LOTR-in better taste
Robert John Guttke
The studio imposed embargo on reviews of chapter three in the Lord of the
Rings trilogy is off and the critics appear to be engaged in a battle of
their own over who can use the most superlatives.
First, the New Zealand Herald's Russell Baile called The Movie "the great
film of our time. The film which makes the heart leap, the tears flow, the
adrenaline race like never before."
That seems to have set the tone.
The Hollywood Reporter's David Hunter said The Movie was "the longest and
most complicated of the three "Rings" films and probably fated to be the
biggest moneymaker. Sure to be an Oscar contender in many categories and a
breathtaking argument for director Peter Jackson winning every award there
is to give, "King" has none of the usual deficiencies that frequently
scuttle third films."
The Chicago Tribune says "'The Lord of the Rings' now is staking its claim
as the Greatest, Grandest Movie Epic of All Time" and finds that it is
justified in doing so.
A normally reserved (when it comes to fantasy) Time magazine doesn't stop
far short of that kind of praise, either: "The second half of the film
elevates all the story elements to Beethovenian crescendo. Here is an epic
with literature's depth and opera's splendor - and one that could be
achieved only in movies. What could be more terrific?"
Time's review concludes with what seems increasingly to be the consensus
opinion: "Ecstasy trumps exhaustion in the reliving of a great human quest,
a cinematic triumph."
9-Dec-2003
RR
http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16641
--
RR
"That's the problem with individuals: they're always trying."
- Number 2, "The Prisoner"
Mark Morrison
wrote:
>Robert John Guttke wrote:
>
>http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16641
Best Review Ever.
"Meanwhile, Rudy and Fredo and Golem are getting closer to the
volcano, and Golem makes Fredo hate Rudy, and then tricks Fredo into a
cave where there’s a giant spider and FUCK that was really scary
because even in real life giant spiders are bad news. "
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Rick Savoia
news:ntidtv8kp1k785rgq...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:04:53 -0600, "RR" <lynchnu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Robert John Guttke wrote:
>>
>>http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16641
>
> Best Review Ever.
>
> "Meanwhile, Rudy and Fredo and Golem are getting closer to the
> volcano, and Golem makes Fredo hate Rudy, and then tricks Fredo into a
> cave where there’s a giant spider and FUCK that was really scary
> because even in real life giant spiders are bad news. "
>
"“Flabadan Son of Rectum must wear the mantle of Bloggith!” "
RR
>>> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16641
>>
>> Best Review Ever.
>>
>> "Meanwhile, Rudy and Fredo and Golem are getting closer to the
>> volcano, and Golem makes Fredo hate Rudy, and then tricks Fredo into
>> a cave where there's a giant spider and FUCK that was really scary
>> because even in real life giant spiders are bad news. "
>>
>
> ""Flabadan Son of Rectum must wear the mantle of Bloggith!" "
Fine, fine, fine - now that you lot have forced me to pick a favorite line:
"...and also there's some shit with the elves that's like being in a fucking
candle store for twenty minutes."
Nick
> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>
> http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16641
Best review ever.
Nick
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:04:53 -0600, "RR"
> <lynchnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>>
>> http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16641
>
> Best Review Ever.
>
> "Meanwhile, Rudy and Fredo and Golem are getting closer to the
> volcano, and Golem makes Fredo hate Rudy, and then tricks Fredo
> into a cave where there’s a giant spider and FUCK that was really
> scary because even in real life giant spiders are bad news. "
>
I liked:
"This movie starts with the origin of Golem – that creepy guy who looks
like Iggy Pop and wears Tarzan pants and wants the invisible-ring."
John Iwaniszek
Did Guttke really link to that review?
Nick
It could have been Ross.
John Iwaniszek
Now it was Robert. Good for him. He needs to smile more.
