss. A2 has 'Just how
far was the derelict from Hadley's Hope?', and that's about all.
And i can easily tell that we are in disagreement about how
relevant the current view is in regards to film quality, so i'll let
your stance of 'comparing worst & best to their like' to contradict
your previous statement that 'quality is subjective.'
>> Heh.
>> Simply pointing out that current views aren't the forever-held ones.
>True enough, but you don't see many people claiming the Earth is the
>center of the universe any more. The old veiws don't get a great deal
>of replay, except on oldies stations.
Facts stay relevant. No the Earth isn't the center of the universe,
but quality films are still quality films.
Or was that supposed to be diversionary? Or an insult? Or God forbid,
'clever'?
>> >These delusional mischaracterizations parallel those you
>> >make about my comments on Hitchcock's work. See below.
>>
>> Don't try to duck it, buddy; the point i made was that without your
>> qualifier of 'current view,' JC's work shows itself to be only
>> technically adept, and as artistic as any assembly-line 'product,'
>I find litheographs of 'waterlilies' to be quite artistic. Oddly,
>you've already mentioned if not outrightly commended Jamed Cameron's
>originality. In an inronic twist Henry Ford, father of the assembly
>line and mass production was something of a pioneer. So in a certain
>point of view you're argument isn't self defeating, it's self
>contradicting. I like that, it's original.
Yeah, you're Right! I *did* say JC's Original!
No, wait,...
What i *really* said was JC's 'technically adept,' not 'creative.'
I'll be sure to spell it out for you next time.
But Hey, don't let little things like 'facts' keep you from making
another attempt at clever derision!
But Wait! Maybe you're saying that Modern Mechanisation *IS* 'Art'!
GeeWhiz, Mr. Esq, you're *so* 'dada', how can you *stand* yourself?
>> >Nice dodge. Regardless of the quality of the two asteroid
>> >flicks, they perfectly reflect how plot alone does not an
>> >action film make.
>>
>> No dodge, in light of my (and most others) def. of 'af.'
>Is your definition of 'most' as accurate as your definition of
>'distilled'?
'There's that buzzing again!'
>> Both had the L-or-D struggle inherent.
>> And you know i was poking at your 'First is Best' mentality re: Jimmy
>> & A2, right?
>> Well, i was.
>First is first. And while it might not be best, it certainly tends to
>be more enjoyable than last.
More Philosophy moots, there?
>> >Oh that's right, ALIEN wasn't an action flick, it was one of
>> >those fabled "active" movies.
>>
>> I'll withhold the 'blowme' there,..
>Right, you don't want to be too demanding when it comes to oral sex,
>right out of the gate like that. It's a goal to work up to....
'What part of 'retort observant of sarcastic insult' don't you
understand there?'
>> >Dismiss his work? "Brilliant filmmaker for his time?"
>>
>> In *any* age, dismissal is idiotic.
>Ok this is fairly ammusing here.....watchout for the irony, you're
>standing in it.
Try to remain contextual, there,...
Dismissing *Hitchcock* is idiotic.
*Surely* you knew that.
Unless-
You were only itching to make another attempt at clever derision.
Ain't that cute!
I mean, you *did* say in another thread that Dickens wasn't your fave;
You're obviously more of a Byron kind of guy,...
>> >WTF?!?!?!?!?!? I said Hitchcock's movies suck compared to
>> >the most "intense and nailbiting movies of the last three
>> >decades." ID4???? Godzilla???? What the hell are you
>> >talking about?!? I was referring to movies like The
>> >Shining, Amityville Horror, and The Exorcist (hear that
>> >Cov?)
>>
>> You're drunk or lying.
>> That was all about AH: read it yourself. No mention of other directors
>> or films.
>> 'Loss of credibility points: Kev!'
>I'm not sure if this is getting funny haha or funny sad....
'And the cleverness just keeps on coming!'
Or more aptly, flapping,...
>> >"Throw money at it, & that'll make it better?" Who in God's
>> >name are you quoting? I never said *anything* to that
>> >effect...
>>
>> Troller.
>> And unless you admit to this fallacy on your part, then we are *done.*
>But you haven't got your oral sex yet....btw you must find a faq that
>discribes trolling, I'll refer you to alt.religion.kibology. They will
>help you, by example if nothing else.
Trolling was addressed above.
And as for your astounding number of references to sex, well, may i
suggest you seek a professional?
You're getting quite tiring, now,...
What it *really* was was a backpedalling on his part due to the fact
that A) he realised that knocking down Hitch was both stupid &
unnecessary to the argument at hand, and B) *it was not relevant to
our discussion of Hitchcock!*
But Hey, that money's piling up from your keyboard, now, rightt?
>> >... there's not
>> >really much more to say. I recognize the man as an integral
>> >piece in the history of film, but he just laid the
>> >foundation for great cinematic suspense. Others (Cameron and
>> >Scott included) have built cinematic structures on the
>> >cornerstone of Hitchcock's work that have achieved much
>> >higher degrees of intensity and terror. I mean, Henry Ford
>> >will always be "the man" when it comes to automobiles, but
>> >if you did a side by side comparison of an old T-Bird and a
>> >1999 Audi A6 Quattro, the T-Bird becomes laughable...
>>
>> Once again you exemplify your ridiculous bias for the new & against
>> the forebear. See my ridiculing re: pop-culture above.
>That's like claiming: "old buildings are better because they have worn
>artifices that at one time were impressive, and common, where modern
>buildings have a purity, clarity, and playfulness with geometry that
>could hardly be drempt of while serving their occupants more expertly
>and safely." while certain people certainly have that veiw, one
>would hardly claim that it was a majority (as googs does) since if it
>was a market economy it would dictate that similar structures be
>constructed and older ones be preserved, yet the opposite happens.
>Puzzling.....or not.
*Now*, i can safely call you out as an idiot.
Your metaphors are as mixed as your drinks, apparently...
What is the purpose of Historic Landmarks Foundations?
To preserve buildings which have meaning to people, not to keep people
jailed in those buildings. When a buildings usefulness is outgrown,
those occupants move on. Sometimes to an old bldg., sometimes to a new
one. No matter.
But so long as that old building has relevance to people and
usefulness, it stands and is occupied. Just like historic films still
stand, and occupy seating.
To hear you jabber on above, you seem to say that nothing but new
is fitful & best. If so, you're as myopic & deluded as KL in matters
of the importance of 'new' over 'old.'
And easily as dismissable.
But as an excercise to tie together our metaphors for ng consumption,
i'll say:
A1 was a building of many rooms, much like the gothic mansions of
yore, whose darkened rooms held secrets & mysteries, while A2 was a
glass house, transparent of intent, with a few weak floorboards for
shock value.
See? *I* can be poetical, too!
>> >... I
>> >realize that the tone of my comments about AH was
>> >unnecessarily harsh (having to explain the same damn points
>> >over and over can get a little annoying) but I hope you can
>> >better understand what I was getting at.
>>
>> Yes.
>> I understand that you're a troll or a liar if you say you did anything
>> other than totally dismiss AH's current worth in your 2nd to last
>> posting.
>Psst. If he's a troll. Then you and I have lost. As has everyone
>else on this thread...
Exactly.
>... Are you saying we should 'Have a Nice Day'?...
Not by a longshot, pal.
>...Also, and expert fisherman, ie troll(er) will cast his line a little as
>possible to get fish to jump in his boat. If Kevin is a troller he's
>the hardest working one on the net. So Kudos to him and his fisherman
>dad's work ethic.
And that's just what he did, as per my quoting of his initiating post
above.
What the heck; I hate idol-worshippers...
>> >If you have a problem with the fact that I didn't find
>> >Psycho the least bit scary (having first watched it after
>> >seeing the truly frightening supernatural horror movies of
>> >the seventies and the first two Alien films) then get over
>> >it.
>>
>> Uhh, no.
>> What i *am* over is this ridiculous conversation.
>Well thanks for contributing. Oddly I've only seen news reading
>software with post buttons. I think I would find your software, or at
>least its 'Not Post' button a bit tiresome. You have options, there is
>no need to suffer any longer.
God knows your fingers must bleed from your endless verbosity...
>> >So tell me googs, what's *your* excuse for this completely
>> >off-the-wall statement?
>>
>> Well, since, according to my ng cache, you pulled this from somewhere
>> other than my last re:. you tell me.
>> And don't f*ck with the context of my posts, pal.
>Or he'll steal all the U's. Then we'll all be wearing N'derware and
>people with think we've succumb to some arcane German Tommie Hilfiger
>clone virtually assuring an invasion by french-canadians. He is NOT to
>be triffled with. I'm not just scared for me, I'm scared for Deja
>News. South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut: A film about foul mouthed
>eight year olds or misinterpritation of the apocalyps, you make the
>call!
I dunno, but i *think* you're attempting another 'clever' barb,
there,...
>> >My feet are just fine, googs. I never said that Aliens will
>> >be remembered as the "classic" of the series. I just said
>> >it was a better film than ALIEN. How is that possible?
>> >Take a look at the Star Wars saga. There are few films in
>> >history that have so changed the medium the way STAR WARS
>> >did. It is a classic in every sense of the word and will be
>> >revered for as long as the artform exists. But you know
>> >what? The Empire Strikes Back is pretty much universally
>> >accepted as a superior film on every level of artistic and
>> >technical production. To a somewhat lesser degree, my
>> >position has been that the same holds true in comparing
>> >Aliens to its classic predecessor.
>>
>> 'And *that* is why you fail...' - Yoda
>> You do not see or uderstand true cinematic 'art,' and its inherent
>> worth over technical perfection.
>Which you've defined as old. So I can only assume your primary gauge
>of a films merit is by appearent lack of contrast control. You
>certainly haven't been specific enough to suggest otherwise.
Which you, and *only* you, i might add, have read as my definition of
'old.'
*Do* try to stop typing for a while and actually *retain* some of what
you read...
>I guess a rotoscope of hieroglyphics would be a cinimatic experiance so
>compelling you'd loose all bladder control. And that's fine, I'm not
>here to judge. I'm just a member of the jury.
A jury of one, i point out,...
>> And that's why i'm now done with you.
>> (Unless of course i have to correct your myopic translations of what i
>> say again, that is,...)
>I guess US naval cryptographers were fortunate the Japanese didn't have
>a matched set of you circa 194x. JN 25c my ass!
Your self-congratulatory cleverness attempts are bordering on the
mythic.
What's the matter, Bunky? Didn't yer Momma Love you enough?
>> >P.S. Covenant: it appears that you developed the same
>> >misconceptions about my personal tastes that googs did. I
>> >hope I gave you a better understanding of where I was coming
>> >from (not to say that you'd agree of course.)
>>
>> As a final parting word, 'FY.'
>> You said it just like i answered to, oh Troll-or-liar...
>> And you're obviously 'coming from' an untenable position...
>and by untenable you mean 'of clarity'?
Yeah, Sure, Whatever you say,...
>Let this be a lesson to all of you. When you by someone a word of the
>day calander, don't buy a knock off, spring for the real deal, the one
>that includes the definitions too. We of usenet will thank you for it.
Well, at least my calendar would show me the correct spellings of
those words,...
(Oooh, sorry! Not 'clever', but Hey! I'm just an idiot, anyway,
right?)
ADWatts
Kevin Lamb said:
<Clipping most of a fine post.>
> While I was "inviting" someone to disagree, I sure as hell
> wasn't trolling. Trolling is more malicious and divisive.
> I really was looking forward to engaging in a stimulating
> discourse about one of my favorite movies and lightly blew
> off the first couple of "flame posts." One of them, by Adam
> Cameron, I later realized was quite insightful, so I went
> back and addressed it more specifically. Again, since the
> whole point of my initial post was to stimulate discussion,
> I allowed myself a degree of sarcasm and argumentativeness
> (hope that's a word) in my first few responses. My last
> couple of posts on this thread were thoughtful, serious
> rants about my own personal reasons for preferring A2 and
> Cameron's work, and they got no response. That was all well
> and cool (as I thought the thread was winding down anyway)
> but not what I was hoping for when the thread started.
Well . . . I was willing to let dead horses lie . . . but
as long as you put it that way, I have a few extra
minutes today. :-)
If you were looking for a reaction -- that's what you
would've gotten from me. But it probably would've
been unnecessarily nasty on my part, and that's
why I decided to let it sit for a few days before
answering. I'll admit it: sometimes my love for
certain "things" can blind me to everything else.
And I *love* Alien. (OK, jokesters, have your fun
with that one! :-) )
But then it became appearent that Covenant,
Adam Cameron, and Googs had countered your
posts quite nicely, in a variety of ways. ;-) So I
thought that throwing in my opinion would simply
get redundant. But what the hell, that's another
flaw of mine: I can be redundant with the best of
them!
So the follow is my take on your posts as a
whole, and I'll try to address some specific
points that I remember. (This thread did get a
bit mind-numbing, so forgive me if I can't recall
everything.)
To be honest, I thought you might be a movie
"moron" when I read your first post. Sorry about
that, I was wrong. While I don't agree with all
of your cinematic viewpoints (that would be
boring, eh?) you have shown that you're quite
knowledgable and have at least thought about
these things thoroughly. So in that sense, I
can respect your opinions. If you believe that
Aliens/James Cameron is "better" than Alien/
Ridley Scott than that's fine with me.
But stating it as fact (and I hope you see the
changing of the subject header as the joke
that it is) is where you'll get people's blood
boiling. I know it's a pain in the ass (and
extremely tiring) to be PC, but it doesn't hurt
to throw in the occassional IMO in this type
of forum. (Although that's obvious, as some
poster recently had to "remind" us.) If you
had put a "?" at the end of your header, I
think you'd have recieved a much better,
and more intellectual, response. Then again,
I could just be full of shit -- who knows? :D
BTW, yes, I did see the "(heehee)" and other
touches of humor in the post itself. But the
subject title had already biased me to anything
you really had to say *at that moment*. I'm
not trying to tell you how to write posts, and
I'm certainly not trying to put you down; I'm
just letting you know my personal reaction.
Now that that's out of the way, a few specific
points --
Was Cameron's job harder than Scott's?
If you simply look at the number of tasks each
one took on, then the answer is "yes." But
others have already addressed the inheritant
problems/advantages concerning that topic.
The reason that I think the answer is "no" is
because Scott had a much more difficult
genre to work with. Cameron made a pure
action flick at the height of that genre's
popularity. He certainly deserves a lot of
credit for making what I believe is *THE*
best action picture of all-time. It's no
contest. Aliens is a *GREAT* movie. No
agrument from me there! However, he
was helped by the current climate in
Hollywood, which suited his style.
Now, during the 70's there was a nice
"renaissanse" of high quality horror films.
The Exorcist, The Omen, Halloween,
Rosemary's Baby, and Jaws are all movies
that I admire. Some people consider films
like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The
Amityville Horror as classics. (I like them, but
I think they're "flawed".) So in one way you
could make a valid claim that Alien was
made during a popular time for horror movies.
But . . . look at the movies above. We have
four films dealing with "The Devil/Evil Incarnate",
two with "The Maniac Killer(s)", and one very
nasty shark. Can you name *one* single
quality, scary film that featured a "realistic"
"monster" before Alien? Monster movies were
(and basically still are) a joke. They could be
fun, amusing, or even truly entertaining at
times, but scary?
OK, maybe during their time, *some* people
got scared by *some* films. I think it's
"Invasion From Mars" which supposedly
scared the crap out of Stephen King. But
even that was due more to circumstances
(which are suspect ;D ) then what was
necassarily on the screen. (The USSR
reaching space first with Sputnik.) The
point is that none of them seemed very
"realistic." The only film that would come
close (that I can think of off the top of
my head) is War of the Worlds. But they
kind of blew it all at the end.
In the same way that Alien actually
"blows it" in the end. The shot of the alien
hanging out the shuttle was *poor*. It's
really the only time in the whole movie
where you can dismiss it as something
"silly." Up to that point, though, it is one
*scary*, *realistic* bastard of a monster.
Something which was completely
unexpected for that time (1979). And
hasn't been equaled since, IMO.
The credit goes to both Giger and
Scott (and, of course, without O'Bannon
we wouldn't be talking at all) for creating
a creature that was so "real." Giger's
designed is *what* scared us, but it
was Scott's direction which led to *why*
we were scared.
As far as I'm concerned, creating a
believable movie "monster" was far
more difficult than *anything* that
Cameron did in Aliens. It was a
fucking miracle, if you'll excuse my
language for a moment. And I'll be
thanking *all* of those involved in
making Alien (the best cinematic
experience of my life) until the day
I die. Aliens is a great "ride" with
plenty of nice thrills and lots of "neat"
things to look at, but I prefer the
genuine *terror* that Alien bestowed
upon me.
Ah, but you didn't think Alien was scary,
did you? Man, I feel sorry for you. And
I mean that sincerly, not in a patronizing
way. I wish I could share with you the
absolute terror I felt while watching Alien,
and which lingered with me for weeks
afterward. I *still* have one or two
nightmares a year about Alien. The
difference is that I enjoy that scare now,
but as a twelve year old they simply had
me afraid to even close my eyes.
Which brings us to the point you tried
to make in a couple of different ways.
Actually, more of a question --
Is it scarier to be with one (hiding)
alien or many (attacking) aliens. No
brainer, the one. This is the one
point that you make which I just can't
understand at all. The fear of the
unknown is far more powerful then
facing something (no matter how
"scary") that you have some
knowledge about. Unless you're
talking about a specific phobia
(xenophobia, perhaps ;-) ), I dare
you to find a single psychologist
or psychiatrist that would disagree
with that. In fact, overcoming phobias
is partly about "facing your fears" just
like Ripley does in Aliens. That's one
of the reasons I don't buy the
"weak-ass-oh-please-kill-me" Ripley
in Alien3.
But, that's more of an issue of opinion,
so we'll never get anywhere will we. What
scares me, might not scare you, and
vice versa. Just a quick example, from
my point of view.
I lived in Arizona for 5 years, and we had
*lots* of roaches in our house. *LOTS* of
them! I hate the little bastards, and yes I
*fear* them. That's the one phobia of mine I
haven't conquered. Even though I *know*
almost everything you can know about
these filthy critters, they still scare the
crap out of me. But . . . if I can *see* it
it's not so bad. I'll try to get it and kill it.
What really creeps me out is when I can
hear one "rustling" around in some corner
but I can't find the damn thing! That's when
my imagination goes into overdrive I start
worrying about will happen if I can't find
it. Will I wake up with the damn thing
on my face? (Which happens!) Will I
find it in my cereal? Or maybe my shoe,
*after* I put it on? It's the uncertainty
which terrorizes me.
I know, I know. How can I compare an
itsy, bitsy bug with a seven foot drooling
killing machine. The point is -- I'd rather
have the alien in front of me and *know*
what it is (yes, I'm going to die), then
have it creeping around who knows
where doing who knows what (and I'm
still going to end up dead).
Well, my time is more than up (my God,
can I ramble on or what?) so I need to
wrap up without bringing up all the topics
I wanted to.
I love both films, Alien and Aliens. People
ask me, "What's your favorite movie?" I
say, "Alien and Aliens." In all truth, I
would be hard pressed to choose one
*completely* over the other because they
both offer a *completely* different
experience. However, let's say I'm on
board the Minnow heading for the
proverbial "deserted island" and I can
take only *one* movie -- it would have to
be Alien.
I saw Alien first. (First love is the best. :D)
I prefer gothic horror to action. I hate
one-liners and I hate the queen. And . . .
*I* think Alien is the better film overall.
If you're not asleep by now, I'd be more
than happy to keeping kicking around
this dead horse *if* I get the time. I think
I understand your position well enough
now so that I can remain civil. :-)
Hoping I bored noone to *death* . . .
ADWatts
go...@happyland.com
y'know), i suppose i should reply...
(*Man,* this dead horse is sure getting some miles added up
post-mortem,...)
<snips>
Kevin Lamb <kevinlamb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Since I've learned that engaging googs in a harmless
>discourse about 13 to 20 year old films on an anonymous
>newsgroup is an exercise in mind-numbing futility, I'm not
>about to jump back in to address any of googs' (ahem)
>"points."
'Harmless discourse'?!