RR
> Nick wrote:
>
>> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>
>>> Nick wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Morrison wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:04:53 -0600, "RR"
>>>>> <lynchnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16641
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Review Ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Meanwhile, Rudy and Fredo and Golem are getting closer to the
>>>>> volcano, and Golem makes Fredo hate Rudy, and then tricks Fredo
>>>>> into a cave where there's a giant spider and FUCK that was
>>>>> really scary because even in real life giant spiders are bad
>>>>> news. "
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I liked:
>>>> looks like Iggy Pop and wears Tarzan pants and wants the
>>>> invisible-ring."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did Guttke really link to that review?
>>>
>>
>> It could have been Ross.
>>
>
> Now it was Robert. Good for him. He needs to smile more.
Definitely Guttke. Would I? Never...
Joan Hedman
> Nick wrote:
>
> > John Iwaniszek wrote:
> >
> >> Nick wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mark Morrison wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:04:53 -0600, "RR"
> >>>> <lynchnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Robert John Guttke wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16641
> >>>>
> >>>> Best Review Ever.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Meanwhile, Rudy and Fredo and Golem are getting closer to the
> >>>> volcano, and Golem makes Fredo hate Rudy, and then tricks Fredo
> >>>> into a cave where there's a giant spider and FUCK that was
> >>>> really scary because even in real life giant spiders are bad
> >>>> news. "
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I liked:
who
> >>> looks like Iggy Pop and wears Tarzan pants and wants the
> >>> invisible-ring."
> >>>
> >>
> >> Did Guttke really link to that review?
> >>
> >
> > It could have been Ross.
> >
>
> Now it was Robert. Good for him. He needs to smile more.
*This* was my best laugh of the day so far, the idea that anyone would
think that RJ would link to the AICN review.
I wholeheartedly agree on the RJ assessment, though. They say the
sense of humor is the first thing to go, but in some people, it never
develops at all. I haven't decided which category fits RJ.
Joan
Robert John Guttke
"John Iwaniszek" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns944D741509...@130.133.1.4...
> Nick wrote:
>
> > Mark Morrison wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:04:53 -0600, "RR"
> >> <lynchnu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Robert John Guttke wrote:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=16641
> >>
> >> Best Review Ever.
> >>
> >> "Meanwhile, Rudy and Fredo and Golem are getting closer to the
> >> volcano, and Golem makes Fredo hate Rudy, and then tricks Fredo
> >> into a cave where there's a giant spider and FUCK that was really
> >> scary because even in real life giant spiders are bad news. "
> >>
> >
> > I liked:
> > like Iggy Pop and wears Tarzan pants and wants the invisible-ring."
> >
>
> Did Guttke really link to that review?
No. Mister Guttke knows better...
It comes from selling roses in a fish market.
Robert John Guttke
"Joan Hedman" <jhe...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:br7koc$71fc$1...@ID-136898.news.uni-berlin.de...
Take off your Star Trek uniform Joan, and then say something funny. I'll
laugh at what you say... not at you.
John Iwaniszek
(may she keep her ears?)
Joan Hedman
?????
RR
I second the "?????".
Nick
Those with no real comeback often grasp at straws. futile? yes.
I think that was an example of one sci-fi geek trying to make fun of
another sci-fi geek.
Nick
No offense, my darling Joan. XXXOOO
Joan Hedman
None taken, sweetheart.
Robert John Guttke
> (may she keep her ears?)
Of course.
Robert John Guttke
>
> I second the "?????".
Like attracts like.
Robert John Guttke
It was a real response. No straws.
> I think that was an example of one sci-fi geek trying to make fun of
> another sci-fi geek.
Uh-huh.
Robert John Guttke
> > No offense, my darling Joan. XXXOOO
>
> None taken, sweetheart.
Freudian slips are always very funny.
(this where the predictable response will be along the lines of something
related to women's underwear)
Captain Nerd
<udTBb.178053$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Don't forget the personal angle: "So, you get a laugh out of
wearing yours?"
Cap.
--
Since 1989, recycling old jokes, cliches, and bad puns, one Usenet
post at a time!
Operation: Nerdwatch http://www.nerdwatch.com
Only email with "TO_CAP" somewhere in the subject has a chance of being read
John Iwaniszek
Freud rules.
Nick
I know that's what keeps you coming back. XXXOOO
John Iwaniszek
how does he reconcile that truism with "Opposites attrack"?
Robert John Guttke
Robert John Guttke
Robert John Guttke
"Captain Nerd" <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote in message
news:cptnerd-0EEB37...@news-50.giganews.com...
> In article
> <udTBb.178053$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Robert John Guttke" <robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > No offense, my darling Joan. XXXOOO
> > >
> > > None taken, sweetheart.
> >
> > Freudian slips are always very funny.
> >
> > (this where the predictable response will be along the lines of
something
> > related to women's underwear)
>
> Don't forget the personal angle: "So, you get a laugh out of
> wearing yours?"
>
> Cap.
.......and yet still not a comment concerning the original post.
Robert John Guttke
Freud yardsticks.
Captain Nerd
<ue0Cb.435120$0v4.20...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Robert John Guttke" <robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Captain Nerd" <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote in message
> news:cptnerd-0EEB37...@news-50.giganews.com...
> > In article
> > <udTBb.178053$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Robert John Guttke" <robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > No offense, my darling Joan. XXXOOO
> > > >
> > > > None taken, sweetheart.
> > >
> > > Freudian slips are always very funny.
> > >
> > > (this where the predictable response will be along the lines of
> something
> > > related to women's underwear)
> >
> > Don't forget the personal angle: "So, you get a laugh out of
> > wearing yours?"
> >
> > Cap.
>
> .......and yet still not a comment concerning the original post.
What "original post?"
Jim Larson
> In article
><ue0Cb.435120$0v4.20...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Robert John Guttke" <robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> "Captain Nerd" <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote in message
>> news:cptnerd-0EEB37...@news-50.giganews.com...
>> > In article
>> > <udTBb.178053$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> > "Robert John Guttke" <robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No offense, my darling Joan. XXXOOO
>> > > >
>> > > > None taken, sweetheart.
>> > >
>> > > Freudian slips are always very funny.
>> > >
>> > > (this where the predictable response will be along the lines of
>> something
>> > > related to women's underwear)
>> >
>> > Don't forget the personal angle: "So, you get a laugh out of
>> > wearing yours?"
>> >
>> > Cap.
>>
>> .......and yet still not a comment concerning the original post.
>
> What "original post?"
This one:
(At least as far as google is concerned.)
--
Jim
Captain Nerd
Jim Larson <larsonjmR.E.M.O.V.E.@charter.net> wrote:
I'm confused, what's a .ngfile? And who's Rusty?
Jim Larson
You mean it's not you?
--
Jim
Archchancellor Ridcully
"Jim Larson" <larsonjmR.E.M.O.V.E.@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns944E570502BA93v...@130.133.1.4...
It was probably JMB.
Joan Hedman
"Robert John Guttke" <robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:udTBb.178053$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > No offense, my darling Joan. XXXOOO
> >
> > None taken, sweetheart.
>
> Freudian slips are always very funny.
Again, ?????
John Iwaniszek
I hope nothing horrible happened.
Captain Nerd
Jim Larson <larsonjmR.E.M.O.V.E.@charter.net> wrote:
I'm seldom in a state of corrosion...
Robert John Guttke
> What "original post?"
>
> Cap.
~sigh~
Robert John Guttke
~sigh.... morons of parade....~
Robert John Guttke
> Again, ?????
FIVE this time? Even better.....
Joan Hedman
Rightly confused, Cap. Try this one:
Although I did think that Rusty was one of the nicknames that RJ has
tagged Ross with.
Joan
Robert John Guttke
Wrong. Who is Ross?
Captain Nerd
<ZH1Cb.179964$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Robert John Guttke" <robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> ~sigh.... morons of parade....~
Welcome to the lineup.
Captain Nerd
<mG1Cb.179959$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Robert John Guttke" <robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Yay!"