KL's delivery in these matters has been nothing short of rude,
condescending and obnoxious, this time around moreso than last time
around, so basically i said 'FY, ya little prick. If it's a
Cameron-kissin'-parade yer after, then *i'll* be the one to rain on
it.'
>I will, however, clarify one thing: The point of me
>starting this thread. A couple of months ago, me, Covenant,
>and googs had a pretty good-natured debate about which Alien
>film was better...
Not really 'good natured', i'd say, as KL was a bit of a prick even
then...
>... As it was drawing to a close, I ordered a
>computer and cancelled my Webtv account. Since the
>discussion ended with some points hanging, I thought I'd
>start up the debate again, just for the fun of it...
Now, to *me* it seemed that since KL got no big ruckus stirred up
*last* time around, he crawled back to the dark from where he came,
only to surface again with that crap about 'better than.' Smells like
a troll to me.
>... So
>instead of just posting a long diatribe of why I liked A2
>best, chalk-full of "IMHO" disclaimers, that wouldn't lend
>themselves to any discussion or debate whatsoever, I thought
>I'd post my thoughts as a friendly challenge...
'Friendly'?! Heh. History is truly a construct of the Writer,
apparently...
His 'friendliness' seems to include some *strange* abrasive wording,
as seen in other, later posts...
>... Let's look at
>a couple of statements from my original post, recently
>quoted by googs:
>>>Obviously, I can't tell anyone which film to like best
>(nor would I want to.) But I can definitely prove (heh heh)
>that beyond a shadow of a doubt, Jim Cameron accomplished a
>much greater cinematic feat than Ridley Scott, and made a
>film that was flat out better.
'Flat out' is an authoritative position, and simply indefensible.
I felt like my job, in the matter, was to deflate JC, and that's what
i was trying to do. Silly me for sticking my nose into such an idiotic
inflammatory mess to begin with.
>Now, I think I've addressed why Cameron succeeded in a much
>more difficult cinematic endeavor than Scott but I
>*obviously* cannot prove that Cameron made a better film,
>since that's totally subjective; I assumed that the "heh
>heh" would reflect the tongue-in-cheek tone I posted that
>particular statement in. Covenant seemed to get the joke,
>and I mistakenly assumed googs would as well, as again, the
>three of us had a very intelligent and friendly debate about
>the EXACT SAME SUBJECT a couple of months earlier.
'Tolerant' is the more appropriate adjective from my view, even then.
>While I was "inviting" someone to disagree, I sure as hell
>wasn't trolling. Trolling is more malicious and divisive...
With the wording of 'flat out better,' *that's* indefensible, and
outright inflammatory, which are both earmarks of a troll.
And 'Malicious and divisive' sure seems to describe your attitude to
my replies, pal.
>...I really was looking forward to engaging in a stimulating
>discourse...
I would yell BS, but that's only an opinion...
And if you *did* only desire that, you sure worded your opening
statement poorly. AAMOF, it was worded as a challenge, and that's
inflammatory in itself, 'heh heh''s or not.
>... about one of my favorite movies and lightly blew
>off the first couple of "flame posts." One of them, by Adam
>Cameron, I later realized was quite insightful, so I went
>back and addressed it more specifically. Again, since the
>whole point of my initial post was to stimulate discussion,
>I allowed myself a degree of sarcasm and argumentativeness
>(hope that's a word) in my first few responses....
Y'know, i was gonna point that out...
It seems that after a 3rd party (Cov) took you to task for your
dismissal of Hitch, your derisive attitude, sarcasm, and condescension
towards me softened.
Almost as if...
*You realised you were being a prick!*
Too late.
*Especially* since you seem to be extra 'P.C.' in your most recent
posts...
>... My last
>couple of posts on this thread were thoughtful, serious
>rants about my own personal reasons for preferring A2 and
>Cameron's work, and they got no response. That was all well
>and cool (as I thought the thread was winding down anyway)
>but not what I was hoping for when the thread started.
Hm.
>Anyway, I have enjoyed reading and discussing points with
>most of the people on this thread, and only *one* person got
>all bent out of shape (for totally random reasons,) so I'm
>for the most part happy with the results.
Heh. Hehheh. Ha Ha Ha! LOL!!!!
'Random', huh?!
Of course you're *totally* innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever, huh?
Yeah, you were the *most* kind, polite and civil guy on the ng...
That calls for the proverbial 'Blowme.'
>I shake my head at the googs stuff, mostly because it was
>just a waste of time. To be drawn in to any further
>discussions with him regarding taste, film terms, or simple
>terms of debate would be a grueling and never-ending
>exercise in tedium...
Now *that's* where the true insulter shows himself.
While i certainly didn't conduct a debate in the standardly accepted
rules ('Duh!'),
*it wasn't a debatable subject to begin with!!*
That's where i personally went wrong; fighting indefensibility with
indefensibility (the fact that i was simply dismissing JC's work as
inevitable occurrence or a case of 'chicken-before-the-egg'), and not
leaving an idiotically worded post alone.
(Not to mention calling your cards when you denied saying anything
about 'making a better movie than Hitch did, given $50mil.'; another
trollish behavior, IMEstimation...)
If, KL, you were indeed interested in a discussion of your beliefs,
IMO you would've worded things *much* better, and left room for
other's opinions to naturally come into the discussion, *not* open
things up by saying effectively 'JC's better than RScott!', which is
basically what you'd done. A *true* interest in opening up an actual
discussion is, to me, shown by *asking* for opinions to counter your
own beliefs, certainly *not* jumping outta the gate basically with
your fists up sayin' 'My directors bigger than Your director!', and
*then* continuing to ignore the usual course of *asking* me what i ws
talking about instead of verbally hitting me. Your inappropriate and
abrasive attitude was noticed by others on this ng besides me, as has
been recently stated, so i'm not imagining things. You acted like a
jerk, so, in my book, that means you get treated like a jerk.
And one can't discuss taste.
And one can't have a debate without ground rules, and defining things
is a basic ground rule. Yours and my definitions of things are
apparently quite different, but FY for saying that my definitions of
film terminology aren't appropriate or applicable. There's more than
one dictionary of laguage, right? Well, so are there different
interpretations of terminology, and mine are quite acceptable.
And 'tedium' is a viewpoint, not the act of growing to understand
anothers position. And considering your standoffish opening salvo,
it's all too painfully obvious where you stand on the subject of
'understanding,' and therefore why you consider such an act 'tedious.'
>... I have nothing personal against you,
>googs, and for however long I hang out on the ng, I hope we
>can at least call it a "truce" with regard to future
>threads. If not, oh well.
You should've thought of all that before you condescended to me in the
first place.
Kevin Lamb
>SNIP<
Ha, nice post, troll. LOL! Just kidding. Thanks for the
great reply, I don't have the time to respond to it right
now, but I will soon enough. And don't sell yourself short
bud, your posts are anything but boring. Whether I agree or
disagree with your points, they're always interesting to
read.
kevin...@hotmail.com
originally opened this response with some…disparaging…remarks to reflect
my thoughts on you, your posts to me, and your posts to others, but my
gut just told me to put a stop to the sarcasm and condescending remarks,
and after getting it out of my system, I deleted what I wrote. However,
I still feel compelled to reply.
Googs said:
>Kevin Lamb <kevinlamb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Since I've learned that engaging googs in a harmless discourse about
>>13 to 20 year old films on an anonymous newsgroup is an exercise in
>>mind-numbing futility, I'm not about to jump back in to address any of
>>googs' (ahem) "points."
>'Harmless discourse'?!
Tell me, googs, how have you been harmed?
>KL's delivery in these matters has been nothing short of rude,
>condescending and obnoxious…
As I have already stated, I was in the mood to have a discussion about
A1 and A2, but three things contributed to the tone of my initial post.
1. You, me, and Cov already had a long discussion about this subject so
I thought you guys might need some extra incentive to start all over
again (ie: the challenge.) 2. When I checked out the ng after a two
month hiatus, I noticed that a similar thread titled "Which is the best
film?" or something like that was just winding to a close and I thought
the odds of a new discussion starting up so late in the thread were
pretty slim. 3. I was just in a slightly mischievous mood at the time.
>…this time around moreso than last time around, so basically i said
>'FY, ya little prick.
I simply am at a loss as to why you say this. I was pretty much
expecting you and Cov to "call my bluff" with regard to my claim that I
could *prove* that Cameron made a better film than Scott. Whether you
choose to admit it or not, we *did* have a pretty stimulating discussion
about A1 and A2 that was *quite* friendly, as I will prove below.
>If it's a Cameron-kissin'-parade yer after, then *i'll* be the one to
>rain on it.'
Let's say I *was* after a Cameron kissing parade. Why do you care?
Let's say I *was* the drooling Cameron fan you accuse me of being. How
could that possibly harm you in any way? If you don't like what I
write, don't read my posts. Turn off your computer and I cease to exist
for you. Do you realize how silly you look by losing you temper in an
anonymous discussion on usenet?
>>I will, however, clarify one thing: The point of me starting this
>>thread. A couple of months ago, me, Covenant, and googs had a pretty
>>good-natured debate about which Alien film was better...
>Not really 'good natured', i'd say, as KL was a bit of a prick even
>then...
Okay googs, you really blew it here. Ever heard of the Power Search
option on Dejanews? I have. And here's an excerpt from one of your
posts to me on the thread ALIEN vs ALIENS from the month of May:
GOOGS: "Sure, quality demands respect in any field, but i was just
reinforcing your statement (paraphrased) that you had said you liked war
movies, and that that almost nullifies any 'opinion' you may have re:
A2. But i do recognize that you are making logical points to qualify
your views. And nicely!"
Now here's one from Covenant to me:
COV: "This is such a breath of fresh air for this NG. Guys contrasting,
comparing, disagreeing, agreeing debateing discussing.... And not a
*You're stupid because..*comment in sight! (Well... except that one!)
Keep posting your thoughts Kev. I might not agree with some of them,
but I certainly respect the way you put them over!"
Hmmm. Sounds pretty good-natured to me. If I was in a more accusing
mood, I'd be tempted to call you a liar hoping to add credibility to
your "Kevin is a troll" argument by suggesting I have a history of
malicious behavior. But I won't. Instead, I'll simply ask: Why the
180 degree about-face googs?
>>... As it was drawing to a close, I ordered a computer and cancelled
>>my Webtv account. Since the discussion ended with some points
>>hanging, I thought I'd start up the debate again, just for the fun of
>>it...
>Now, to *me* it seemed that since KL got no big ruckus stirred up
>*last* time around, he crawled back to the dark from where he came,
>only to surface again with that crap about 'better than.' Smells like a
>troll to me.
See above.
>>... So instead of just posting a long diatribe of why I liked A2
>>best, chalk-full of "IMHO" disclaimers, that wouldn't lend themselves
>>to any discussion or debate whatsoever I thought I'd post my thoughts
>>as a friendly challenge...
>'Friendly'?! Heh. History is truly a construct of the Writer,
>apparently...His 'friendliness' seems to include some *strange*
>abrasive wording, as seen in other, later posts...
Well, googs, I wasn't talking about later posts. When someone who
you're expecting to act friendly and cordial gets totally bent out of
shape and starts belittling your opinions with totally unfounded
accusations, continued "friendliness" is sure put to the test.
>>... Let's look at a couple of statements from my original post,
>>recently quoted by googs:
>>>Obviously, I can't tell anyone which film to like best (nor would I
>>>want to.) But I can definitely prove (heh heh) that beyond a shadow
>>>of a doubt, Jim Cameron accomplished a much greater cinematic feat
>>>than Ridley Scott, and made a film that was flat out better.
>'Flat out' is an authoritative position, and simply indefensible. I
>felt like my job, in the matter, was to deflate JC, and that's what i
>was trying to do. Silly me for sticking my nose into such an idiotic
>inflammatory mess to begin with.
Your *job* was to deflate JC? Is Ridley Scott paying you to trumpet him
as the greatest director of the Alien series? Have you been
commissioned to put anyone who considers Cameron better than Scott "in
their place?" Trust me, googs, RS is doing just fine without you having
to mount a crusade against the evil Jim Cameron fans.
>>Covenant seemed to get the joke, and I mistakenly assumed googs would
>>as well, as again, the three of us had a very intelligent and friendly
>>debate about the EXACT SAME SUBJECT a couple of months earlier.
>'Tolerant' is the more appropriate adjective from my view, even then.
GOOGS: "Heehee! I love this thread!"
Pretty enthusiastic way to convey your mere "tolerance" for me back in
May. Oh, and if you feel that I have quoted you out of context, I'll be
more than happy to reprint your entire post.
Here's how you closed your final post to me on the thread:
GOOGS: "This has been very nice a discussion, but frankly, i'm tired of
this thread! : P ; ) ; ) ; ) It's hard for me to keep a train of
thought going for many days in a logical manner...Besides, my fingers
are blistered!! : > It's been very nice chatting!! See ya later (Or in
reply to a confusing bit above, i suppose! ; ) ) !"
Care to restate your "adjectives" regarding our last discussion?
>>While I was "inviting" someone to disagree, I sure as hell wasn't
>>trolling. Trolling is more malicious and divisive...
>With the wording of 'flat out better,' *that's* indefensible, and
>outright inflammatory, which are both earmarks of a troll. And
>'Malicious and divisive' sure seems to describe your attitude to my
>replies, pal.
There's only one statement that I truly regret typing. Its this one:
"Why am I tempted to mention that sticking your head in your ass to
avoid the inevitable is no valid defense of RS?" An insult like that
just isn't my style, and I seriously contemplated whether or not I
should post it. In the end, I went ahead with it, but phrased it in the
form of a question to "soften" the insult a little. A futile attempt
indeed, and I apologize, as that only added fuel to the fire.
>>...I really was looking forward to engaging in a stimulating
>>discourse...
>I would yell BS, but that's only an opinion...And if you *did* only
>desire that, you sure worded your opening statement poorly. AAMOF, it
>was worded as a challenge, and that's inflammatory in itself, 'heh
>heh''s or not.
So any challenge is an outrage to you? If someone said "Hey [whatever
your real name is], I bet I can beat you at Space Invaders" would you
punch him in the mouth?
>>... about one of my favorite movies and lightly blew off the first
>>couple of "flame posts." One of them, by Adam Cameron, I later
>>realized was quite insightful, so I went back and addressed it more
>>specifically. Again, since the whole point of my initial post was to
>>stimulate discussion, I allowed myself a degree of sarcasm and
>>argumentativeness (hope that's a word) in my first few responses....
>Y'know, i was gonna point that out...It seems that after a 3rd party
>(Cov) took you to task for your dismissal of Hitch,…
Took me to task? Yeah, either that or he just expressed why he
disagreed with my opinion of AH's work.
>…. your derisive attitude, sarcasm, and condescension towards me
>softened.
Sorry, googs. Unlike you, my irritation with others has it limits. I
don't hold grudges very long, and I simply decided that I couldn't be
bothered with continuing our "conversation."
>Almost as if...*You realized you were being a prick!* Too late.
>*Especially* since you seem to be extra 'P.C.' in your most recent
>posts...
Okay, let me get this straight. You claim that I maliciously tried to
cause a ruckus in May by posting my thoughts on JC and A2. Then, when I
saw that people weren't getting as pissed off as I had hoped, I
"disappeared into the shadows," paid $1,000 for a computer to "explain"
why I was no longer trolling with my webtv, then resurfaced with my
secret weapon: MY OUTRIGHT DECLARATION THAT A2 WAS BETTER THAN A1.
After dropping this bombshell of doom on the ng, I continued to
deliberately attack the regulars with biting sarcasm and crippling
insults. Then, at the peak of my trolling success, I had a revelation
from God that "I was being a prick," and went on a crusade to heal the
innocent and undo the damage and suffering that I caused in my
blistering rampage of Cameron-worshipping destruction.
Must….fight…..the…urge…..to…..say….something…..condescending…….
Whew, okay, I'm better now. Uh googs, let me simply say, "I think
you've mischaracterized my intentions."
>>... My last couple of posts on this thread were thoughtful, serious
>>rants about my own personal reasons for preferring A2 and Cameron's
>>work, and they got no response. That was all well and cool (as I
>>thought the thread was winding down anyway) but not what I was hoping
>>for when the thread started.
>Hm.
Yeah, think about that googs.
>>Anyway, I have enjoyed reading and discussing points with most of the
>>people on this thread, and only *one* person got all bent out of shape
>>(for totally random reasons,) so I'm for the most part happy with the
>>results.
>Heh. Hehheh. Ha Ha Ha! LOL!!! 'Random', huh?
Getting pissed off because someone expresses an opinion contrary to
yours in a subject so trivial as movie preferences is about as random as
you can get.
>Of course you're *totally* innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever, huh?
>Yeah, you were the *most* kind, polite and civil guy on the ng...
Did I ever claim to be the most kind, polite, and civil guy on the ng?
Didn't think so.
>That calls for the proverbial 'Blowme.'
And that calls for an emphatic "No thanks, I'm straight."
>>I shake my head at the googs stuff, mostly because it was just a waste
>>of time. To be drawn in to any further discussions with him regarding
>>taste, film terms, or simple terms of debate would be a grueling and
>>never-ending exercise in tedium...
>Now *that's* where the true insulter shows himself. While i certainly
>didn't conduct a debate in the standardly accepted rules ('Duh!'), *it
>wasn't a debatable subject to begin with!!* That's where i personally
>went wrong; fighting indefensibility with indefensibility (the fact
>that i was simply dismissing JC's work as inevitable occurrence or a
>case of 'chicken-before-the-egg'), and not leaving an idiotically
>worded post alone.
No, where you went wrong was taking a simple debate about movies so
personally.
>(Not to mention calling your cards when you denied saying anything
>about 'making a better movie than Hitch did, given $50mil.'; another
>trollish behavior, IMEstimation...)
Sorry googs. Wrong again. I *could* make a better film than AH (yes
googs, IMO.) What I was denying was your actual quote "Throw money at
it and make it better," which was a complete fabrication or a total
misinterpretation of what I said. I'll leave it up in the air as to
your reasons for the paraphrased "quote."
>If, KL, you were indeed interested in a discussion of your beliefs,
>IMO you would've worded things *much* better, and left room for other's
>opinions to naturally come into the discussion, *not* open things up by
>saying effectively 'JC's better than RScott!', which is basically what
>you'd done.
I've already addressed why I phrased the post the way I did.
>A *true* interest in opening up an actual discussion is, to me, shown
>by *asking* for opinions to counter your own beliefs, certainly *not*
>jumping outta the gate basically with your fists up sayin' 'My
>directors bigger than Your director!', and *then* continuing to ignore
>the usual course of *asking* me what was talking about instead of
>verbally hitting me.
Hey, based on our past discussions, I was expecting a little cordiality
from you googs, and when you jumped onto the thread with hostility and
putdowns it kind of threw me off. For whatever inappropriate behavior I
exhibited at any point in this thread, I apologize. I'm done with
arguing.
>Your inappropriate and abrasive attitude was noticed by others on this
>ng besides me, as has been recently stated, so i'm not imagining
>things. You acted like a jerk, so, in my book, that means you get
>treated like a jerk.
You know googs, every single "flame war" I've witnessed on this ng has
involved you. Could it *possibly* be that *I'm* not the jerk here?
>And one can't discuss taste. And one can't have a debate without
>ground rules, and defining things is a basic ground rule. Yours and my
>definitions of things are apparently quite different, but FY for saying
>that my definitions of film terminology aren't appropriate or
>applicable.
F**k me for saying *what*? Here's a quote from you from earlier in the
thread:
GOOGS: "Your 'personal definition' is so obviously skewed to support
youself, that in light of your dismissal of AH later, you are instantly
dismissable yourself."
But now, after realizing that I *was* quoting from a film dictionary
(oops) you say this:
>There's more than one dictionary of language, right? Well, so are there
>different interpretations of terminology, and mine are quite
>acceptable.
Your "interpretations" of the definition of:
A Classic Movie: "Recognising subtexts, however, *does* make a viewer
*think* about things, and _That_ sir, is the difference between a
Classic Film, and an Action Flick."
An Artist: "You know what? I'm not implying it; i'm *saying* it.
Cameron's a highly skilled *technician,* without a single artistic
thought in his head, as opposed to true visionaries (like RScott).
That's my trump card for this futile excercise of yours"
An Action Movie: 1. "I see we have a problem defining 'action movie.' I
judge it by any movie that relies on action to reach its climax" [Like
Twins and the Great Muppet Caper] 2. "Try to take in & process the Whole
Picture, now. Go back & reread my posts while remembering the definition
of 'action movie' that i (and film historians, BTW) used."
A Fantasy Film: "And obviously TWoOz is character driven, as the realm
of 'Fantasy Film' is by nature. [In other words: Conan the
Destroyer-character driven movie.]"
Okay googs, you say there are different dictionaries of film
terminology? Post the name of the one that you and all "film
historians" use to define the above terms. If you think I've posted
your quotes out of context, then elaborate on your "interpretations."
>And 'tedium' is a viewpoint, not the act of growing to understand
>anothers position. And considering your standoffish opening salvo, it's
>all too painfully obvious where you stand on the subject of
>'understanding,' and therefore why you consider such an act 'tedious.'
>>... I have nothing personal against you, googs, and for however long
>>I hang out on the ng, I hope we can at least call it a "truce" with
>>regard to future threads. If not, oh well.
>You should've thought of all that before you condescended to me in the
>first place.
Like I said, "oh well." Go in peace googs.
Later,
Kevin
kevin...@hotmail.com
originally opened this response with some…disparaging…remarks to reflect
my thoughts on you, your posts to me, and your posts to others, but my
gut just told me to put a stop to the sarcasm and condescending remarks,
and after getting it out of my system, I deleted what I wrote. However,
I still feel compelled to reply.
Googs said:
>Kevin Lamb <kevinlamb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Since I've learned that engaging googs in a harmless discourse about
>>13 to 20 year old films on an anonymous newsgroup is an exercise in
>>mind-numbing futility, I'm not about to jump back in to address any of
>>googs' (ahem) "points."
>'Harmless discourse'?!
Tell me, googs, how have you been harmed?
>KL's delivery in these matters has been nothing short of rude,
>condescending and obnoxious…
As I have already stated, I was in the mood to have a discussion about
A1 and A2, but three things contributed to the tone of my initial post.
1. You, me, and Cov already had a long discussion about this subject so
I thought you guys might need some extra incentive to start all over
again (ie: the challenge.) 2. When I checked out the ng after a two
month hiatus, I noticed that a similar thread titled "Which is the best
film?" or something like that was just winding to a close and I thought
the odds of a new discussion starting up so late in the thread were
pretty slim. 3. I was just in a slightly mischievous mood at the time.
>…this time around moreso than last time around, so basically i said
>'FY, ya little prick.
I simply am at a loss as to why you say this. I was pretty much
expecting you and Cov to "call my bluff" with regard to my claim that I
could *prove* that Cameron made a better film than Scott. Whether you
choose to admit it or not, we *did* have a pretty stimulating discussion
about A1 and A2 that was *quite* friendly, as I will prove below.
>If it's a Cameron-kissin'-parade yer after, then *i'll* be the one to
>rain on it.'
Let's say I *was* after a Cameron kissing parade. Why do you care?
Let's say I *was* the drooling Cameron fan you accuse me of being. How
could that possibly harm you in any way? If you don't like what I
write, don't read my posts. Turn off your computer and I cease to exist
for you. Do you realize how silly you look by losing you temper in an
anonymous discussion on usenet?
>>I will, however, clarify one thing: The point of me starting this
>>thread. A couple of months ago, me, Covenant, and googs had a pretty
>>good-natured debate about which Alien film was better...
>Not really 'good natured', i'd say, as KL was a bit of a prick even
>then...
Okay googs, you really blew it here. Ever heard of the Power Search
option on Dejanews? I have. And here's an excerpt from one of your
posts to me on the thread ALIEN vs ALIENS from the month of May:
GOOGS: "Sure, quality demands respect in any field, but i was just
reinforcing your statement (paraphrased) that you had said you liked war
movies, and that that almost nullifies any 'opinion' you may have re:
A2. But i do recognize that you are making logical points to qualify
your views. And nicely!"
Now here's one from Covenant to me:
COV: "This is such a breath of fresh air for this NG. Guys contrasting,
comparing, disagreeing, agreeing debateing discussing.... And not a
*You're stupid because..*comment in sight! (Well... except that one!)
Keep posting your thoughts Kev. I might not agree with some of them,
but I certainly respect the way you put them over!"
Hmmm. Sounds pretty good-natured to me. If I was in a more accusing
mood, I'd be tempted to call you a liar hoping to add credibility to
your "Kevin is a troll" argument by suggesting I have a history of
malicious behavior. But I won't. Instead, I'll simply ask: Why the
180 degree about-face googs?
>>... As it was drawing to a close, I ordered a computer and cancelled
>>my Webtv account. Since the discussion ended with some points
>>hanging, I thought I'd start up the debate again, just for the fun of
>>it...
>Now, to *me* it seemed that since KL got no big ruckus stirred up
>*last* time around, he crawled back to the dark from where he came,
>only to surface again with that crap about 'better than.' Smells like a
>troll to me.
See above.
>>... So instead of just posting a long diatribe of why I liked A2
>>best, chalk-full of "IMHO" disclaimers, that wouldn't lend themselves
>>to any discussion or debate whatsoever I thought I'd post my thoughts
>>as a friendly challenge...
>'Friendly'?! Heh. History is truly a construct of the Writer,
>apparently...His 'friendliness' seems to include some *strange*
>abrasive wording, as seen in other, later posts...
Well, googs, I wasn't talking about later posts. When someone who
you're expecting to act friendly and cordial gets totally bent out of
shape and starts belittling your opinions with totally unfounded
accusations, continued "friendliness" is sure put to the test.
>>... Let's look at a couple of statements from my original post,
>>recently quoted by googs:
>>>Obviously, I can't tell anyone which film to like best (nor would I
>>>want to.) But I can definitely prove (heh heh) that beyond a shadow
>>>of a doubt, Jim Cameron accomplished a much greater cinematic feat
>>>than Ridley Scott, and made a film that was flat out better.
>'Flat out' is an authoritative position, and simply indefensible. I
>felt like my job, in the matter, was to deflate JC, and that's what i
>was trying to do. Silly me for sticking my nose into such an idiotic
>inflammatory mess to begin with.
Your *job* was to deflate JC? Is Ridley Scott paying you to trumpet him
as the greatest director of the Alien series? Have you been
commissioned to put anyone who considers Cameron better than Scott "in
their place?" Trust me, googs, RS is doing just fine without you having
to mount a crusade against the evil Jim Cameron fans.
>>Covenant seemed to get the joke, and I mistakenly assumed googs would
>>as well, as again, the three of us had a very intelligent and friendly
>>debate about the EXACT SAME SUBJECT a couple of months earlier.
>'Tolerant' is the more appropriate adjective from my view, even then.
GOOGS: "Heehee! I love this thread!"
Pretty enthusiastic way to convey your mere "tolerance" for me back in
May. Oh, and if you feel that I have quoted you out of context, I'll be
more than happy to reprint your entire post.
Here's how you closed your final post to me on the thread:
GOOGS: "This has been very nice a discussion, but frankly, i'm tired of
this thread! : P ; ) ; ) ; ) It's hard for me to keep a train of
thought going for many days in a logical manner...Besides, my fingers
are blistered!! : > It's been very nice chatting!! See ya later (Or in
reply to a confusing bit above, i suppose! ; ) ) !"
Care to restate your "adjectives" regarding our last discussion?
>>While I was "inviting" someone to disagree, I sure as hell wasn't
>>trolling. Trolling is more malicious and divisive...
>With the wording of 'flat out better,' *that's* indefensible, and
>outright inflammatory, which are both earmarks of a troll. And
>'Malicious and divisive' sure seems to describe your attitude to my
>replies, pal.
There's only one statement that I truly regret typing. Its this one:
"Why am I tempted to mention that sticking your head in your ass to
avoid the inevitable is no valid defense of RS?" An insult like that
just isn't my style, and I seriously contemplated whether or not I
should post it. In the end, I went ahead with it, but phrased it in the
form of a question to "soften" the insult a little. A futile attempt
indeed, and I apologize, as that only added fuel to the fire.
>>...I really was looking forward to engaging in a stimulating
>>discourse...
>I would yell BS, but that's only an opinion...And if you *did* only
>desire that, you sure worded your opening statement poorly. AAMOF, it
>was worded as a challenge, and that's inflammatory in itself, 'heh
>heh''s or not.
So any challenge is an outrage to you? If someone said "Hey [whatever
your real name is], I bet I can beat you at Space Invaders" would you
punch him in the mouth?
>>... about one of my favorite movies and lightly blew off the first
>>couple of "flame posts." One of them, by Adam Cameron, I later
>>realized was quite insightful, so I went back and addressed it more
>>specifically. Again, since the whole point of my initial post was to
>>stimulate discussion, I allowed myself a degree of sarcasm and
>>argumentativeness (hope that's a word) in my first few responses....
>Y'know, i was gonna point that out...It seems that after a 3rd party
>(Cov) took you to task for your dismissal of Hitch,…
Took me to task? Yeah, either that or he just expressed why he
disagreed with my opinion of AH's work.
>…. your derisive attitude, sarcasm, and condescension towards me
>softened.
Sorry, googs. Unlike you, my irritation with others has it limits. I
don't hold grudges very long, and I simply decided that I couldn't be
bothered with continuing our "conversation."
>Almost as if...*You realized you were being a prick!* Too late.
>*Especially* since you seem to be extra 'P.C.' in your most recent
>posts...
Okay, let me get this straight. You claim that I maliciously tried to
cause a ruckus in May by posting my thoughts on JC and A2. Then, when I
saw that people weren't getting as pissed off as I had hoped, I
"disappeared into the shadows," paid $1,000 for a computer to "explain"
why I was no longer trolling with my webtv, then resurfaced with my
secret weapon: MY OUTRIGHT DECLARATION THAT A2 WAS BETTER THAN A1.
After dropping this bombshell of doom on the ng, I continued to
deliberately attack the regulars with biting sarcasm and crippling
insults. Then, at the peak of my trolling success, I had a revelation
from God that "I was being a prick," and went on a crusade to heal the
innocent and undo the damage and suffering that I caused in my
blistering rampage of Cameron-worshipping destruction.
Must….fight…..the…urge…..to…..say….something…..condescending…….
Whew, okay, I'm better now. Uh googs, let me simply say, "I think
you've mischaracterized my intentions."
>>... My last couple of posts on this thread were thoughtful, serious
>>rants about my own personal reasons for preferring A2 and Cameron's
>>work, and they got no response. That was all well and cool (as I
>>thought the thread was winding down anyway) but not what I was hoping
>>for when the thread started.
>Hm.
Yeah, think about that googs.
>>Anyway, I have enjoyed reading and discussing points with most of the
>>people on this thread, and only *one* person got all bent out of shape
>>(for totally random reasons,) so I'm for the most part happy with the
>>results.
>Heh. Hehheh. Ha Ha Ha! LOL!!! 'Random', huh?
Getting pissed off because someone expresses an opinion contrary to
yours in a subject so trivial as movie preferences is about as random as
you can get.
>Of course you're *totally* innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever, huh?
>Yeah, you were the *most* kind, polite and civil guy on the ng...
Did I ever claim to be the most kind, polite, and civil guy on the ng?
Didn't think so.
>That calls for the proverbial 'Blowme.'
And that calls for an emphatic "No thanks, I'm straight."
>>I shake my head at the googs stuff, mostly because it was just a waste
>>of time. To be drawn in to any further discussions with him regarding
>>taste, film terms, or simple terms of debate would be a grueling and
>>never-ending exercise in tedium...
>Now *that's* where the true insulter shows himself. While i certainly
>didn't conduct a debate in the standardly accepted rules ('Duh!'), *it
>wasn't a debatable subject to begin with!!* That's where i personally
>went wrong; fighting indefensibility with indefensibility (the fact
>that i was simply dismissing JC's work as inevitable occurrence or a
>case of 'chicken-before-the-egg'), and not leaving an idiotically
>worded post alone.
No, where you went wrong was taking a simple debate about movies so
personally.
>(Not to mention calling your cards when you denied saying anything
>about 'making a better movie than Hitch did, given $50mil.'; another
>trollish behavior, IMEstimation...)
Sorry googs. Wrong again. I *could* make a better film than AH (yes
googs, IMO.) What I was denying was your actual quote "Throw money at
it and make it better," which was a complete fabrication or a total
misinterpretation of what I said. I'll leave it up in the air as to
your reasons for the paraphrased "quote."
>If, KL, you were indeed interested in a discussion of your beliefs,
>IMO you would've worded things *much* better, and left room for other's
>opinions to naturally come into the discussion, *not* open things up by
>saying effectively 'JC's better than RScott!', which is basically what
>you'd done.
I've already addressed why I phrased the post the way I did.
>A *true* interest in opening up an actual discussion is, to me, shown
>by *asking* for opinions to counter your own beliefs, certainly *not*
>jumping outta the gate basically with your fists up sayin' 'My
>directors bigger than Your director!', and *then* continuing to ignore
>the usual course of *asking* me what was talking about instead of
>verbally hitting me.
Hey, based on our past discussions, I was expecting a little cordiality
from you googs, and when you jumped onto the thread with hostility and
putdowns it kind of threw me off. For whatever inappropriate behavior I
exhibited at any point in this thread, I apologize. I'm done with
arguing.
>Your inappropriate and abrasive attitude was noticed by others on this
>ng besides me, as has been recently stated, so i'm not imagining
>things. You acted like a jerk, so, in my book, that means you get
>treated like a jerk.
You know googs, every single "flame war" I've witnessed on this ng has
involved you. Could it *possibly* be that *I'm* not the jerk here?
>And one can't discuss taste. And one can't have a debate without
>ground rules, and defining things is a basic ground rule. Yours and my
>definitions of things are apparently quite different, but FY for saying
>that my definitions of film terminology aren't appropriate or
>applicable.
F**k me for saying *what*? Here's a quote from you from earlier in the
thread:
GOOGS: "Your 'personal definition' is so obviously skewed to support
youself, that in light of your dismissal of AH later, you are instantly
dismissable yourself."
But now, after realizing that I *was* quoting from a film dictionary
(oops) you say this:
>There's more than one dictionary of language, right? Well, so are there
>different interpretations of terminology, and mine are quite
>acceptable.
Your "interpretations" of the definition of:
A Classic Movie: "Recognising subtexts, however, *does* make a viewer
*think* about things, and _That_ sir, is the difference between a
Classic Film, and an Action Flick."
An Artist: "You know what? I'm not implying it; i'm *saying* it.
Cameron's a highly skilled *technician,* without a single artistic
thought in his head, as opposed to true visionaries (like RScott).
That's my trump card for this futile excercise of yours"
An Action Movie: 1. "I see we have a problem defining 'action movie.' I
judge it by any movie that relies on action to reach its climax" [Like
Twins and the Great Muppet Caper] 2. "Try to take in & process the Whole
Picture, now. Go back & reread my posts while remembering the definition
of 'action movie' that i (and film historians, BTW) used."
A Fantasy Film: "And obviously TWoOz is character driven, as the realm
of 'Fantasy Film' is by nature. [In other words: Conan the
Destroyer-character driven movie.]"
Okay googs, you say there are different dictionaries of film
terminology? Post the name of the one that you and all "film
historians" use to define the above terms. If you think I've posted
your quotes out of context, then elaborate on your "interpretations."
>And 'tedium' is a viewpoint, not the act of growing to understand
>anothers position. And considering your standoffish opening salvo, it's
>all too painfully obvious where you stand on the subject of
>'understanding,' and therefore why you consider such an act 'tedious.'
>>... I have nothing personal against you, googs, and for however long
>>I hang out on the ng, I hope we can at least call it a "truce" with
>>regard to future threads. If not, oh well.
>You should've thought of all that before you condescended to me in the
>first place.
Like I said, "oh well." Go in peace googs.
Later,
Kevin
John
wrote:
> Wow. That was pretty good googs. You almost roped me back in. I
> originally opened this response with some…disparaging…remarks to reflect
> my thoughts on you, your posts to me, and your posts to others, but my
> gut just told me to put a stop to the sarcasm and condescending remarks,
> and after getting it out of my system, I deleted what I wrote. However,
> I still feel compelled to reply.
I can understand how you feel. Just killfile him and move on (I have)
Thomas S. McDonald esquire
go...@happyland.com wrote in message ...><but apparently canceled:>
Oh really? Well take a second look.... I can only assume either I have
super net powers or maybe googs is scared of something.... It's acctually
quite rational, so I can see why you might not want to respond googs. But
at my core, I'm all about public service. So 'Kevin's' post follows below.
Kevin Lamb said (and appearently didn't cancel):
Googs said:
>'Harmless discourse'?!
See above.
>Hm.
Later,
Kevin
>That's how it works.
>Thank you.
>
>And if there's a further reply than that, you might wanna post it &
>leave it this time...
>Or not. I simply don't care.
>More than this post, that is,... : >
go...@happyland.com
<but apparently canceled:>
>> Wow. That was pretty good googs. You almost roped me back in. I
>> originally opened this response with some…disparaging…remarks to reflect
>> my thoughts on you, your posts to me, and your posts to others, but my
>> gut just told me to put a stop to the sarcasm and condescending remarks,
>> and after getting it out of my system, I deleted what I wrote. However,
>> I still feel compelled to reply.
That's how it works.
Thank you.
And if there's a further reply than that, you might wanna post it &
leave it this time...
Or not. I simply don't care.
More than this post, that is,... : >
"His Evil Brains Glow In The Dark! (with exposure to light)"
David Daugherty
For esq....
Laughing so hard it hurts....
I like the smell of napalm in the morning...that smell...that gasoline
smell...smells like...like...VICTORY....
go...@happyland.com
>go...@happyland.com wrote in message ...
>>>kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>><but apparently canceled:>
>Oh really? Well take a second look.... I can only assume either I have
>super net powers or maybe googs is scared of something.... It's acctually
>quite rational, so I can see why you might not want to respond googs. But
>at my core, I'm all about public service. So 'Kevin's' post follows below.
Second look done; still not there.
But Hey, Thanks for your interest...
>Kevin Lamb said (and appearently didn't cancel):
Well it's not on my server or in my cache, but Thanks Esqie!
>Wow. That was pretty good googs. You almost roped me back in. I
>originally opened this response with some…disparaging…remarks to reflect
>my thoughts on you, your posts to me, and your posts to others, but my
>gut just told me to put a stop to the sarcasm and condescending remarks,
>and after getting it out of my system, I deleted what I wrote. However,
>I still feel compelled to reply.
>Googs said:
>>Kevin Lamb <kevinlamb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>Since I've learned that engaging googs in a harmless discourse about
>>>13 to 20 year old films on an anonymous newsgroup is an exercise in
>>>mind-numbing futility, I'm not about to jump back in to address any of
>>>googs' (ahem) "points."
>>'Harmless discourse'?!
>Tell me, googs, how have you been harmed?
'Harmless' implies attitude as well as physicality, *especially* in a
forum obviously free of worry of physical threat.
>>KL's delivery in these matters has been nothing short of rude,
>>condescending and obnoxious…
>As I have already stated, I was in the mood to have a discussion about
>A1 and A2, but three things contributed to the tone of my initial post.
>1. You, me, and Cov already had a long discussion about this subject so
>I thought you guys might need some extra incentive to start all over
>again (ie: the challenge.) 2. When I checked out the ng after a two
>month hiatus, I noticed that a similar thread titled "Which is the best
>film?" or something like that was just winding to a close and I thought
>the odds of a new discussion starting up so late in the thread were
>pretty slim. 3. I was just in a slightly mischievous mood at the time.
I think # 3 speaks most loudly,...
And to be fair, i was in a slightly intolerant mood myself,...
>>…this time around moreso than last time around, so basically i said
>>'FY, ya little prick...
>I simply am at a loss as to why you say this. I was pretty much
>expecting you and Cov to "call my bluff" with regard to my claim that I
>could *prove* that Cameron made a better film than Scott. Whether you
>choose to admit it or not, we *did* have a pretty stimulating discussion
>about A1 and A2 that was *quite* friendly, as I will prove below.