Captain Nerd
"Joan Hedman" <jhe...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
I understand now.
I just checked the date on Larson's post, which makes it "the
original post" as far as Google is concerned...
The post your link brings up has too many words. :-)
Joan Hedman
<snip>
> Wrong. Who is Ross?
"RR" = Ross Ruediger, screenwriter & filmmaker extraordinaire, and
sometime commentator for FarscapeWeekly, see:
Tainted Lunch ("Coup by Clam"):
http://www.farscapeweekly.com/cbc1.htm
Oops, I Got Fooled Again ("John Quixote"):
http://www.farscapeweekly.com/jq_1.html
HTH
Joan
RR
You're too kind Joan. I am currently slumming it in the world of theatre.
--
RR
"That's the problem with individuals: they're always trying."
- Number 2, "The Prisoner"
John Iwaniszek
> Joan Hedman wrote:
>> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Wrong. Who is Ross?
>>
>> "RR" = Ross Ruediger, screenwriter & filmmaker extraordinaire, and
>> sometime commentator for FarscapeWeekly, see:
>>
>> Tainted Lunch ("Coup by Clam"):
>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/cbc1.htm
>>
>> Oops, I Got Fooled Again ("John Quixote"):
>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/jq_1.html
>
> You're too kind Joan. I am currently slumming it in the world of theatre.
>
You are an usher? Or do you work behind the snack counter?
RR
I think the reason nobody chimed in with feelings about Bob's original post
(my obvious hijacking of the thread aside), is that who really needs to be
told by the nation's critics that ROTK is going to kick ass, take names, and
cap it all off by rewriting film history?
After FOTR & TTT (and their subsequent DVD director's cuts) who really
believes that there is even the remotest possibility that the ball will be
dropped at this point? This also, I think, is why the AICN Cumpston review
is such a great piece, and in some ways the only real kind of advance review
that works for this film.
We all know it's going to be great. We don't need to be told.
I will, however, be interested in reading film criticism of the series as a
whole further on down the road when the films can be viewed without all the
surrounding marketing and studio hype and hubbub, bub.
RR
>>>> Wrong. Who is Ross?
>>>
>>> "RR" = Ross Ruediger, screenwriter & filmmaker extraordinaire, and
>>> sometime commentator for FarscapeWeekly, see:
>>>
>>> Tainted Lunch ("Coup by Clam"):
>>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/cbc1.htm
>>>
>>> Oops, I Got Fooled Again ("John Quixote"):
>>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/jq_1.html
>>
>> You're too kind Joan. I am currently slumming it in the world of
>> theatre.
>>
>
>
> You are an usher? Or do you work behind the snack counter?
I am writing a musical for the stage that will in all likelihood be
produced.
Yup. You read it hear first.
(There, I jinxed it. Happy now?)
John Iwaniszek
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>
>>>>> Wrong. Who is Ross?
>>>>
>>>> "RR" = Ross Ruediger, screenwriter & filmmaker extraordinaire, and
>>>> sometime commentator for FarscapeWeekly, see:
>>>>
>>>> Tainted Lunch ("Coup by Clam"):
>>>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/cbc1.htm
>>>>
>>>> Oops, I Got Fooled Again ("John Quixote"):
>>>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/jq_1.html
>>>
>>> You're too kind Joan. I am currently slumming it in the world of
>>> theatre.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are an usher? Or do you work behind the snack counter?
>
> I am writing a musical for the stage that will in all likelihood be
> produced.
>
> Yup. You read it hear first.
>
> (There, I jinxed it. Happy now?)
>
Is it about pirates?
John Iwaniszek
(congratulations. It's wonderful when an artist is able to achieve even a
small part of his vision.)
Mark Morrison
Do you walkaround with a tray of snacks ? Do you wear one of those
little hats ?
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
Robert John Guttke
>
> Welcome to the lineup.
>
> Cap.
Oh no. You have made it more than obvious that I "don't fit in", and I
thank you. You can't go changing your ways now. Tisn't cricket.