>>...If it's a Cameron-kissin'-parade yer after, then *i'll* be the one to
>>rain on it.'
>Let's say I *was* after a Cameron kissing parade. Why do you care?
>Let's say I *was* the drooling Cameron fan you accuse me of being. How
>could that possibly harm you in any way? If you don't like what I
>write, don't read my posts. Turn off your computer and I cease to exist
>for you. Do you realize how silly you look by losing you temper in an
>anonymous discussion on usenet?
I've said it before & i'll say it finally:
I hate zealots.
With great zeal, i might add,..
>>>I will, however, clarify one thing: The point of me starting this
>>>thread. A couple of months ago, me, Covenant, and googs had a pretty
>>>good-natured debate about which Alien film was better...
>>Not really 'good natured', i'd say, as KL was a bit of a prick even
>>then...
>Okay googs, you really blew it here. Ever heard of the Power Search
>option on Dejanews? I have. And here's an excerpt from one of your
>posts to me on the thread ALIEN vs ALIENS from the month of May:
>GOOGS: "Sure, quality demands respect in any field, but i was just
>reinforcing your statement (paraphrased) that you had said you liked war
>movies, and that that almost nullifies any 'opinion' you may have re:
>A2. But i do recognize that you are making logical points to qualify
>your views. And nicely!"
>Now here's one from Covenant to me:
>COV: "This is such a breath of fresh air for this NG. Guys contrasting,
>comparing, disagreeing, agreeing debateing discussing.... And not a
>*You're stupid because..*comment in sight! (Well... except that one!)
>Keep posting your thoughts Kev. I might not agree with some of them,
>but I certainly respect the way you put them over!"
>Hmmm. Sounds pretty good-natured to me. If I was in a more accusing
>mood, I'd be tempted to call you a liar hoping to add credibility to
>your "Kevin is a troll" argument by suggesting I have a history of
>malicious behavior. But I won't. Instead, I'll simply ask: Why the
>180 degree about-face googs?
IIRC, (and i'll certainly check) your whole position even then was
ridiculous, but instead of being impolite and saying 'You're an idiot'
i examined your posts and replied in a respectful way since it was
actually presented in that way to me at the time. I truly *do* only
reply in kind to how i'm treated, with exception only when
misunderstandings occur.
If that discussion truly *was* carried on in such a polite way,
then i offer that presentation is indeed 'everything', and *if* i only
recall my negative reactions to you from back then it's entirely due
to your offensive tone and my current intolerance from this new
thread.
I suppose i should apologise if i implied you were anything other
than civil *back then*: May's a long time back for me to remember
posts from a relatively minorly important part of existance (ie- ng
postings as opposed to, say, finding shelter & food, most
dramatically), especially when your intent was suspect this time round
and led me to recall only the negative recollections from back then.
>>>... As it was drawing to a close, I ordered a computer and cancelled
>>>my Webtv account. Since the discussion ended with some points
>>>hanging, I thought I'd start up the debate again, just for the fun of
>>>it...
>>Now, to *me* it seemed that since KL got no big ruckus stirred up
>>*last* time around, he crawled back to the dark from where he came,
>>only to surface again with that crap about 'better than.' Smells like a
>>troll to me.
>See above.
>>>... So instead of just posting a long diatribe of why I liked A2
>>>best, chalk-full of "IMHO" disclaimers, that wouldn't lend themselves
>>>to any discussion or debate whatsoever I thought I'd post my thoughts
>>>as a friendly challenge...
>>'Friendly'?! Heh. History is truly a construct of the Writer,
>>apparently...His 'friendliness' seems to include some *strange*
>>abrasive wording, as seen in other, later posts...
>Well, googs, I wasn't talking about later posts. When someone who
>you're expecting to act friendly and cordial gets totally bent out of
>shape and starts belittling your opinions with totally unfounded
>accusations, continued "friendliness" is sure put to the test.
Not from the way it was written, you weren't talking about early
posts. Don't be misleading.
And exactly who threw the first insult? I say you did, with that being
condescension delivered in overly-incredulous questioning sarcasm,
along with other offenses.
The three examples from your first reply to my first reply...
-->Quote:
Okay googs. Enlighten me. Who made a bughunter war *movie*
before Cameron? What's that? *Nobody?* Thank you.
-->Quote:
No, because it wasn't an action flick, which you may note,
was what I was *talking* about.
-->Quote:
You're right googs. That dinner scene was all about
"suspense." I remember the first time I heard about it,
some kid came up to me and kept raving about "the buildup,
the *buildup*" of this one scene that was just soooo
memorable and amazing. "Then what happened?" I asked,
amazed. "Oh, after the incredible suspense some creature or
something burst out of this dude's chest. But did I mention
the 'buildup?'"
*That'*s what i call 'getting bent out of shape.'
If you were truly interested in what or why i said what i did, you
would've asked instead of insulted.
If your intent was not sarcasm, you need better writing skills.
If it *was* intended, perhaps you misread my initial reply; i was not
being sarcastic to you, and i might apologise if you read it that way.
As i said, i *was* feeling a bit intolerant...
>>>... Let's look at a couple of statements from my original post,
>>>recently quoted by googs:
>>>>Obviously, I can't tell anyone which film to like best (nor would I
>>>>want to.) But I can definitely prove (heh heh) that beyond a shadow
>>>>of a doubt, Jim Cameron accomplished a much greater cinematic feat
>>>>than Ridley Scott, and made a film that was flat out better.
>>'Flat out' is an authoritative position, and simply indefensible. I
>>felt like my job, in the matter, was to deflate JC, and that's what i
>>was trying to do. Silly me for sticking my nose into such an idiotic
>>inflammatory mess to begin with.
>Your *job* was to deflate JC? Is Ridley Scott paying you to trumpet him
>as the greatest director of the Alien series? Have you been
>commissioned to put anyone who considers Cameron better than Scott "in
>their place?" Trust me, googs, RS is doing just fine without you having
>to mount a crusade against the evil Jim Cameron fans.
You don't hear me going round saying that RS is a better director or
made a better film than Cameron or A2, now, do you? *I* don't make
such statements, because they're indefensible and stupid.
And misrepresenting my colloquialism of 'my job to...' does *nothing*
to help me believe that you're not simply being inflammatory again...
You *know* what i meant. But i'll translate anyway:
'i take it upon myself to knock wind out of blowhards occasionally.'
And i *like* tilting against windmills...
>>>Covenant seemed to get the joke, and I mistakenly assumed googs would
>>>as well, as again, the three of us had a very intelligent and friendly
>>>debate about the EXACT SAME SUBJECT a couple of months earlier.
>>'Tolerant' is the more appropriate adjective from my view, even then.
>GOOGS: "Heehee! I love this thread!"
>Pretty enthusiastic way to convey your mere "tolerance" for me back in
>May. Oh, and if you feel that I have quoted you out of context, I'll be
>more than happy to reprint your entire post.
When no insults are shot at me, it's a more polite way of saying 'Hey!
Lookit th' Monkey there!'
>Here's how you closed your final post to me on the thread:
>GOOGS: "This has been very nice a discussion, but frankly, i'm tired of
>this thread! : P ; ) ; ) ; ) It's hard for me to keep a train of
>thought going for many days in a logical manner...Besides, my fingers
>are blistered!! : > It's been very nice chatting!! See ya later (Or in
>reply to a confusing bit above, i suppose! ; ) ) !"
>Care to restate your "adjectives" regarding our last discussion?
Umm, that would be a "No."
Simply because i was tolerating your IMO ridiculous viewpoint in a
friendly & outgoing manner doesn't mean that i felt you any less an
idiot for trying to *prove* one movie 'better' than another; only more
politely said. And in retrospect, 'disgustingly' so, IISSM.
And, notice that i was ending our dialogue, BTW.
See, now, all i remembered of our last exchange (webtv days) has been
viewed thru the red filter of my present (as of your first reply to my
first one *this* thread...) angry view, and thusly coloured.
But while you bothered to dig out the actual dialogue (i'm flattered
you care so much...), i only have my present recollections. And those
are of some nutjob trying to prove the unprovable, but apparently i
was *way* more tolerant and smarmy than i can presently stomach...
*Especially* in light of our recent exchanges.
>>>While I was "inviting" someone to disagree, I sure as hell wasn't
>>>trolling. Trolling is more malicious and divisive...
>>With the wording of 'flat out better,' *that's* indefensible, and
>>outright inflammatory, which are both earmarks of a troll. And
>>'Malicious and divisive' sure seems to describe your attitude to my
>>replies, pal.
>There's only one statement that I truly regret typing. Its this one:
>"Why am I tempted to mention that sticking your head in your ass to
>avoid the inevitable is no valid defense of RS?" An insult like that
>just isn't my style, and I seriously contemplated whether or not I
>should post it. In the end, I went ahead with it, but phrased it in the
>form of a question to "soften" the insult a little. A futile attempt
>indeed, and I apologize, as that only added fuel to the fire.
And *that* to me was the capstone and the true face behind all the
phrases that seemed insulting. With that line, *that* told me, 'Hey!
He *is* being a prick after all!'
>>>...I really was looking forward to engaging in a stimulating
>>>discourse...
>>I would yell BS, but that's only an opinion...And if you *did* only
>>desire that, you sure worded your opening statement poorly. AAMOF, it
>>was worded as a challenge, and that's inflammatory in itself, 'heh
>>heh''s or not.
>So any challenge is an outrage to you? If someone said "Hey [whatever
>your real name is], I bet I can beat you at Space Invaders" would you
>punch him in the mouth?
Sure, if he was being a *prick* about it,... ; )
>>>... about one of my favorite movies and lightly blew off the first
>>>couple of "flame posts." One of them, by Adam Cameron, I later
>>>realized was quite insightful, so I went back and addressed it more
>>>specifically. Again, since the whole point of my initial post was to
>>>stimulate discussion, I allowed myself a degree of sarcasm and
>>>argumentativeness (hope that's a word) in my first few responses....
>>Y'know, i was gonna point that out...It seems that after a 3rd party
>>(Cov) took you to task for your dismissal of Hitch,…
>Took me to task? Yeah, either that or he just expressed why he
>disagreed with my opinion of AH's work.
Umm, same thing, same results; you then spoke coherently about AH, as
opposed to simply throwing out crap like 'i can make a better movie
than...', which *again* to me indicated that you were being less than
proper *to me personally,* which i felt you realised & then led to...
This:
>>…. your derisive attitude, sarcasm, and condescension towards me
>>softened.
>Sorry, googs. Unlike you, my irritation with others has it limits. I
>don't hold grudges very long, and I simply decided that I couldn't be
>bothered with continuing our "conversation."
To *me* when someone's been a jerk, you regard them as a jerk until
they exhibit better behaviour, and since you exhibited *no* behaviour
at all after a point, then,...
Looked like a reversal of attitude to me...
>>Almost as if...*You realized you were being a prick!* Too late.
>>*Especially* since you seem to be extra 'P.C.' in your most recent
>>posts...
>Okay, let me get this straight. You claim that I maliciously tried to
>cause a ruckus in May by posting my thoughts on JC and A2. Then, when I
>saw that people weren't getting as pissed off as I had hoped, I
>"disappeared into the shadows," paid $1,000 for a computer to "explain"
>why I was no longer trolling with my webtv, then resurfaced with my
>secret weapon: MY OUTRIGHT DECLARATION THAT A2 WAS BETTER THAN A1.
>After dropping this bombshell of doom on the ng, I continued to
>deliberately attack the regulars with biting sarcasm and crippling
>insults. Then, at the peak of my trolling success, I had a revelation
>from God that "I was being a prick," and went on a crusade to heal the
>innocent and undo the damage and suffering that I caused in my
>blistering rampage of Cameron-worshipping destruction.
>Must….fight…..the…urge…..to…..say….something…..condescending…….
Aside from the transparently veiled condescensions above, you mean?
You seem to've never let that stop you before,...
>Whew, okay, I'm better now. Uh googs, let me simply say, "I think
>you've mischaracterized my intentions."
Perhaps. But as i've pointed out before, 'perception's a funny thing.'
>>>... My last couple of posts on this thread were thoughtful, serious
>>>rants about my own personal reasons for preferring A2 and Cameron's
>>>work, and they got no response. That was all well and cool (as I
>>>thought the thread was winding down anyway) but not what I was hoping
>>>for when the thread started.
>>Hm.
>Yeah, think about that googs.
See? I *knew* you could still be condescending!!
Attaboy!!
What's that cliche' about a leopard not changing its spots,...?
>>>Anyway, I have enjoyed reading and discussing points with most of the
>>>people on this thread, and only *one* person got all bent out of shape
>>>(for totally random reasons,) so I'm for the most part happy with the
>>>results.
>>Heh. Hehheh. Ha Ha Ha! LOL!!! 'Random', huh?
>Getting pissed off because someone expresses an opinion contrary to
>yours in a subject so trivial as movie preferences is about as random as
>you can get.
You really don't see it, huh?
Even with your observance of the 'headup' line?...
Well then, okay. Whatever.
No *f*ck* that...
I'll say that your thread was begun poorly with an absolute and
indefensible statement, continued worded rudely, peppered with
condescension and insult, and capped with a complete withdrawal from
conversation.
All this over the few days is *anything* but 'random', and you,
politely, say untruths if you say this could be reasonably considered
'random.'
>>Of course you're *totally* innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever, huh?
>>Yeah, you were the *most* kind, polite and civil guy on the ng...
>Did I ever claim to be the most kind, polite, and civil guy on the ng?
>Didn't think so.
FY, you know what that meant,...
(irony in line observed...)
>>That calls for the proverbial 'Blowme.'
>And that calls for an emphatic "No thanks, I'm straight."
I swear, no one understands rhetoric anymore,...
>>>I shake my head at the googs stuff, mostly because it was just a waste
>>>of time. To be drawn in to any further discussions with him regarding
>>>taste, film terms, or simple terms of debate would be a grueling and
>>>never-ending exercise in tedium...
>>Now *that's* where the true insulter shows himself. While i certainly
>>didn't conduct a debate in the standardly accepted rules ('Duh!'), *it
>>wasn't a debatable subject to begin with!!* That's where i personally
>>went wrong; fighting indefensibility with indefensibility (the fact
>>that i was simply dismissing JC's work as inevitable occurrence or a
>>case of 'chicken-before-the-egg'), and not leaving an idiotically
>>worded post alone.
>No, where you went wrong was taking a simple debate about movies so
>personally.
That would be more properly a case of you having poor communicative
skills, if indeed you were attempting 'polite.'
And basically, the *very* first mistake was indeed mine; answering to
your shit in the 1st place.
>>(Not to mention calling your cards when you denied saying anything
>>about 'making a better movie than Hitch did, given $50mil.'; another
>>trollish behavior, IMEstimation...)
>Sorry googs. Wrong again. I *could* make a better film than AH (yes
>googs, IMO.) What I was denying was your actual quote "Throw money at
>it and make it better," which was a complete fabrication or a total
>misinterpretation of what I said. I'll leave it up in the air as to
>your reasons for the paraphrased "quote."
And you're still an idiot for thinking so. 'IMO,' of course.
If you're so good, or Hitch was so bad, why would it have to be
$50mil? 'Blair Witch' was only $300K; regardless of how we personally
liked the film (i didn't), the fact that it's effective, in a current
context, is inarguable. $50mil's an exhorbitant amount of money when
the only issue is making a 'better' film. Hell, you could shoot it on
*videotape* if you're so damn good.
To me, you sounded like the Dean & Emmerich mentality. And it still
looks that way.
>>If, KL, you were indeed interested in a discussion of your beliefs,
>>IMO you would've worded things *much* better, and left room for other's
>>opinions to naturally come into the discussion, *not* open things up by
>>saying effectively 'JC's better than RScott!', which is basically what
>>you'd done.
>I've already addressed why I phrased the post the way I did.
>>A *true* interest in opening up an actual discussion is, to me, shown
>>by *asking* for opinions to counter your own beliefs, certainly *not*
>>jumping outta the gate basically with your fists up sayin' 'My
>>directors bigger than Your director!', and *then* continuing to ignore
>>the usual course of *asking* me what was talking about instead of
>>verbally hitting me.
>Hey, based on our past discussions, I was expecting a little cordiality
>from you googs, and when you jumped onto the thread with hostility and
>putdowns it kind of threw me off. For whatever inappropriate behavior I
>exhibited at any point in this thread, I apologize. I'm done with
>arguing.
FY for being misleading about *me* being hostile first.
That distinction belongs to *you*, as referenced in the quotes above.
And i'm quite content to fight fire with fire.
>>Your inappropriate and abrasive attitude was noticed by others on this
>>ng besides me, as has been recently stated, so i'm not imagining
>>things. You acted like a jerk, so, in my book, that means you get
>>treated like a jerk.
>You know googs, every single "flame war" I've witnessed on this ng has
>involved you. Could it *possibly* be that *I'm* not the jerk here?
Oh, i certainly have my days.
But, i've made up with more people i've had squabbles with than i'm
presently incommunicado with.
Besides, i'm long winded & never one to throw in the towel, so i'll
stick it out to the very end, whether that's reconcilliation or
firewalling. And only two have made my list (though i'm quite sure i'm
on a few after all this irrelevant OT bs...), so,...
And i don't doubt for a moment that you're a jerk or the only one
either (myself included at times)...
>>And one can't discuss taste. And one can't have a debate without
>>ground rules, and defining things is a basic ground rule. Yours and my
>>definitions of things are apparently quite different, but FY for saying
>>that my definitions of film terminology aren't appropriate or
>>applicable.
>F**k me for saying *what*? Here's a quote from you from earlier in the
>thread:
>GOOGS: "Your 'personal definition' is so obviously skewed to support
>youself, that in light of your dismissal of AH later, you are instantly
>dismissable yourself."
>But now, after realizing that I *was* quoting from a film dictionary
>(oops) you say this:
And Webster wrote the only True Dictionary,...not.
And your 'quote' was oddly devoid of any bibliographical references...
Or maybe *not* so oddly, considering that you seem to selectively pick
among my words so as to derail the contextual content of my point...
>>There's more than one dictionary of language, right? Well, so are there
>>different interpretations of terminology, and mine are quite
>>acceptable.
>Your "interpretations" of the definition of:
>A Classic Movie: "Recognising subtexts, however, *does* make a viewer
>*think* about things, and _That_ sir, is the difference between a
>Classic Film, and an Action Flick."
In the context of the issue ( the quality of A4 over 'mindless' action
flicks), i hold that still. But more appropriately it should say
'...is *a* difference...' or '',,,is the difference...*in this case*'
>An Artist: "You know what? I'm not implying it; i'm *saying* it.
>Cameron's a highly skilled *technician,* without a single artistic
>thought in his head, as opposed to true visionaries (like RScott).
>That's my trump card for this futile excercise of yours"
That's not a definition, and my inclination is to say you're muddying
the water,...
>An Action Movie: 1. "I see we have a problem defining 'action movie.' I
>judge it by any movie that relies on action to reach its climax" [Like
>Twins and the Great Muppet Caper] 2. "Try to take in & process the Whole
>Picture, now. Go back & reread my posts while remembering the definition
>of 'action movie' that i (and film historians, BTW) used."
Again with the film titles.WhoTF put them there, as it was *not*
me??!!
Waitaminnit, ... Oh yeah, that was *you* being offensive again!
Thanks for sliippin' 'em in *yet again!*
As for film historians, as i said, i'm no historian. But i have seen
many films and have studied (admittedly on my own out of scholastic
context) film and the history of film, and have my own opinions on the
subject. Opinions based on not having viewed every single film in the
universe, alright, but certainly on more than the average film fan,
IMNSHO. To be more proper, it should say '...(and *some other* "film
historians," BTW) used.', as (one final time and as thoroughly as i
can), i spoke of Action films as having the elemental theme of the
human condition in that story, i.e.-- visceral of interest rather than
cerebral of interest.
'Visceral' meaning relative to stories of *existance & survival*
[primarily what anthropologists believe 'communication' began as,
observing the primal core of storytelling at its very basest], as
opposed to 'Cerebral' [my term] storytelling, where the interest to
the listener/viewer rises above that of a physical relevance to that
of a cerebral relevance.)
Got it?
Well, i don't care. It's all there. I've checked it.
>A Fantasy Film: "And obviously TWoOz is character driven, as the realm
>of 'Fantasy Film' is by nature. [In other words: Conan the
>Destroyer-character driven movie.]"
Umm, care to tell me just *where* the Conan line came from?
Oh-- that must be another of your insults again...
'Conan' is from 'pulp' sources, almost without exception a source
of all B-grade plots, and therefore *by nature* an 'action movie', due
to it's primary theme of visceral interest (because pulp novels appeal
was to the primal interests of humans as opposed to the purely
cerebral interests).
It would have been more appropriate (in this stand-alone context) to
have said that TWoOz and fantasy films are character driven, with
their essence being an examination of human existance & interaction.
I should have said more properly, '... character driven by *usual*
nature...'
>Okay googs, you say there are different dictionaries of film
>terminology? Post the name of the one that you and all "film
>historians" use to define the above terms. If you think I've posted
>your quotes out of context, then elaborate on your "interpretations."
Done.
>>And 'tedium' is a viewpoint, not the act of growing to understand
>>anothers position. And considering your standoffish opening salvo, it's
>>all too painfully obvious where you stand on the subject of
>>'understanding,' and therefore why you consider such an act 'tedious.'
>>>... I have nothing personal against you, googs, and for however long
>>>I hang out on the ng, I hope we can at least call it a "truce" with
>>>regard to future threads. If not, oh well.
>>You should've thought of all that before you condescended to me in the
>>first place.
>Like I said, "oh well." Go in peace googs.
Hmph. Giving benediction, now?
That's very amusing...
Regardless, i'll sum it up by saying:
From *my* perspective--
From our first exchanges (in May, apparently), i truly found you to be
annoying and bothersome, but i was as polite and respectful as you
were to me, and even *moreso* than either necessary or tasteful in
retrospect, and i was okay with leaving you feeling you were a bit of
a nut, but non-confrontationally. The thread had ended anyway, my
participation in it at least.
Then, you show back up starting up the ridiculous thread, my less
tolerant nature calls you out as a goofball, but *politely* so, only
to be flamed like hell.
FY. Have some back.
For what it's worth, i suppose i should be friendly & apologise for
any unwarranted trespasses against you, but as i find none
unwarranted...
So if you took offense to my first reply this thread and that's what
led to a reactionary and rude volley from you, then i apologise for
misstating it in the first place (though for the life of me i can't
see how that anyone could find insult in my first reply to you this
thread...).
But, if this is the way you naturally carry on dialogue, *still*
peppered with obnoxiousness *even after our troubles*, as _this very
post to which i reply holds_, then, choke & die, for all i care.
You'll make the ng filter too.
Apology heard and accepted re: the 'headup' line, BTW.
For whatever that's worth.
>>>> Wow. That was pretty good googs. You almost roped me back in. I
>>>> originally opened this response with some…disparaging…remarks to reflect
>>>> my thoughts on you, your posts to me, and your posts to others, but my
>>>> gut just told me to put a stop to the sarcasm and condescending remarks,
>>>> and after getting it out of my system, I deleted what I wrote. However,
>>>> I still feel compelled to reply.
>>
>>That's how it works.
>>Thank you.
>>
>>And if there's a further reply than that, you might wanna post it &
>>leave it this time...
>>Or not. I simply don't care.
>>More than this post, that is,... : >
As for why this wasn't here for me previously, i don't know.
Once i didn't get a posting by Cov of one of his examinations of one
of the films, so,...?
And now we're done, i believe.
Far too late to have not annoyed all w/ this petty bs, i'm afraid,
though,..
So i apologise to you all as well.
I truly believe i'm sicker of talking about myself than you are of
reading about it.
(Irony observed...)
Thomas S. McDonald esquire
>(apparently as a Derisive Writing project):
If ya can't take the spice, stay away from the peppers.
>>I was out in the grave yard doing an interprative dance, and I found
>>this dead horse, so I thought I'd dig it up and start beating
>>the hell out of it.....
>
>'Dead Horse' indeed...
>Since i've got as much time to kill now as I did when I stepped up to
>KL's rhetorical plate, i'll take a few swings at the horse m'self...
Tally Ho gentlemen the game is a foot...after a short delay due to lack of
interest. Also, due to difficulty googs seems to have with English
definitions, a glossary will be provided at the end of the post, courtesy of
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. And Afri Cola, keeping me awake, even when
I'm reading stuff from googs.
>> go...@happyland.com wrote: [stuff later on]
>>He's wasn't being diversionary. He called your bluff, he had a fist
>>full of aces and you had queen high. He had moved on. You'd already
>>admited Cameron was original in that respect. It was fairly gracious
>>of him to not belabor the point of you consession.
>
>'Bluff'? Umm, okay,...
>And 'pretty metaphors,' BTW.
Bluff: the act of deceiving by pretence.
It's good you asked, I've seen how your word usage has gotten you in
trouble. And I don't want anyone to think less of you, because you asked
for elaboration, I know I certainly don't. I'll offer this admonition for
those who were snickering at your expense. The only stupid question, is the
one that went unasked (like when you tried to use the word 'distilled' in a
sentence).
>>Hmm. He found your 'joke', as it were, amusing and you're taking
>>exception with that? Are you surprised or humble?
>
>I took it as sarcastic. A concept you seem *quite* familiar with.
I suppose,; I read about it in a book once; there weren't any pictures, so
I'm not *exactly* sure what it looks like.
>>As a matter of fact, you're in error. If you're biased against any
>>artistic accomplishment James Cameron might be credited with you can't
>>very well claim to be any color of objective in any discussion of his
>>merits as a director. Strangely, you dismiss Cameron's accolades out
>>of hand, with little (and I'm being generous describing it so) if any
>>reason, and then seek protection in objectivity. To truly participate
>>in this discussion you have to respond to your adversaries points with
>>specific reasons, not the broad brush of prejudice.
>
>Oh. And so if *anyone* cites something that came first, they
>automatically win! *Now* I see how brilliant KL's defense is!
>*Thank You* for setting me straight & teaching me the proper ways of
>Debate!
I'm not sure where you're getting your first is best tangent, but put it
back in the box with the rest of your erectorset of misconceptions. I'll
deal with the specific color of your prejudice (far) below.
>A successful blending of Logical (Debatable) Opinion and Personal
>(Undebatable) Opinion that marks the Artistic Quality of a truly
>discerning and accomplished Troller. What was that you say later about
>sending out a little line, waiting for the fish to jump in the boat?
>Well, I had some time to kill & I *do* hate idol-worshippers, so...
> KL may have had good reasons to feel the way he does, but then
>there's that untenable bit about 'better than...'. That's what fired
>me into discussion, and that's what I argued against, and futilely, as
>all arguments over personal taste end up being.
Time for school, there *WILL* be a quiz at the end of next week, so some of
you slower kids may want to take notes. Since it seems you don't know what
trolling acctually is, and don't want to check in with the experts on
alt.religion.kibology, I'll explain and even provide an example.
Trolling is the art of posting something clearly not worthy of discussion,
or grossly in error, to bait people, typically lurkers, into following up to
show their 'smarts'. A brilliant troller will cast his line but once and
get hundreds of responses. You don't want to work hard for your fish. It's
all about working smarter. A good example would be that ledgendary 'There
are NO shadows in Space' thread.
If I were to troll this newsgroup, which would be quite pointless, I might
write something like:
I liked Alien ok. It's a shame though, that Ridley Scott let his latent
homosexuality get in the way of his filmmaking. I can't help but imagin
that Alien would have been a much more vivid and compelling work if only
he'd gotten his personal life in order before making the film.
Another example for alt.fan.ridley-scott (or its equivalent) might be:
It's funny the way things work out. I mean Ridley Scott originally cast
Keanue Reeves in Thelma & Louise but fired him early in production, because
he wanted to have a male lead who had more of a glazed over look. Someone
who didn't bring too much intelligence for the role to be credible.
A typical troll for something like the movie newgroups would involve perhaps
switching Genna Davis, for Jenna Jamison, or Gina Gershown.
Now in trolling, it's generally considered poor form to ask an question,
because frankly some people live in caves and might really not know, so
comments or opinions that are clearly inaccurate are prefered.
>>Your post on alt.arts.rennesaince.famous.and-dead.advocacy might go a
>>little like this.
>
>>go...@happyland.com might have writen something similar to:
>>Micheal Angelo was a punk, any dumbass could have clearly painted the
>>Cistien Chapel. Hell according to the laws of thermodynamics a million
>>monkeys would eventually have painted the same damn picture people.
>>You wanna-be trollers can speak 3l337 4ll u l1k3, but the Last Supper
>>is where it's at, unless you're one of those fools who considers
>>popular opinion.
>
>Actually, the million monkeys thing *would* have happened, IMO. Laws
>is Laws, right?
Or on the other hand, it might be A LOT like that. Ummm not exactly the
horse I woulda bet on....but I'm not much of a gambler anyway....
> And, withholding my usual sexually oriented reply to such
>inaccurate interpretations (since you apparently can't see use of a
>colloquialism as rhetorically observant of insult,), I point out that
Unnnghhhh. Robin, the Rhetorical Device. On my utility belt, it's our only
chance!
[snap]
Good work Boy Wonder. That was close.
Holy Colloquialisms, Batman. We can't take many more of those five dollar
words.
>the Sistine Chapel and A2 are as artistically similar as something
>hanging in the Louvre compared to a paint-by-number book, because
>that's the true nature of Michaelangelo's works compared to Camerons.
Well that's a neat point...or would be if I didn't had you comparing the
Sistine Chapel and the Last Supper.... It wasn't an analogy to the
comparison of Alien and Aliens, it was a commentary on your particular,
shall we, in the interests of broadening current definitions, call it,
'style
of debate'.
>>I want to be clear, this isn't intended as a personal attack. I just
>>think that you're the next Leonard Maltin and would like to see you
>>reach your full potential.
>
>A bit contradictory, but Hey, you're getting paid by the word, right?
What did Leonard Maltin ever do to you, shoot your dog? I think that was a
uncalled for googs, you owe him an apology.
>>Hmmm art is funny. Dog's playing poker is art. Not particularly
>>inspired art. But if they're smoking and you've got a sweet pool table
>>and some nice mahogany paneling with some leather recliners, it makes
>>for a pretty snappy decoration. Math is more art than science, and
>>certainly nothing is more formula than math. Art can mean skill, the
>>act of creating, its fruit, or plain ole ingenuity. If Cameron is
>>skilled, by common definitions of the word he is an artist, regardless
>>of his craft. If you see no act of creation in his work, why do you
>>conceed his originality? If you see no beauty, what do you see?
>
>Must be a Philosophy major, what with all the pretty scenarios &
>what...
Yeah that would be a good guess only you're not likely to find a great many
philosophers who would consider math a part of art.
> 'Art' is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
> And JC is no artist. Only a skilled technician. But that is
Interesting. See I'm drawn to contradiction. Things that are paradoxical,
self-contradictory, or mutually exclusive in nature. Discontinuities as it
were. It is for that reason, I set the above text off from the rest, so I
could sit back and enjoy it.
>personal opinion again, and I believe I see your perspective in that
>matter.
> I think. I mean, that's a lotta words to sift through...
Well, the more you read the better you'll get at it. After you finish up
your present course of hooked on phonics, your reading speed will go up and
in no time at all you won't even be moving your lips. I'm not being
condescending, or even the least bit amusing, because adult illiteracy isn't
a laughing matter. And you have the power to stop it, right in your own
community, volunteer at the library, because having another American
citizen, just one more, end up like googs is a tragedy that just didn't have
to happen.
>>Again with the assertions. Isn't this supposed to be a discussion.
>>I'll admit 'Kevin' may be brief, but he's certainly more forth coming.
>
>Assertions of a personal view, to counter personal view assertions.
>What the heck, i've time to spare...
With his assertions of personal opinion, Kevin also provided reasoning
and justification for them. While you've offered little in kind. But
perhaps my command of English is better than yours and I'm not living up to
my responsibility to hold up a greater portion of the conversation, so as to
be commensurate with my ability. So I will rectify this gross oversight
below. Not only will I argue my point of view, I'll now also argue yours.
Now I know what you're thinking, but rest assured it is a small burden to
take up indeed.
A Reiteration of Googs' Case Against James Cameron:
Art Too?: Judgement Day
Authored in spirit by googs, and ghost written by me.
The fact of the matter is James Cameron is a master of technique, but he
lacks that genuine spark of vision. He can be likened to Deep Blue. A
respectable, even enviable piece of machinery to be sure, but for my money I
still find Mr. Kasperove more remarkable. For in his circumstance, it is
intuition, an inner light, that serve as his guide as opposed to raw and
unremarkably immutable numbers. He's similar to Brian Dennehy in the
Gladiator. A master of technique, he knows all the tricks, all the angles,
and when to use which ever tool happens to be at his disposal. But he has
no soul, no inner greatness driving him to create something primitive and
raw which can serve as some emotional touchstone for the viewers. Perhaps
he sees everything so clearly through his directors loop that he fails to
focus on the deeper truths which are deserving of attention. Maybe his
technique drives him to excellence, as it did the likes of Joe Frasier, but
that inner artistry, that could not be denied, is what made Mohammed Ali a
Legend. Technique doesn't win over heart, or at least it shouldn't, and
least of all in movies.
Disclaimer: Now, I admit there is a fair degree of supposition in the above,
but googs has given me precious little data from which to draw conclusions.
Particularly, considering the absence of billy goats in this thread. But to
the best of my ability I have presented his anemic arguments in the best
possible light I think I or perhaps anyone else could. I invite others, so
inclined, to elaborate and strengthen this characterization of his argument
as best they can, since he is either unwilling or unable to do so himself.
That said I plan to obliterate it.
The fact is, the above point, no matter how shinny the language, or sparkly
the metaphors might be comes back do the same old, dull, dingy, and
uninteresting source of elitism. Googs thinks his films need to look artsy
or how will he be able to tell it's art? He's the type of guy, who if he
actually could have the requisite funds, would buy the original of yellow
number 5 from Christi's for half a million and change. One mans 2 square
meter tribute to food coloring or high modern art, you make the call. It's
about not truly being moved by classical music, but saying you like
classical music because it apparently makes you sound sophisticated. It's
really about not seeing the art, or artist who gets a little dirt under
their nails. His beef with Cameron isn't that he doesn't trust the people
he works with, but that he works closely with them.
To claim there is no artistry in what Cameron does not only ignores the
definition of the word, but more plainly shows disdain for the hard working
people who get but a split second of recognition for months of hard labor.
I know a little something about metallurgy. I know how to calculate how to
weld just about any joint I could conceive of. But there are these guys,
they work hard, sometimes get their hands all covered in grim or breathe in
soot when they have the acetylene too rich, and they haven't, on some
occasions, done more than drive by a institution of higher learning. And
for all I know about how to describe how a weld should be done, they can do
it and I can't. It takes their artistry to make it be. And welding is an
art, a highly developed one at that. I can think about it all I want, but
it is there expertise, their intangible know how that makes it real.
Now, maybe, Ridley Scott is a better director, after all, it's in the title,
direct, he should delegate. Maybe Ridley Scott is even more pleasant to
work
for, who wants their boss always looking over their shoulder? But a better
film maker? No contest. Cameron's drive lends a certain clarity, because
of his close involvement with every level of production. I doubt seriously
if you would find even one person Cameron's worked with over the years, even
among his most ardent detractors, that were anything less than grateful the
expertise he probably passed on to them. Maybe that is what calls people to
give up so much when working for other certain hard driving, uncompromising
directors and producers. Are all those people who are working for minimum
base pay on the star wars movies doing so to pad their resume in the hopes
of a later pay off? Did John Travolta actually pay 100k to play Vince vega
because he knew his career would be resurrected. Or why did Bruce Willis,
one of the most consistent 20 million dollar men working, work for so little
in Pulp Fiction. Why did Harvey Kitel drive so hard to get some film by an
overweight video store clerk made, did he really need another quirky but
badass role? For that matter, why did "Bobby Z" (the helicopter pilot who
does all the helicopter stunts that make you go 'Damn!") fly under the
overpass, something so dangerous I doubt seriously whether the insurance
would have paid out if things didn't go well, when the script said to fly
over?
Maybe these people want an opportunity to drink from the still, and pure
waters of their particular flavor of genius above in search of some elusive
epiphany that might spur them on to grasp that which lies out of reach.
Who's to say, but when someone is willing to put their life on the line to
make a director's vision a little more vivid, and not just anyone, but
someone who is the VERY best in their field, I would think they
were...inspired. James Cameron isn't just about telling someone to do
something with a deadline. He has a relationship that encourages them to
invest a part of themselves in his project, for his vision. And whatever he
needs to do to help them see his vision? Well that's what he does. Builds
them a basic model from a snap-tight kit with some extra plastic and
Styrofoam glued on, draws what everything should look like, hires Stan
Winston for special effects and helps him with the some of the mechanical
engineering...whatever needs doing.
It is almost insane (extra s?) to suggest that any director isn't an artist,
let alone one who performs his craft with such precision. I certainly
wouldn't deny someone their due, which you seem to rush headlong into doing
googs. By your mysterious, yet ostensibly, 'standard' definitions you would
deny the lowly gaffer his credit, along with countless others. I'll give
you a hint googs, the reason they have credits at the end of a film is
because the people who made it deserve credit, or, in the case of Roland
Emmerich, blame. Even films that suck are art, maybe not good art, but they
are art, or at the very least art projects. Now Roland and his pal Dean may
well conspire, all too often, to create the cinematic equivalents of Elvis
portraits on black velvet, but even I will concede they are artists, in
their own way. I can only assume you do this out of ignorance, as malice
would suppose a mental defect for which I can only make a circumstantial
case.
But think of all that the gaffer, just an ordinary everyday lighting
electrician, with 2.3 kids, a 7 year old car, a condo that won't be paid off
till his oldest son is retired and a 2 hour commute, brings to a movie. For
the two hours you give yourself to him, or at least your eyes, he is David
Copperfield at over 2,500 locations, 4 shows a day, 7 days a week. He can
take two people pretending at love on a sound stage in southern California
who are surrounded by 100 intently staring people and make you see something
wholly different. With his craft, and that of his peers, bit by bit, he
can use his knowledge of key and fill lighting to make you see two people,
deeply in love, well up with affection and knowing without speaking, seem
lost, alone and a world apart, in the middle of Manhattan, as they stand a
top the empire state building, allowing you and 600 other people to share in
this, the most sacred moment of their lives. Or if his craft is poorly
honed, his brush overly bold, despite the best efforts of all of his
compatriots, everyone will be sharply reminded that in fact, it is two
people who only exchanged awkward greetings over coffee, way back west some
ten months ago as they were gearing up production on this big holiday
release, while you sit in the dark listening to everyone else shift in their
seat too. Everyone involved in that process is an artist, even the drivers
who get cameramen and actors to locations, or wherever they need to be
alive and calm. Granted not everyone's impact is equal, but it all is in
the final product, and that's why they have credits.
If you're going to insist on your continued snobbery you'll, from at least
now on, be required to provide more justification, than, "Ummm I read it in
a book, but I forgot...well it wasn't me it was this guy, and see he
said...." And quite frankly, even if you do find a citation that 'good'
films are in black and white, all that really proves is some books are made
for burnin'.
>>Hey that's a joke right. Strange it doesn't *seem* funny. Maybe it
>>has some sort of switch to make it funny....
>Gee, Esq., i'm beginning to feel a bit warm & fuzzy with all this
>attention you're giving me...
Sounds like someone needs a hug :(.
> And I left citing examples to *your* deft hand; Thanks!
>Next time, jump right in & tell me when it's not okay to counter a
>joke with a joke *before* I commit such a faux pas again, wouldja?
Naw.. that's too *passive*. Why not strike now while the iron's hot?