Robert John Guttke
> Robert John Guttke wrote:
> <snip>
> > Wrong. Who is Ross?
>
> "RR" = Ross Ruediger, screenwriter & filmmaker extraordinaire, and
> sometime commentator for FarscapeWeekly
Oh..... someone not important, I see.
Robert John Guttke
"RR" <lynchnu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:brab5u$1855v$1...@ID-155984.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Joan Hedman wrote:
> > Robert John Guttke wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Wrong. Who is Ross?
> >
> > "RR" = Ross Ruediger, screenwriter & filmmaker extraordinaire, and
> > sometime commentator for FarscapeWeekly, see:
> >
> > Tainted Lunch ("Coup by Clam"):
> > http://www.farscapeweekly.com/cbc1.htm
> >
> > Oops, I Got Fooled Again ("John Quixote"):
> > http://www.farscapeweekly.com/jq_1.html
>
> You're too kind Joan. I am currently slumming it in the world of theatre.
Thesbians beware.
Robert John Guttke
> Joan Hedman wrote:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/ysct
>
> I think the reason nobody chimed in with feelings about Bob's original
post
> (my obvious hijacking of the thread aside), is that who really needs to be
> told by the nation's critics that ROTK is going to kick ass, take names,
and
> cap it all off by rewriting film history?
>
> After FOTR & TTT (and their subsequent DVD director's cuts) who really
> believes that there is even the remotest possibility that the ball will be
> dropped at this point? This also, I think, is why the AICN Cumpston review
> is such a great piece, and in some ways the only real kind of advance
review
> that works for this film.
If you have the I.Q. of a nine year old who spends all his time in a dark
room playing with is No Friendo.
There is certainly nothing wrong with being illuminated by those who CAN
write something of merit.
Robert John Guttke
> In article
> <mG1Cb.179959$Ec1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Robert John Guttke" <robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > What "original post?"
> > >
> > > Cap.
> >
> >
> > ~sigh~
>
> "Yay!"
>
> Cap.
.. the sound of another brain cell biting the dust, I assume?
Nick
>
>
>
> ~sigh.... morons of parade....~
Is parade one of them thar foreign countries I dun heard about?
John Iwaniszek
Yes. There is a suprisingly large ex-pat and immigrant population of
Moronians there. They face the usual problems with locals
(http://tinyurl.com/i0zi), but for the most part they are hard working and
productive members of Paradenese society.
Nick
CAN and DO are not the same thing.
There is a lot of crap that gets high praise.
You can always find somebody who likes even the lamest of the lame.
John Iwaniszek
Take nick for example. I know for a fact that there are people who like him.
Tyler Trafford
> There is certainly nothing wrong with being illuminated by those who
> CAN write something of merit.
Who decides what is meritorious? Isn't that entirely subjective, and
potentially different for each and every individual?
--
Tyler Trafford
People who make no mistakes do not usually make anything.
Tyler Trafford
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>
>>>>> Wrong. Who is Ross?
>>>>
>>>> "RR" = Ross Ruediger, screenwriter & filmmaker extraordinaire, and
>>>> sometime commentator for FarscapeWeekly, see:
>>>>
>>>> Tainted Lunch ("Coup by Clam"):
>>>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/cbc1.htm
>>>>
>>>> Oops, I Got Fooled Again ("John Quixote"):
>>>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/jq_1.html
>>>
>>> You're too kind Joan. I am currently slumming it in the world of
>>> theatre.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are an usher? Or do you work behind the snack counter?
>
> I am writing a musical for the stage that will in all likelihood be
> produced.
>
> Yup. You read it hear first.
>
> (There, I jinxed it. Happy now?)
Break a leg!
--
Tyler Trafford
Q: What do you get when you cross a mobster with an international standard?
A: You get someone who makes you an offer that you can't understand!
Tyler Trafford
> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>
>> There is certainly nothing wrong with being illuminated by those who
>> CAN write something of merit.
>
> Who decides what is meritorious? Isn't that entirely subjective, and
> potentially different for each and every individual?