Proactive is the name of the game, why wait for problems to fix when you can
prevent them. First off googs, maybe you're not aware of this, so I'll be
patient. Jokes are funny. If not an actual chuckle or better, they'll
typically elicit a smirk or at minimum a knowing nod. Jokes should NOT
invoke pity for the one who makes them. I know, it's hard to be clever, in
fact on occasion, I'm no funnier than you. (A man's gotta sleep) But I'm
not above helping my fellow man.
For David Daugherty Only: if ya got some free time ya might wanna check out
Mathematics and Humor by John Allen Paulos, ISBN 0-226-65025-1.
Now back to our regularly scheduled post....
>>His assertion was that women didn't similarly draw men to action films,
>>with the obligatory exception of the possibility of seeing skin. Even
>>then men really went to see James Bond because of Sean Connery blowing
>>shit up and killing people, not so much Pussy Gallor. It would be
>>silly to assert people in line for Alien were all tittering with the
>>latest buzz on Ms. Weaver. You both are talking about different sets
>>of data that while they intersect have quite different causialities.
>>If you were right there would be multiple successful pre 80's films
>>with an action premiss carried by the female lead. This is clearly not
>>the case. In fact, Ridley Scott's closest action attempt was GI Jane.
>>Only recently has this become even somewhat fashionable. And if anyone
>>were to be credited it would certainly be Mr. Cameron. He would get
>>the credit because he proved it not only commercially viable but
>>EXTREAMLY profitable. If not for him, you'd almost be limited to
>>independent or foreign films for such fare.
>
>Gosh, I thought that he said [~] 'Women in action films don't draw as
>big an audience as men...' I *thought* I said that A1 was an action
>movie, and Weaver was the star, so that would've countered his
>statement, but maybe i'm not recalling properly... 9v9
You're trying to make the brilliant case that Ms. Weaver, who's first film
is Alien, was the foremost reason men were going to see the movie? Well,
I'll agree she certainly was an attractive woman, but not THAT attractive.
Apparently, possibly do to the non-English dictionary you seems to be
(mis)using, you equate 'not drawing to' with repelling. But let's pretend
you actually made the point. Let's for the sake of argument allow for
Alien to be an action movie, as opposed to the suspense/thriller it is.
Let's for the sake of argument say that Alien did command an attendance
similar to a summer block buster like oh Top Gun. Weaver wasn't even in the
ballpark of first. She was so far out of first she was watching a rerun of
the special about the TV movie based on the race on TMC. Let's start with
recent, shall we? 1,000,000 years BC. Almost a classic. Since, in your
estimation, there are only two movie categories, action and not-action
(which has been described as character driven), I think 1,000,000 years BC
fits quite nicely into action. And this is one movie that drew an audience
because of the female lead, and more or less that reason alone. Then there
is also FATHOM, another Raquel Wleche movie, where she dives out of planes,
runs a round, has high speed chases makes stuff blow up, dishes out one
liners like no ones business, and saves the day. Now, I can't say how well
it did at the box office since my parents hadn't even met when it was out,
but I can assure you, hers is the only name anyone would recognize. Now
lets say, that those don't count. Cause in each movie, Raquel wears a
bikini, and for some reason that automatically makes it a character driven
drama. (preemptive strike) There is always Foxy Brown. Yeah I'm talking
about Pam Grier. Shut yo mouth.
> So Jimmy put SigWeav in the forefront of his alleged groundbreaking
>a.f.? So what? W/O SW there would never have been an A2 to contest,
>now, would there? So any discussion of JC's brilliance in this matter
That's like saying without Jamie Lee Curtis there would have been no
Halloween. And I submit for apparently my own damn gratification, that
John Carpenter has made many movies, quite succesful ones, without the
benefit of Ms Curtis. So yes, it would have been made, mainly because the
producers always had doing one in mind. A2 would not have been made if they
cast Susan Sommers in her place probably, but there were plenty of other
actresses to chose from. And just cause you'd like to go back in time to
kill yer pop doesn't mean a discussion of what this news group would be like
is a viable topic. It's the series that made Weaver, I doubt she has any
illusions about that, so you may want to cast them aside as well.
>must be moot, then, since we cannot seperate what is from what *might*
Let me help you here. What is is, what might have been isn't. That really
is a lot easier than it looks.
>have been. Which is to say, that assertion by him that JC deserves
>credit for putting SW in the lead of his sequel is a ridiculous
>truism, since there wouldn't be a female in the lead if it weren't the
>sequel to A1 in the first place!
Bzzzzzt. Again it wasn't Weaver that made Alien at the box office, it was
the style of the film at the time with a twist on the setting. A fairly
bankable combo particularly with the likes of Tom Skerrit on board.
>But you're right in that they're 'apples & oranges'; different sets of
>intersecting data indeed. The intersection? SW.
Yeah, that's the ticket. They were all set in the future, space is a
dangerous place, interstellar travel, evil near all powerful companies,
cats, hypersleep chambers, rules, flames, star fields, I could go on, but do
I need to?
>>Ok. Clearly you have some misconceptions about oral sex. I'd post
>>some instructional pictures, but this really isn't the propper venue.
>
>Gee, can't you appreciate a mixed metaphor?
^^^^^^^^^^
(see glossary) So just what in Kevin Lamb's post was oral sex supposed to
be analogous to? I want to see how oral sex relates via abstract comparison
to what opinions Kevin has about the work of James Cameron and Ridley Scott
on the Alien series. I think that's a simile we'd all make time for.
>>Let me get this absolutely clear. You don't want Kevin to go around
>>saying that your claim is 'someone else could do what Cameron has
>>done'. In fact you're so livid about this you ask, if not demand oral
>>sex as recompense, and then you turn around and say *EXACTLY* that.
>>Have you just gotten back from the desert and a successful vision
>>quest, or is there a medical explaination?
>
>You really like talking about sex, don't you?
Hi. My name is googs and I'm a sex addict. I've never really had oral sex,
but I can't stop thinking about it. I have these over whelming feelings of
guilt and inadequacy, so I project my words and sometimes actions on to the
behavior of others in a futile attempt to rid myself of the shame.
WHOA! Channeling googs....feel dirty....violated...wrong.....
>And, i've never said that JC *wasn't* skilled. What I *do* say is that
>JC's not as deserving of 'artist'ic status as KL seems to think. *Do*
^^^^^^^
>try to follow along. But Hey, there's typing to be done, right?
Now that's a stinging rebuke, I better let that one set, until the glossary
that is.
>>I think we will need a doctors note, that 'medication' is classified as
>>Schedual I.
>
>I can see how you might have a familiarity with such things...
I have a certain practical knowledge. But something says you have an
intimate knowledge that only some people in those scared straight programs
share. Oh but wait, I know maybe you weren't trying to sneak in a little
'I'm rubber you're glue' there. Perhaps you were confusing my organic
chemistry knowledge with detailed knowledge of neurochemistry. We'll that's
ok, they do share some peripheral similarities, but neurochemistry is really
far more specialized.
>>Perhaps its the word action that is the crux of the problem. Are you
>>defining it as 'any act'.
>
>No...
Well now that's cleared up....
>>I understand. I don't feel limited by other peoples unimaginitive
>>spelling, I am quite unfettered by the rules which which others let
>>consonants and vowels rule them. For I rule the letters. They do MY
>>bidding...
>
>*That's* painfully obvious from your spelling,...
I'd be careful where you throw those stones...you might hit Robin Givens
again....and we all know what's down that road.
>>... It seems you are the same when it comes to common
>>situationally specific definitions. Why be limited by common
>>conventions when you can pioneer uncommon ones. Uniqueness is its own
>>reward.
>
>So is creative insulting, apparently,...
>And this sways not my definition of 'action film' in the respects of
>B-movie plotlines, as A1 *was*, *regardless* of what critic you talk
>to.
Well if the actual definition didn't sway you, what chance did I really
have. The Wizard of Oz, at the time of its release was certainly considered
a B-movie by the critics.
>I'm *sure* you were trying to make a point and insult me
>simultaneously, there, but *darned* if it actually is *contextual*...
>'Untamed Heart,' 'WYWS', 'Steel Magnolias' et al are all *character
>driven* films, quite unlike and different from Alien's roots as a
>B-movie (an 'action flick' in the basest definition... You *do*
>remember my given definition, right?); Those ain't, and the Alien
>series is.
> But Hey, paid by the word, and all,...
Well let me summarize then. Action movies are all movies that are not
character driven, and While you were sleeping is a viable benchmark for
character driven, and the Great Outdoors is an action movie, as is the
Seventh Sign, and even (incredulously <--- correct use of the word) Boiling
Point. That's right, googs will actually do the inconceivable use the
adjective 'action-movie' to describe, of all things, boiling point.
>>You asked for it.
>
>But not for this critiquing of my post.
Well, that's the beauty of it, you didn't have to ask. And again, it's not
so much a critique as it is a dismantling.
> Do you hate me? Gosh, i'll be ever so sad if we can't be palsy-walsys...
Googs I don't think anyone would really trouble themselves enough to bother
with actually hating you. It's kinda like why your dad doesn't hate the
mailman, he's got a reason, but in a way he's relieved cause *it's* not his
fault. See?
>>The Wizard of Oz. We all know it. Girl makes friends after brutally
>>murdering a stranger, after a deadly tornado. All four risk life and
>>limb to find a heart, a brain, courage, and a way home only to find out
>>they had them all along. They also learn midgets appear kind, but are
>>clearly untrustworthy even if they are harmless. A warning I would
>>have done well to heed.....
>
>So short people must bear the brunt of your interesting attempts at
>humor as well as me? *Very* tactful, ....
Dismiss my advice if you will, I was a skeptic too. WAS.
>And obviously TWoOz is character driven, as the realm of 'Fantasy
>Film' is by nature. But Hey, go ahead and ignore my point there, too.
>I wouldn't want you to break tradition.
Ohhhhhh. So extremely superficial black and white characterizations are
what
make for high drama, and an complicated narrative. And all this time I
thought it was a charming, yet simple, special effects vehicle for its day.
Thanks for correcting me googs, its all about the give and take of
cooperative learning.
Also, I feel obligated to note that if googs hadn't said anything I might
have lived my WHOLE LIFE thinking Red Sonja, Ator: The fighting eagle, and
Hercules Goes Bannanas were just action movies, having never fully
appreciated their many levels of subtle characterization. I think we're all
a little wiser now that we can appreciate The Alien From L.A. for the astute
social commentary it provides about Australians living at the center of the
Earth.
>>But when film historians use the term they're actually talking about
>>action movies. Not movies where people are at least resperating.
>>According to you even some still photographs constitute action movies.
>
>So am I.
>Remember that the very nature of B-movie fare is that of *visceral*
^^^^^^^^^
See Glossary
>interest as opposed to *intellectual* interest; therefore at its very
^
Interestingly, googs does manage to pair up the words correctly, but
unfortunately doesn't know the meaning of the first one. But just a little
future reference word choice note, you'll want to pair 'visceral' with
'cerebral', the meaning is, of course, retained, but it has more impact due
to certain aesthetics of language.
>core, all the examples of a.m. that I cite are valid. Not your
>bewildering examples above.
> But Hey, you've got deriding to do!
Gee Beave yer right. Which examples did you cite again?
'Beaver.....'
[laugh track] Enter Barbara Billingsly with cookies:
>>Well if you can't settle for one side of a mutually exclusive
>>position.....
I woulda left that alone too....
>>> Googs:
>>> You & I were using different definitions of 'af.' ('Duh!')
>>> I use the classic (which is more distilled than yours above, BTW), but
^^^^^^^^
>>If by distilled you mean broad, inclusive, non-descript, or general,
>>you're quite correct.
>At this point, the fact that you don't follow along in my clear &
>accepted definition is actually quite flattering, considering your
>predilection for unwarranted attack.
(See Glossary)
I'll chalk up your use of the word accepted to delusions on your part. You
definitions clearly aren't accepted by the people writing dictionaries.
Anything that isn't a character driven, or fantasy and is a B-movie isn't
what one might describe as the essence of an action movie.
As for you finding my 'not following' flattering, but only because I come
out of the sun like the black sheep squadron, is just plain cryptic.
>>Like over done choreography and stunning musical numbers? Or silent
>>slapstick comedy? Quality is specific and subjective to the object
>>being discussed. For instance a good musical may have a gun fight, but
>>a good action movie probably won't have a musical number.
>
>'True' as in 'standardly accepted and understood by historians.'
But not people who use English. I understand in Japan they think that we
call scales, health meters in English. Are you using a Japanese to English
dictionary?
>Am I a film historian? No.
But are you Leonard Maltin?
>But I *do* understand the basic quality of a piece of film. In KL's &
>my discussion, that would be the delineation of A1 adding up to more
>than the sum of its parts (in an almost universally-accepted forum of
>both film fans & film historians) over the end product of A2 being
>only a fine example of screen cliches & overdone territory (a near
>perfect example of a well-made shoot-em-up, trumpeted mostly by its
>fans and not so much the historians...).
Well thanks for providing all those specific references as well as the
information about everyone being universally mistaken about which film Ms
Weaver garnered the Oscar nomination for. Oh wait a minute. You didn't
provide one example. Did you. Lemme check...no simple assertions, but no
justifications, how uncharacteristic, maybe he left them in his other
pants...
> The term 'Quality' is most certainly *not* subjective in regards to
It is not only subjective with regards to history, standards change hello
air *QUALITY*, but it is also specific to the object which is being referred
to. For example the standards used to judge a quality apple are somewhat
different from those used to judge a quality fighter plane. Seeing is one
can carry a man in supersonic flight and one is a healthy snack. (I'll
leave it as an excersise for googs, if not the reader, to determine which is
which.
Mercifully I will omit quality from the Glossary, for now at least, as it is
general enough where it would require a fair amount of space, even with
respect to this particular post.
>History. It's my opinion that A1 will be remembered as an (man, I hate
>this term) important film more than A2 will ever be. But on the
Seeing that more films barrow heavily from aliens, everything from costume
design to lines, to characterizations than do from Alien, you're issuing a
pretty steep challenge. Even Kubric, in Full Metal Jacket, released the
year after Aliens nearly copies James Cameron's characterizations. Earlier
war films didn't have this same balance. It really is a mix that started
with Aliens. Now Kubric of course made certain changes, and didn't really
make a lesser movie for having at least the appearance of borrowing from Mr
Cameron, and if you like you can even chalk it up to parallel development.
But regardless it is a formula that expanded upon its roots like the seven
samurai, and wild bunch, and went on to influence basically all movies that
delt with a group of men in combat in the past decade and a half. Alien on
the other hand was a update of an old film, in a style and of a type that
was in vogue at the time of its release, and owes most of its acclaim to a
distinctive visual style which owes maybe as much to Geiger as to Scott.
Now, I'll agree Alien was a better film than to deserve that, but those are
the facts. It was a commercial venture that was inline with what the
studios thought the audience wanted to see. I'll admit the change to a
scifi setting was a nice little twist, but even that might go back to a
chocolate peanut butter decision. Oh oh film noir horror suspense/thriller
in space! That's why the girl doesn't run out of the house! No damn air
out there! Woooooo! Get me a fresca, I'm 'glowing'.
>subject of remembering Technically Well Made Fims, A2 may well be
>remembered over A1, but that ain't my problem w/ KL; He said A2 was
>'better,' remember? *That's* the issue. And the futile debate.
> But Hey, don't let that stop you from meandering about your
>keyboard (not that *anything* could, apparently...). I mean, you must
>be up to around 25 or 30 cents worth of words by now, right?
You've offered not even an opinion WHY A2 won't, your opinion is just that
it won't, and that James Cameron isn't an artist and you elude to the fact
those two things might be related.
>>Gone with the wind may well be a compelling story but it is not a
>>compelling movie; however, it is reguarded as a treasured and reveared
>>classic. I would submit that over time viewers become more and more
>>sophisticated, and in the information age particularly, this pace has
>>been accelerated. While once in a while it's nice to turn off ones
>>brain and just kick back in the dark for some pretty colors, it's only
>>worth while to make comparisons over such time frames in a statistical
>>manner. Ie comparing the worst to the worst and the best to the best.
>>Even the toxic avenger series, which reveals in its crapulence has more
>>levels than much of Chaplain's work. In either case, the modern era is
>>where we live, so to chastise someone for adopting the prevailing
>>veiws, which were developed from previous popular views (ie classical),
>>is simply moronic.
>
>GWTW? I personally dislike the film, but it is most definately a
>*classic* examination of human character *regardless* of the age it's
As long as the human characteristic you plan to examine is atrocious overly
dramatic acting. Film != stage. The story and setting may well be very
powerful, but its presentation, admittedly even to you fails to move you
anywhere but out of eyesight and earshot.
>viewed in. And TToxAven is certainly less 'deep' than anything Chaplin
>had done, since the filmmaker's (Troma's) intentions have always been
>*stated* to have been about shock and money...
>(Not that Chaplin would have been entirely seperated from monetary
>interests, but after he'd made his fortune, he still made films. Why?
>The art of it. He had something to say. 'Depth', you know,... Or do
>you take issue with that observation as well?)
>...and Chaplin's films examine human nature as its base, ergo, a
>*meaningful* film. Meaningful films (interchangeable with 'classic'
>films, in my definition for you there,...) are relevant thruout the
>ages, so long as they speak to human interest.
Really? Describe the many levels of "The Tramp" beyond slapstick. Tell us
all about the underlying humanistic themes. The Toxic avenger not only has
slap stick, it makes fun of itself, other movies, plenty of puns, and in
general is non-sequitor. And Chaplin, by all accounts was the Ty Cobb of
tinsletown. He made his movies cause then he'd make more money and be more
famous and use more people particularly women. It isn't what I'd call an
unfamiliar story. But today, they play sports too. And Troma's intentions
have always been stated to be to make a lot of money by spending a little
and having a little fun with [our] audience. And that they do.
> A1 has *lots* of ponderables to examine & discuss. A2 has 'Just how
Odd that everyone is more or less talking about Aliens then isn't it.
Considering you think all the interesting things are in the first one.
>far was the derelict from Hadley's Hope?', and that's about all.
> And I can easily tell that we are in disagreement about how
>relevant the current view is in regards to film quality, so i'll let
>your stance of 'comparing worst & best to their like' to contradict
>your previous statement that 'quality is subjective.'
I offered a statistical method of comparison that would take their
subjective qualities into account. There isn't any contradiction. It's not
even difficult to understand. But for some reason you seem quite confused.
It's just like the consumer price index only a little more abstract. You
could conceivable measure the change in quality of movies over time.
>>True enough, but you don't see many people claiming the Earth is the
>>center of the universe any more. The old views don't get a great deal
>>of replay, except on oldies stations.
>
>Facts stay relevant. No the Earth isn't the center of the universe,
>but quality films are still quality films.
A bitch is a bitch is a bitch. --Ernest Hemmingway
>Or was that supposed to be diversionary? Or an insult? Or God forbid,
>'clever'?
That's sweet. Yer trying to imitate me. Well if I was you, I'd rather be
me too I guess.
>>I find litheographs of 'waterlilies' to be quite artistic. Oddly,
>>you've already mentioned if not outrightly commended Jamed Cameron's
>>originality. In an inronic twist Henry Ford, father of the assembly
>>line and mass production was something of a pioneer. So in a certain
>>point of view you're argument isn't self defeating, it's self
>>contradicting. I like that, it's original.
>
>Yeah, you're Right! I *did* say JC's Original!
>
>No, wait,...
>
>What I *really* said was JC's 'technically adept,' not 'creative.'
Do you REALLY want me to quote you admitting he's original? You'd look
stupid(er) if I did. Now, we're going to play a little game. I call it,
the price is wrong bob. Call my bluff and maybe you win or maybe you don't.
We'll see.
>I'll be sure to spell it out for you next time.
> But Hey, don't let little things like 'facts' keep you from making
>another attempt at clever derision!
Well since their are so many of them on my side, and I DO have my quips to
tend to, they can frequently get in the way and clutter up what would
otherwise be a highly inflammatory post and reduce it to something more
mocking and sarcastic. And where is the fun in that?
>But Wait! Maybe you're saying that Modern Mechanisation *IS* 'Art'!
>GeeWhiz, Mr. Esq, you're *so* 'dada', how can you *stand* yourself?