Hmm, I think we've had this conversation before...
--
Tyler Trafford
O.K., fine.
John Iwaniszek
> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>
>> There is certainly nothing wrong with being illuminated by those who
>> CAN write something of merit.
>
> Who decides what is meritorious? Isn't that entirely subjective, and
> potentially different for each and every individual?
I think that there is a huge component that is subjective, but at the same
time there are objective standards by which art can be measured. It's a cop-
out to pull the subjectivity card out when someone disagrees with you. I
also think that it's intellectually dishonest to express an opinion as
without a qualification indicating that one is speaking not as an authority,
but claim later that an argument against one's opinion is invalid because
"all opinons in the matter are equally subjective, thus equally valid". That
kind of crap (Ross) is nihilism, not criticism.
Nick
Yeah, so there!
Nick
I got confuzzled. :(
RR
Thespians even.
Nick
> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>> "RR" <lynchnu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:brab5u$1855v$1...@ID-155984.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>> Joan Hedman wrote:
>>>> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Wrong. Who is Ross?
>>>>
>>>> "RR" = Ross Ruediger, screenwriter & filmmaker extraordinaire, and
>>>> sometime commentator for FarscapeWeekly, see:
>>>>
>>>> Tainted Lunch ("Coup by Clam"):
>>>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/cbc1.htm
>>>>
>>>> Oops, I Got Fooled Again ("John Quixote"):
>>>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/jq_1.html
>>>
>>> You're too kind Joan. I am currently slumming it in the world of
>>> theatre.
>>
>> Thesbians beware.
>
> Thespians even.
You are making assumptions as to the misspelled word.
Perhaps he actually misspelled lesbians.
RR
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Wrong. Who is Ross?
>>>>>
>>>>> "RR" = Ross Ruediger, screenwriter & filmmaker extraordinaire, and
>>>>> sometime commentator for FarscapeWeekly, see:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tainted Lunch ("Coup by Clam"):
>>>>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/cbc1.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Oops, I Got Fooled Again ("John Quixote"):
>>>>> http://www.farscapeweekly.com/jq_1.html
>>>>
>>>> You're too kind Joan. I am currently slumming it in the world of
>>>> theatre.
>>>
>>> Thesbians beware.
>>
>> Thespians even.
>
> You are making assumptions as to the misspelled word.
> Perhaps he actually misspelled lesbians.
Good point. And lesbians ~should~ beware. Of what, I do not know. Probably
RJ.
RR
How did I get dragged in to this?
Archchancellor Ridcully
You exist.
RR
So it would seem.
John Iwaniszek
I need to give that some thought.
Archchancellor Ridcully
"Tyler Trafford" <tyler_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:brag49$1876p$1...@ID-131008.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>
> > There is certainly nothing wrong with being illuminated by those who
> > CAN write something of merit.
>
> Who decides what is meritorious? Isn't that entirely subjective, and
> potentially different for each and every individual?
Yes, however the "artists" and their apologists will tell you that
you can't have an opinion if it's different than theirs because you
are an insensitive moron with the taste of a snail whose opinions
are without merit.
One individuals "art" is another person's fishwrap.
Tyler Trafford
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>>
>>> There is certainly nothing wrong with being illuminated by those who
>>> CAN write something of merit.
>>
>> Who decides what is meritorious? Isn't that entirely subjective, and
>> potentially different for each and every individual?
>
> I think that there is a huge component that is subjective, but at the
> same time there are objective standards by which art can be measured.
There is a difference between making something which has ingredients
which match some entirely arbitrary historical standard; and something
that is "good".
> It's a cop-out to pull the subjectivity card out when someone
> disagrees with you. I also think that it's intellectually dishonest
> to express an opinion as without a qualification indicating that one
> is speaking not as an authority, but claim later that an argument
> against one's opinion is invalid because "all opinons in the matter
> are equally subjective, thus equally valid". That kind of crap (Ross)
> is nihilism, not criticism.