Ironic that you mention an artistic movement based on deliberate
irrationality and total disregard for traditional conventions. Perhaps not
unsimilar to futile attempts to redefine words that have been in use in
principley the same forms for centuries. I'm not saying you're dada.
That'd be too third grade, and quite frankly I haven't seen a need to work
up to that yet. I'm just mearly making the observation that you brought the
Dada movement into this conversation, where I use primarily facts, and at
least give reasons for my opinions and examples when possible, and you well,
you do what you do. Perhaps the particular philosophical bent you ment to
saddle me with was modernism, or utilitarianism?
>>Is your definition of 'most' as accurate as your definition of
>>'distilled'?
>
>'There's that buzzing again!'
This pretty much speaks for itself.
>>First is first. And while it might not be best, it certainly tends to
>>be more enjoyable than last.
>
>More Philosophy moots, there?
Hehe you're punny. I can do it do. *giggle*
>>Right, you don't want to be too demanding when it comes to oral sex,
>>right out of the gate like that. It's a goal to work up to....
>
>'What part of 'retort observant of sarcastic insult' don't you
>understand there?'
Funny, on my screen it said, and I quote, "I'll withhold the 'Blow me
there,....'"[formatting errors corrected]
>>> >Dismiss his work? "Brilliant filmmaker for his time?"
>>>
>>> In *any* age, dismissal is idiotic.
>
>>Ok this is fairly amusing here.....watchout for the irony, you're
>>standing in it.
>
>Try to remain contextual, there,...
>Dismissing *Hitchcock* is idiotic.
So Hitchcock is congruent with the phrase 'Any age'? Well....that's just
special.
>*Surely* you knew that.
>Unless-
>You were only itching to make another attempt at clever derision.
>Ain't that cute!
>I mean, you *did* say in another thread that Dickens wasn't your fave;
>You're obviously more of a Byron kind of guy,...
High my name is Googs, I like to memorize authors, but not actually go
through the trouble of reading books, because, well reading is hard. And
besides Bergus Meredith was really good in Hamlet, but I still got an F on
that midterm cause Blockbuster was all out and I had to rent Clash of the
Titans instead.....
>>I'm not sure if this is getting funny haha or funny sad....
>
>'And the cleverness just keeps on coming!'
>Or more aptly, flapping,...
Woo. With scathing retorts like that, I better get my web cam installed
quick so you all can see me just burst into flames.
>>But you haven't got your oral sex yet....btw you must find a faq that
>>discribes trolling, I'll refer you to alt.religion.kibology. They will
>>help you, by example if nothing else.
>
>Trolling was addressed above.
Yes, it was.
>And as for your astounding number of references to sex, well, may I
>suggest you seek a professional?
You're the one using fallacy and oral sex references in the same paragraph.
Are you sure there isn't some one you can talk to about your inner termoil?
Priest, a Rabbi, a friend, a mentor, or that friendly hair dresser who
always seems to get you drunk enough to sing show tunes with him but not
*too* drunk to call a cab?
[Kevin said: (which googs promptly ignored.]
>>> >... Yeah, I like Cameron, and yes I think he's done a
>>> >lot for cinema, but in all honesty I miss the creative edge
>>> >so prominent in his first two films. I understand that the
>>> >Terminator was highly derivitave of old Outer Limits
>>> >episodes, and that ALIENS had its own inspirations (which,
>>> >I'm sure you've forgotten, I've readily admitted)...
>>> <Thanks for thinking for me, there,...>
>>> >... but none
>>> >of the blank check budget movies he made in his King of the
>>> >World days ever came close to possessing the edgy, "raw"
>>> >creative power of his first two productions. I have enjoyed
>>> >all of his movies to varying degrees, and recognize that he
>>> >has accumulated a roster of films worthy of tremendous
>>> >praise, but I don't think that the increased budgets
>>> >improved his movies *in any way other than visually.*
>>>
>>> >Because of his track record, my attendance at future Cameron
>>> >films is pretty much guaranteed, but I'll be the first to
>>> >admit that his best days are (sadly) behind him. I don't
>>> >really fault him for it, I'm sure anyone with the amount of
>>> >money and power Cameron has garnered would be hard pressed
>>> >not to give in to a degree of complacency. But I'll always
>>> >have T1 and A2, and now I save my greatest anticipation for
>>> >the next Wachowski Brothers film.
>>right it was only a descriptive summery of what he liked about Cameron
>>direction and how that's changed over the years in his view. What
>>possible relevence could that have in a discussion of the relative
>>merits of Ridley Scott and James Cameron. Good call. Point Googs.
>>Yer really a stickler for those fine details. I can tell.
>
>You're getting quite tiring, now,...
>What it *really* was was a backpedalling on his part due to the fact
>that A) he realised that knocking down Hitch was both stupid &
>unnecessary to the argument at hand, and B) *it was not relevant to
>our discussion of Hitchcock!*
> But Hey, that money's piling up from your keyboard, now, rightt?
Right.....it's a complex anagram right?
[Kevin also said:]
>>> >... there's not
>>> >really much more to say. I recognize the man as an integral
>>> >piece in the history of film, but he just laid the
>>> >foundation for great cinematic suspense. Others (Cameron and
>>> >Scott included) have built cinematic structures on the
>>> >cornerstone of Hitchcock's work that have achieved much
>>> >higher degrees of intensity and terror. I mean, Henry Ford
>>> >will always be "the man" when it comes to automobiles, but
>>> >if you did a side by side comparison of an old T-Bird and a
>>> >1999 Audi A6 Quattro, the T-Bird becomes laughable...
>>>[to which googs said]
>>> Once again you exemplify your ridiculous bias for the new & against
>>> the forebear. See my ridiculing re: pop-culture above.
>
>>That's like claiming: "old buildings are better because they have worn
>>artifices that at one time were impressive, and common, where modern
>>buildings have a purity, clarity, and playfulness with geometry that
>>could hardly be drempt of while serving their occupants more expertly
>>and safely." while certain people certainly have that veiw, one
>>would hardly claim that it was a majority (as googs does) since if it
>>was a market economy it would dictate that similar structures be
>>constructed and older ones be preserved, yet the opposite happens.
>>Puzzling.....or not.
>
>*Now*, I can safely call you out as an idiot.
>Your metaphors are as mixed as your drinks, apparently...
>What is the purpose of Historic Landmarks Foundations?
To subvert the free market and preserve things that the invisible hand would
have torn down because the people that like them have money to spend, and
spending it to preserve 'landmarks' makes them happy.
What did you think? Fervent religious building worship?
>To preserve buildings which have meaning to people, not to keep people
>jailed in those buildings. When a buildings usefulness is outgrown,
>those occupants move on. Sometimes to an old bldg., sometimes to a new
>one. No matter.
Pssst. How much for dime bag? Hmm if people don't leave a building until
it is no longer useful...why are they keeping it around, and if it's still
useful why would people want to tear it down?
> But so long as that old building has relevance to people and
>usefulness, it stands and is occupied. Just like historic films still
>stand, and occupy seating.
Welcome to anthropomorphic theater, literally.
> To hear you jabber on above, you seem to say that nothing but new
>is fitful & best. If so, you're as myopic & deluded as KL in matters
>of the importance of 'new' over 'old.'
>And easily as dismissable.
Right, it is pretty deluded to think that what works gets preserved and what
works better replaces its contemporary. That's just crazy talk. I keep
saying things like that, people liable to lock me up.
>But as an excercise to tie together our metaphors for ng consumption,
>i'll say:
>A1 was a building of many rooms, much like the gothic mansions of
>yore, whose darkened rooms held secrets & mysteries, while A2 was a
>glass house, transparent of intent, with a few weak floorboards for
>shock value.
Yeah, Alien was pretty, but dark and drafty. There was a half naked girl
running from something that could easily find and catch her, but didn't
cause it was sleepy from killing her friends, who like elephants, wandered
off to die when a greater power told them it was time. Oh and the house
blows up. Hadn't seen that before.....
Right it only played on some of the themes of the original to give an extra
dimension of enjoyment and suspense to its audience, while not resorting to
half assed characterizations that by all rights I should have. It not only
reevaluated the relationship of man to nature, but man and his technology,
and also man with the full force of his technology against nature. Aside
from more general elements, there were also elements of death,
resurrection, betrayal and redemption, lending a classical flair to what
could have been a straight forward shoot'em-up. If its glass it's lexan,
the frame is steel and the style is deco, and that one floor board does
squeak a little, but it's a small inconvenience to suffer for teak.
>See? *I* can be poetical, too!
Really? Let's see.
>>Psst. If he's a troll. Then you and I have lost. As has everyone
>>else on this thread...
>
>Exactly.
Once....
>>... Are you saying we should 'Have a Nice Day'?...
>
>Not by a longshot, pal.
Twice.....
>>...Also, and expert fisherman, ie troll(er) will cast his line a little as
>>possible to get fish to jump in his boat. If Kevin is a troller he's
>>the hardest working one on the net. So Kudos to him and his fisherman
>>dad's work ethic.
>
>And that's just what he did, as per my quoting of his initiating post
>above.
>What the heck; I hate idol-worshippers...
Three times a lady......
>>Well thanks for contributing. Oddly I've only seen news reading
>>software with post buttons. I think I would find your software, or at
>>least its 'Not Post' button a bit tiresome. You have options, there is
>>no need to suffer any longer.
>
>God knows your fingers must bleed from your endless verbosity...
Yeah, I heard about the movie, stared Denzel Washington, and John Lithgow.
>>Or he'll steal all the U's. Then we'll all be wearing N'derware and
>>people with think we've succumb to some arcane German Tommie Hilfiger
>>clone virtually assuring an invasion by french-canadians. He is NOT to
>>be triffled with. I'm not just scared for me, I'm scared for Deja
>>News. South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut: A film about foul mouthed
>>eight year olds or misinterpritation of the apocalyps, you make the
>>call!
>
>I dunno, but I *think* you're attempting another 'clever' barb,
>there,...
You're ok, so far as I can tell, you're using the word correctly, if a bit
liberally.
>>Which you've defined as old. So I can only assume your primary gauge
>>of a films merit is by appearent lack of contrast control. You
>>certainly haven't been specific enough to suggest otherwise.
>
>Which you, and *only* you, I might add, have read as my definition of
>'old.'
>*Do* try to stop typing for a while and actually *retain* some of what
>you read...
I think we'll chalk this one up to delusion, as 'only' has a fairly
unambiguous meaning, but still....
>>I guess a rotoscope of hieroglyphics would be a cinematic experiance so
>>compelling you'd loose all bladder control. And that's fine, I'm not
>>here to judge. I'm just a member of the jury.
>
>A jury of one, I point out,...
Check. Poor word usage.
Check. Poor ability to understand relative quantities.
Can you wiggle your toes?
I notice you seemed to trail off at the end, perhaps due to an anticipatory
quiver at the thought of rotoscoped hieroglyphics? Maybe he has spongiform
encephilitis.
>>I guess US naval cryptographers were fortunate the Japanese didn't have
>>a matched set of you circa 194x. JN 25c my ass!
>
>Your self-congratulatory cleverness attempts are bordering on the
>mythic.
>What's the matter, Bunky? Didn't yer Momma Love you enough?
Hi I speak English, what language do you speak? I think if could be
self-congratulatory to the point where the proportions of such could be
considered, as you so charmingly put, "Mythic", I would think that'd deserve
a hearty pat on the back. Let alone that I could be so in respect to
certain personality characteristics. But I'll take your word for it,
because I don't want to let your description of how a comparison of you to
Japanese naval code 25c, which impeded efforts at Guadal Cannal, can be
considered as egocentric on my part, get in the way of my Happy Me Day
Party.
>>and by untenable you mean 'of clarity'?
>
>Yeah, Sure, Whatever you say,...
>
>>Let this be a lesson to all of you. When you by someone a word of the
>>day calander, don't buy a knock off, spring for the real deal, the one
>>that includes the definitions too. We of usenet will thank you for it.
>
>Well, at least my calendar would show me the correct spellings of
>those words,...
>(Oooh, sorry! Not 'clever', but Hey! I'm just an idiot, anyway,
>right?)
All the same, I'd rather have the definitions. It's the difference between
sounding like and idiot and actually being one. Aside from that you have a
lot of guts taking shots at my spelling considering your own ability in that
area. Take your shots such as they are Googs. At the end of the day,
everyone knows who's laying in a pool of their own blood beneath the jungle
canopy. Googs, if you weren't the Omega male of the group, I'd feel better,
something akin to accomplishment. But now I kinda feel how Steve Erwin must
when he corners an irate bearded lizard for the viewers at home. It has an
element of satisfaction, but in a way its a let down too.
Face it Googs, this is how it always was going to end. With your women
wearing my colors, and me wearing your fingerbone through my nose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glossary Follows (In English)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metaphor: (from greek 1533): 1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase
literally denoting one kind of idea is used in place of another to suggest a
likeness or analogy between them (as in *drowning*-*in money*); *broadly*:
figurative language - compare SIMILE. 2: an object, activity, or idea
treated as a metaphor.
Art:(middle english, old french 13c):1:skill acquired by experience, study,
or observation <the art of making firends> 2 a: a branch of learning: (1):
one of the humanities (2) plural: liberal arts b archaic: learning,
scholarship 3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ
building> 4: a: the conscious use of kill and creative imagination
especially in the production of aesthetic objects: also works so produced. b
(1) fine arts (2) one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art 5a archaic: a
skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful 6: decorative or
illustrative elements in a printed mannner. SYNONYMS: ART, SKILL, CUNNING,
ARTIFICE, CRAFT.
Visceral:(adj. 1575) 1: felt in or as if in the viscera (plural of viscus):
DEEP <deep conviction> 2: not intellectual: instinctive, unreasoning
<instinctive drives> 3: dealing with crude or elemental emotions: EARTHY <a
Earthy novel> 4: of, relating to, or located on or amoung the vicsera:
SPLANCHNIC.
Adjunct to Visceral: All emotions are derived from an instinctual basis,
they are the chemistry that rules us, and compared to reason, quite
primitive, but also powerful. And shouldn't any even half way decent movie
try to elicit some emotion? If you don't submit to it and go along for the
ride, wherever it leads, what's the point?
Distillation:(noun 14c)1:a process that consists of driving gos or vapors
from liquids or solids by heating and condensing to liquid products and that
is used especially for purification, fractionation, or the formation of new
substances 2: something distilled.
Adjunct to distilled: Ie Pure, what's pure? Unsullied, elemental, free of
foreign matter, contamination, or corruption. Overly broad definitions
would then be considered undistilled. A distilled definition would be
simple and describe a narrow range of closely related things.
David Daugherty
"...for David Daugherty only...if you got some free time, ya might check
out Mathematics and Humor by John Allen Paulos..etc...etc.."
Thankyaeversomuch : - )
David Daugherty
draws...being the old fart of the ng, I know many woman actresses that
held their own...let's start with:
Shirley Temple...the biggest box office draw in the thirties...no other
male or female pulled the people into the theaters like Shirley..she had
something called "talent"...yes, it's all coming back to me now.. she
definitely had "talent". She could act, dance, sing , and make the
viewer cry or deliriously happy ..without showing too much skin except
a bandaged knee or two....I guess if they had videos back then she would
be a gugzillionaire and own the film industry.
For a more top billing adult females, there were Katherine Hepburn,
Barbara Stanwick, Joan Crawford, Betty Davis, ...hell...no strong
females leads in that group, huh?...no we must wait until we get to
Sigourney Weaver or Jane Fonda....
Then there was one of my favorites of all times , Susan Hayward ( I
Want To Live 1958) who was perhaps one of the finest Dramatic actress to
ever appear in a movie
No one thought much about Elizabeth Taylor (Who Afraid of Virginia Wolf
) or Monroe (Misfits)..hell, they didn't have much box office draw...no,
we have to wait until Sigourney Weaver hit the big screen before we get
that "strong female image"
To the individual, who has the corn cob stuck up his ass attitude
towards others, and thinks I don't have the where with all to understand
AR, having collected 16mm films, Super 8 sound films from Blackhawk
Films, since I was 15 years old,and RCA disc, vhs format, etc, I now
have over 3,500 titles of television, commercials, cartoons,
instructional, educationl, foreign and domestic films in my collection
of all genres, I am so glad I have the four Alien installments that
showcase Sigourney Weaver as the strong female lead in a movie...Most of
all, I can now go to the happy hunting ground knowing I might have a
shot at understanding AR and the "intricacies" of this two star movie.
Thankyaeversomuch...doing must best to conserve on bandwidth : - )
^oo^
Kevin Lamb
>Kevin Lamb <kevinlamb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Tell me, googs, how have you been harmed?
>Harmed not in the conventional sense (physical) but what
>about mental anguish (*emotional harm*?) The definition of
>"harm" that I (and most sufferers of spongeiform
>encephalitis, BTW >; >) use, states anything that *by
>nature* incites an "insancipatory" (my term) response. And
>that sure as hell describes your tone with me, pal.
Well, if that's truly how you feel, I apologize. (Sigh)
>>As I have already stated, I was in the mood to have a
>>discussion about A1 and A2, but three things contributed
>>to the tone of my initial post. 1. You, me, and Cov
>>already had a long discussion about this subject so I
>>thought you guys might need some extra incentive to start
>>all over again (ie: the challenge.) 2. When I checked out
>>the ng after a two month hiatus, I noticed that a similar
>>thread titled "Which is the best film?" or something like
>>that was just winding to a close and I thought the odds of
>>a new discussion starting up so late in the thread were
>>pretty slim. 3. I was just in a slightly mischievous mood
>>at the time.
>I think # 3 speaks most loudly,... And to be fair, i was in
> a slightly indolent mood myself,...
>>Let's say I *was* after a Cameron kissing parade. Why do
>>you care? Let's say I *was* the drooling Cameron fan you
>>accuse me of being. How could that possibly harm you in
>>any way? If you don't like what I write, don't read my
>>posts. Turn off your computer and I cease to exist for
>>you. Do you realize how silly you look by losing you
>>temper in an anonymous discussion on usenet?
>I've said it before & i'll say it finally: I hate peas.
>With great zeal, i might add,..
I understand former President George Bush hated broccoli;
Frankenstein feared fire. We all have our silver bullet, I
guess. I noticed you didn't answer my question, BTW.
>>I will, however, clarify one thing: The point of me
>>starting this thread. A couple of months ago, me,
>>Covenant, and googs had a pretty good-natured debate about
>>which Alien film was better...
>>>Not really 'good natured', i'd say, as KL was a bit of a
>>>prick even then...
>>COV: "This is such a breath of fresh air for this NG. Guys
>>contrasting, comparing, disagreeing, agreeing debateing
>>discussing.... And not a *You're stupid because..*comment
>>in sight! (Well... except that one!) Keep posting your
>>thoughts Kev. I might not agree with some of them, but I
>>certainly respect the way you put them over!"
>>Hmmm. Sounds pretty good-natured to me. If I was in a more
>>accusing mood, I'd be tempted to call you a liar hoping to
>>add credibility to your "Kevin is a troll" argument by
>>suggesting I have a history of malicious behavior. But I
>>won't. Instead, I'll simply ask: Why the 180 degree
>>about-face googs?
>Two words KL: "British beef." But I'm not bitter...
Ah, gotcha. Not much I can say to that. Hope you get
better (seriously.)
>I suppose i should apologise since I lied and said you were
>anything other than civil *back then*:
Apology accepted.
>May's a long time back for me to remember posts from a
>relatively minorly important part of existance (ie- ng
>postings as opposed to, say, trying not to get eaten by
>wolves, most dramatically), especially when your intent was
>suspect this time round and led me to recall only the
>negative recollections from back then .
I can understand how particularly dangerous the wilderness
can be (I once lived in Alaska,) but I don't know if that
justifies your "selective memory." But hey, since you
apologized, I guess we're cool.
>>Well, googs, I wasn't talking about later posts. When
>>someone who you're expecting to act friendly and cordial
>>gets totally bent out of shape and starts belittling your
>>opinions with totally unfounded accusations, continued
>>"friendliness" is sure put to the test.
>Not from the way it was written, you weren't talking about
>early posts.
Double your negatives, double your fun.
>Don't be misleading. And exactly who threw the first
>insult? I say you did, with that being colloquially
>obtusive condescension delivered in overly-incredulous
>questioning sarcasm, along with other offenses (to be named
>later.)
"Have you seen any suspicious looking sarcasms ma'am? Did
they *question* you? Were they overly incredulous? How
were they packaged? Were they wearing CondAscension by
Calvin Klein? How did they treat you? Were they obtusive?
Ma'am if you can somehow help us and answer these questions
we may finally be able to put a stop to misleading
colloquialism."
>The three examples from your first reply to my first reply
>to your first post to my first reply...
< Drum solo >
> Quote:
>Okay googs. Enlighten me. Who made a bughunter war *movie*
>before Cameron? What's that? *Nobody?* Thank you.
Sweet God, I said *that*? And you...actually...lived?
> Quote:
>No, because it wasn't an action flick, which you may note,
>was what I was *talking* about.
Oh I see. You took that statement "literally." I can see
how that might be offensive. I guess I should take the time
to apologize to all of the ladies for my above indiscretion.
> Quote:
>You're right googs. That dinner scene was all about
>"suspense."
>*That'*s what i call 'getting bent out of shape.'
Yeah, if you're Obi-Wan Kenobi. "From a certain point of
view" and all.
>If you were truly interested in what or why i said what i
>said or did or why, you would've asked knowingly instead of
>nebulously insulted sarcasm.
Huh?
>If your intent was not sarcasm, you need better riding
>skills. If it *was* intended, perhaps you misread my
>initial reply; i was not being ecclesiastic to you, and I
>might apologise if you read it that way. As i said, i *was*
>feeling a bit incontinent...
I've already stated that I allowed myself a degree of
hyperbole in my first few posts. If that truly *harmed*
you, then perhaps Usenet isn't the best playground for you.
Might I recommend a pet store?
>>Your *job* was to deflate JC? Is Ridley Scott paying you
>>to trumpet him as the greatest director of the Alien
>>series? Have you been commissioned to put anyone who
>>considers Cameron better than Scott "in their place?"
>>Trust me, googs, RS is doing just fine without you having
>>to mount a crusade against the evil Jim Cameron fans.
>You don't hear me going round saying that RS is a better
>director or made a better film than Cameron or A2, now, do
>you?
"Da Nile" ain't just a river in Egypt folks.
>*I* don't make such statements, not because I'm defensible
>and unstupid. And misrepresenting my colloquialism of 'my
>job to...' does *nothing* to help me believe that you're
>not simply being inflammatory again...You *know* what i
>meant. But i'll translate anyway: 'i take it upon myself to
>knock wind out of blowhards occasionally.'
>And i *like* tilting against windmills...
Everyone needs a hobby...
>>There's only one statement that I truly regret typing. Its
>>this one: "Why am I tempted to mention that sticking your
>>head in your ass to avoid the inevitable is no valid
>>defense of RS?" An insult like that just isn't my style,
>>and I seriously contemplated whether or not I should post
>>it. In the end, I went ahead with it, but phrased it in
>>the form of a question to "soften" the insult a little. A
>>futile attempt indeed, and I apologize, as that only added
>> fuel to the fire.
>And *that* to me was the capstone and the true face behind
>all the phrases that seemed insulting. With that line,
>*that* told me, 'Hey! He *is* being a prick after all!'
"If you liked that, you're gonna *love* this..." --Hudson
>>So any challenge is an outrage to you? If someone said
>>"Hey [whatever your real name is], I bet I can beat you at
>>Space Invaders" would you punch him in the mouth?
>No, because it isn't acidic, which is *by nature* caustic.
>And you *do* remember my definition of "aesthetic" don't
>you? >;> Well, if you don't, I don't care...no I take that
>back. FY!!! And your little dog too! Eat peas and die,
>prick.
Uh, okay, a touchy issue I guess. I know your definition,
trust me. Just calm...down.
>>Okay, let me get this straight. You claim that I
>>maliciously tried to cause a ruckus in May by posting my
>>thoughts on JC and A2. Then, when I saw that people
>>weren't getting as pissed off as I had hoped, I
>>"disappeared into the shadows," paid $1,000 for a computer
>>to "explain" why I was no longer trolling with my webtv,
>>then resurfaced with my secret weapon: MY OUTRIGHT
>>DECLARATION THAT A2 WAS BETTER THAN A1. After dropping
>>this bombshell of doom on the ng, I continued to
>>deliberately attack the regulars with biting sarcasm and
>>crippling insults. Then, at the peak of my trolling
>>success, I had a revelation from God that "I was being a
>>prick," and went on a crusade to heal the innocent and
>>undo the damage and suffering that I caused in my
>>blistering rampage of Cameron-worshipping destruction.
>>Must...fight...the...urge...to...say...something...condesc
ending...
>Aside from the transparently veiled condescensions above,
>you mean?
Yes.
>>Whew, okay, I'm better now. Uh googs, let me simply say,
>>"I think you've mischaracterized my intentions."
>Perhaps. But as i've pointed out before, 'perspiration's a
>funny thing.'
Yeah, like when Ted Striker was nervous about landing the
plane and sweat was just pouring down his face! LMAO.
>>>Hm.
>>Yeah, think about that googs.
>See? I *knew* you could still be condescending!! See?
>*See?!?* Attaboy!!
>What's that cliche' about a leopard not changing its
spots,...?
"A leopard never changes its spots."
>>Getting pissed off because someone expresses an opinion
>>contrary to yours in a subject so trivial as movie
>>preferences is about as random as you can get.
>You really don't see it, huh? Even with your observance of
>the 'headsup 7up' line?... Well then, okay. Whatever.
Its not really much of a line, at least not the way we
played it at my school. Red Rover had a couple of lines
though...
>No *f*ck* that..
Jinx, buy me a coke.
>I'll say that your thread was begun poorly with an absolute
>and indefensible statement, continued worded rudely,
>peppered with condescension and insult, and capped with a
>complete withdrawal from conversation. All this over the
>few days is *anything* but 'random', and you, politely, say
>untruths if you say this could be reasonably considered
>'random.'
Shhhh, googs. Its quiet time. Don't eat the paste.
>FY, you know what that meant,... (ironing in line is
>boring...)
>>>That calls for the proverbial 'Blowme.'
>>And that calls for an emphatic "No thanks, I'm straight."
>I swear, no one is gay anymore,... : (
>>No, where you went wrong was taking a simple debate about
>>movies so personally.
>That would be more properly a case of you having poor
>communicative skills, if indeed you were attempting
>'polite.' And basically, the *very* first mistake was
>indeed mine; answering you, your shit's in 1st place.
Thanks bud (I think.)
>And you're still an idiot for thinking so. 'IMO,' of
>course. If you're so good, or Hitch was so bad, why would
>it have to be $50mil? 'Blair Witch' was only $300K;
>regardless of how we personally liked the film (i didn't),
>the fact that it's effective, in a current context, is
>inarguable. $50mil's an exhorbitant amount of money when
>the only issue is making a 'better' film. Hell, you could
>shoot it on *videotape* if you're so damn good. To me,
>you sounded like the Dean & Emmerich mentality. And it
>still looks that way.
Well if you think Devlin and Emmerich could make a better
film than AH shooting on video, then I sure as *hell* could.
So I guess that's no longer an issue.
>FY for being misleading about *me* being hospitable first.
>That distinction belongs to *you*, as referenced in the
>quotes above. And i'm quite content to remain the
>proverbial lemming.
That's cool. God knows we all appreciate the entertainment.
>>You know googs, every single "flame war" I've witnessed on
>>this ng has involved you. Could it *possibly* be that
>>*I'm* not the jerk here?
>Oh, i certainly have my days. But, i've made out with more
>guys i've had squabbles with than i'm presently
>incommunicado with.
What you do in your personal life is your own business.
*Do* try to stay on topic please.
>>Your "interpretations" of the definition of:
>>A Classic Movie: "Recognising subtexts, however, *does*
>>make a viewer *think* about things, and _That_ sir, is the
>>difference between a Classic Film, and an Action Flick."
>In the context of the issue ( the quality of A4 over
>'mindless' action flicks), i hold that still. But more
>appropriately it should say '...is *a* difference...' or
>'',,,is the difference...*in this case*'
So now Alien 4 is a classic compared to mindless action
flicks? If you say so...
>>An Action Movie: 1. "I see we have a problem defining
>>'action movie.' I judge it by any movie that relies on
>>action to reach its climax" [Like Twins and the Great
>>Muppet Caper] 2. "Try to take in & process the Whole
>>Picture, now. Go back & reread my posts while remembering
>>the definition of 'action movie' that i (and film
>>historians, BTW) used."
>Again with the film titles.WhoTF put them there, as it was
>*not* me??!!
Perhaps it was a net fairy.
>As for film historians, as i said, i'm no historian. But i
>have seen many films and have studied (admittedly on my own
>out of scholastic context) film and the history of film,
>and have my own opinions on the subject. Opinions based on
>not having viewed every single film in the universe,
>alright, but certainly on more than the average film fan,
>IMNSHO. To be more proper, it should say '...(and *some
>other* "film historians," BTW) used.', as (one final time
>and as thoroughly as i can), i spoke of Action films as
>having the elemental theme of the human condition in that
>story, i.e.-- visceral of interest rather than cerebral of
>interest. 'Visceral' meaning relative to stories of
>*existance & survival* [primarily what anthropologists
>believe 'communication' began as, observing the primal core
>of storytelling at its very basest], as opposed to
>'Cerebral' [my term] storytelling, where the interest to
>the listener/viewer rises above that of a physical
>relevance to that of a cerebral relevance.)
"Hi I'm googs. I'm not an athropological film historian,
but I play one on the net."
>>A Fantasy Film: "And obviously TWoOz is character driven,
>>as the realm of 'Fantasy Film' is by nature. [In other
>>words: Conan the Destroyer-character driven movie.]"
>Umm, care to tell me just *where* the Conan line came from?
I think Subodai mentioned it right before Arnold saved him
from the wolves.
>It would have been more appropriate (in this stand-alone
>context) to have said that TWoOz and fantasy films are
>character driven, with their essence being an examination
>of human existance & interaction. I should have said more
>properly, '... character driven by *usual* nature...' Some
>examples to *once and for all* prove my point:
>Legend, Labyrinth, Time Bandits, The Princess Bride,
>Ladyhawke, The Dark Crystal, Willow, Dragonslayer,
>Dragonheart, The Sword and the Sorcerer, Excalibur, Monty
>Python and the Holy Grail, The Adventures of Baron
>Munchausen, all the Sinbad movies, Clash of the Titans,
>Jason and the Argonauts, Hook, Jury Duty, Snow White: a
>Tale of Terror, The Neverending Story, Masters of the
>Universe, Warriors of Virtue, The Wizard of Oz, Army of
>Darkness, the Beastmaster movies, and Barbarians .
Well, I'll give you Ladyhawke and Excalibur as being
character-driven. As for the rest, I guess we'll just have
to "agree to disagree."
Thomas S. McDonald esquire
Kevin Lamb wrote in message <7pqtbs$j4h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>googs (go...@happyland.com) said:
>
>>Kevin Lamb <kevinlamb...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>Tell me, googs, how have you been harmed?
>
>>Harmed not in the conventional sense (physical) but what
>>about mental anguish (*emotional harm*?) The definition of
>>"harm" that I (and most sufferers of spongeiform
>>encephalitis, BTW >; >) use, states anything that *by
>>nature* incites an "insancipatory" (my term) response. And
>>that sure as hell describes your tone with me, pal.
I think things are starting to make a little more sence now....
>>I've said it before & i'll say it finally: I hate peas.
>>With great zeal, i might add,..
>
>I understand former President George Bush hated broccoli;
>Frankenstein feared fire. We all have our silver bullet, I
>guess. I noticed you didn't answer my question, BTW.
I don't like boiled spinich.
ADWatts
Ummmm . . . Kevin . . .
Now I've been trying to be open minded here
and not take any sides in an argument that has
*NOTHING* to do with me . . .
And yes, I'm sticking my nose where it don't
belong . . .
And I'll probably regret it . . .
But . . .
That was low even for usenet. If you want to
flame, flame away. But changing his words?
That's just plain dirty any way you look at it,
wouldn't you agree?
And I'm asking that question above, not
necassarily judging.
Have you been watching too many Mike
Tyson fights lately?
Just not able to resist . . .
ADWatts
Capt. Gee
go...@happyland.com
laughing at the reconstruction of my real post, and now i ask KL
directly if you really got my post as it was written, or if you got
only that amazing waste of time above?
Doesn't matter if you accept or agree with it, i'd just like to know
if you actually read the real thing...
And just how do you feel about Esquie using your ID?
go...@happyland.com
><CLIP!!!!!>
>But . . .
>ADWatts
*I* am not convinced it's actually KL's doing...
As i've asked before, just *who* holds the 'keys' to this ng?
Controls the computer database, that is?
It's beginning to look like Esquie may have 'stolen the car', as it
were...
Kevin Lamb
go...@happyland.com wrote:
> Well, after getting about halfway thru that post, i got tired of
> laughing at the reconstruction of my real post, and now i ask KL
> directly if you really got my post as it was written, or if you got
> only that amazing waste of time above?
>
> Doesn't matter if you accept or agree with it, i'd just like to know
> if you actually read the real thing...
>
> And just how do you feel about Esquie using your ID?
>
>
>
Thomas Esquire didn't post anything under my name, that was me. Remarq
has been having technical difficulties the past two days so I'm now
posting through dejanews. It got kind of annoying trying to reason with
you only to have you totally mischaracterize or misinterpret my points
and then cry about it. When you proved that you would even go so far as
to lie about the nature of our last conversation to further incriminate
me in this little "battle" you're so deadset on maintaining, that's when
I lost all respect for you whatsoever. Actually, that's not true. I
had already lost what little respect I had for you quite a bit earlier,
but it wasn't until you flat-out lied that I lost a great deal of
*restraint* in dealing with you.
Trust me googs, I could have buried you when you posted that hilariously
paraphrased "closing argument," unsurprisingly devoid of any quotes
whatsoever. You know, the one where you claimed that I "didn't know
what a classic movie was, and said as much"? Well, the definition I
posted was straight out of the Complete Film Dictionary by Ira
Konigsberg. I thought I'd spare you any further humiliation and just
move on. I was through with you, but it wasn't until you started
bitching about my past behavior that I thought I'd readdress you and
clear things up. Wondering if you had remembered wrong or were
mistaking me for someone else, I posted some quotes of yours reflecting
the friendliness of our last conversation.
It wasn't until your last post, where you *proved* you were untruthful,
that any further diplomacy (even if it was peppered with dry humor and
condescending remarks, this *is* Usenet for heaven's sake) and benefit
of the doubt went out the window. Either you were lying in May
(claiming to enjoy the conversation when you were just engaging in a
"ridiculous" discussion with an "idiot") or you are lying now (denying
that you did actually enjoyed a stimulating discussion.) It doesn't
matter and I don't care. A liar's a liar.
What's wrong googs, you don't like having your points mischaracterized?
At least my last post was intended to be a joke.
Personally, I think you realized how ridiculous you looked throwing
temper tantrums and carrying on the way you did so you resorted to any
means necessary (vehemently insisting I was a troll, claiming I was as
pissed off as you, lying about past discussions, etc.) to justify your
embarrassing display of anger and resentment in the most laughably
trivial of matters.
At no point in this thread (past or present) have you gotten "under my
skin," googs. I honestly thought you would get the jest of my first
post, but it really doesn't matter. Because even if I was serious
about <gasp> proving A2 was better than A1, getting upset over it is
just pathetic. I think *The Matrix* is ten times better than both A1
and A2, but I wouldn't give a rat's ass if you "declared" that A1 was
"flat-out" better or that the Wachowski Brothers were inferior
filmmakers. *Nothing* you can say will ever taint or lower The Matrix
in my eyes; if you actually took the time to construct a laundry list of
why you thought TM was bad, I couldn't be bothered to care.
Kevin Lamb
What's up, bud? ; )
>
> Now I've been trying to be open minded here
> and not take any sides in an argument that has
> *NOTHING* to do with me . . .
>
> And yes, I'm sticking my nose where it don't
> belong . . .
>
> And I'll probably regret it . . .
>
> But . . .
>
> That was low even for usenet. If you want to
> flame, flame away. But changing his words?
> That's just plain dirty any way you look at it,
> wouldn't you agree?
>
If I actually thought that people would take "my" version of googs' post
seriously, then yeah, that would be pretty low. But Ahmed, IT WAS A
JOKE! The post you're referring to did accurately express my sentiments
toward mr. googs, but its primary intention was straight comedy.
I understand that you don't like taking sides in an argument you're not
involved in, but do you realize that by coming to googs' defense in such
a manner you have actually taken *my* side? That fact that you
considered my blatant and hilariously misquoted "interpretation" of
googs' post "low" and "dirty" implies that you were concerned people
would take it seriously because *it was something googs could actually
be believed to have said!* If you recognized it as the joke it was or
just saw it as an elaborate flame, you would have remained silent
(judging by your "if you want to flame, flame away" statement.)
I mean, if anyone else here (me, you, Covenant, Adam Cameron, Thomas
Esquire, Dave Daugherty, etc.) was quoted to have invented words of
terminology, suffer from "mad cow" disease, or spend his off-line time
fleeing hungry wolves would you have felt the need to remind everyone
that someone was "changing his words?" I think not. But with googs,
you never know, so I understand your concern. LMAO.
> And I'm asking that question above, not
> necassarily judging.
>
> Have you been watching too many Mike
> Tyson fights lately?
>
Well, let's just say I got sick of googs nibbling on my ear so I decided
to deliver the knockout punch myself. Your post acts as the perfect ten
count. Thank you Ahmed!
go...@happyland.com
<nothing then or later that i'll ever have to read again>
Well, well,...
So say i *did* think you were an hemmorhoid back then; you've done
nothing to make me change my mind with that last post.
(not that you thought i would,...)
Okay. So in the interst of clearing things up, you take what i say &
make fun of it...
*Very* adult. My, how proud you must be of your remarkable abilities
to hold a proper discussion and not be a childish --
Nowait; i dreamt that.
You actually *are* an hemmorhoid.
And #3 in my filterfile.
Now do your happydance, infant;
Barney's on.
Back to the regularly scheduled topics.
ADWatts
I said:
> > That was low even for usenet. If you want to
> > flame, flame away. But changing his words?
> > That's just plain dirty any way you look at it,
> > wouldn't you agree?
Kevin Lamb replied:
> If I actually thought that people would take "my" version of googs' post
> seriously, then yeah, that would be pretty low. But Ahmed, IT WAS A
> JOKE! The post you're referring to did accurately express my sentiments
> toward mr. googs, but its primary intention was straight comedy.
Hmmmm . . . I see.
Well, I guess I'd better take my sense of humor in for
a tune-up. :->
Trying to remain non-judgmental . . .
ADWatts
Covenant
go...@happyland.com wrote in message ...
>*I* am not convinced it's actually KL's doing...
>As i've asked before, just *who* holds the 'keys' to this ng?
>Controls the computer database, that is?
>It's beginning to look like Esquie may have 'stolen the car', as it
>were...
Whatcha mean Googs???
Covenant.
A Man Confused......
Thurein
Well, I haven't read up on what went on, but I hope that you won't let
anything start to drive you away from the group. Just let the killfile
grow for now... :(
Now... how about that movie Aliens? Great flick, eh? :) I like that
Queen idea... hehe.
-Thurein
go...@happyland.com wrote:
: Well, well,...
: "His Evil Brains Glow In The Dark! (with exposure to light)"
--
go...@happyland.com
>Hi Googs-
Heya Thurien!
>Well, I haven't read up on what went on, but I hope that you won't let
>anything start to drive you away from the group. Just let the killfile
>grow for now... :(
Nahh, I'm not gonna let a few idiots take away my fun...
And if only you could filter away such people in everyday life,...
<*sigh*>
; )
>Now... how about that movie Aliens? Great flick, eh? :) I like that
>Queen idea... hehe.
8-o ... LOL!!
Yeah, and 'Resurrection Sure Was Worthless,...' !! ; >
Thanks for the good word!