Screw "authority"- I am willing to take suggestions under advisement but
can decide for myself what is good, bad, and worthy of merit. People
don't have to agree with me for it to be correct.
--
Tyler Trafford
He was so narrow-minded he could see through a keyhole with both eyes.
Nick
I agree that the opinions of snails have no merit.
Archchancellor Ridcully
Damn straight.
John Iwaniszek
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>> Robert John Guttke wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is certainly nothing wrong with being illuminated by those
>>>> who CAN write something of merit.
>>>
>>> Who decides what is meritorious? Isn't that entirely subjective,
>>> and potentially different for each and every individual?
>>
>> I think that there is a huge component that is subjective, but at the
>> same time there are objective standards by which art can be measured.
>
> There is a difference between making something which has ingredients
> which match some entirely arbitrary historical standard; and something
> that is "good".
Again: "Good" can be subjective, or it can reflect a pre-determined
standard.
>
>> It's a cop-out to pull the subjectivity card out when someone
>> disagrees with you. I also think that it's intellectually dishonest
>> to express an opinion as without a qualification indicating that one
>> is speaking not as an authority, but claim later that an argument
>> against one's opinion is invalid because "all opinons in the matter
>> are equally subjective, thus equally valid". That kind of crap
>> (Ross) is nihilism, not criticism.
>
> Screw "authority"- I am willing to take suggestions under advisement
> but can decide for myself what is good, bad, and worthy of merit.
> People don't have to agree with me for it to be correct.
To much to ponder. Maybe later. Let it said, however, that this is
not a good argument.
John Iwaniszek
Rewrite:
I think that there is a huge component that is subjective, but at the
same time there are objective standards by which art can be measured.
It's a cop-out to pull the subjectivity card out when someone disagrees
with you. I also think that it's intellectually dishonest to express an
opinion, without qualifying that one is speaking NOT as an authority, and
claim later (when faced with an argument against one's opinion) "all
opinons in the matter are equally subjective, thus equally valid".
That kind of crap is nihilism, not criticism.
Nick
I dunno, I pretty much assume everything said in such a forum is
opinion unless specifically stated that one IS speaking as an
authority.
Tyler Trafford
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>
>> There is a difference between making something which has ingredients
>> which match some entirely arbitrary historical standard; and
>> something that is "good".
>
> Again: "Good" can be subjective, or it can reflect a pre-determined
> standard.
There is a part of me which rebels at any standard which I did not help
create. Certainly "prior existence" doesn't earn any standard a pass
from me.
>> Screw "authority"- I am willing to take suggestions under advisement
>> but can decide for myself what is good, bad, and worthy of merit.
>> People don't have to agree with me for it to be correct.
>
> To much to ponder. Maybe later. Let it said, however, that this is
> not a good argument.
Too much is decided in the ancient past by a suspect history.
--
Tyler Trafford
Most people don't need a great deal of love nearly so much as they need
a steady supply.
John Iwaniszek
"Is it just me, or is the Earth round?"
"BSGTOS was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than BSGTRM."
"No it wasn't"
"Yes it was, and here's how... <elaborate straw man based on
hallucination> . There! you suck."
"no. YOU suck."
I will go on at length later when I have time for more than a hit and run
one-liner. This is not over.
John Iwaniszek
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>
>>> There is a difference between making something which has ingredients
>>> which match some entirely arbitrary historical standard; and
>>> something that is "good".
>>
>> Again: "Good" can be subjective, or it can reflect a pre-determined
>> standard.
>
> There is a part of me which rebels at any standard which I did not help
> create. Certainly "prior existence" doesn't earn any standard a pass
> from me.
>
Hmmmm. Nihilism AND egocentrism. Will gluttony be close behind? (I am a
major fan of sloth)
Archchancellor Ridcully
"John Iwaniszek" <n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns944EA2810...@130.133.1.4...
> Nick wrote:
>
> > John Iwaniszek wrote:
> >
> >> Tyler Trafford wrote:
> >>
> >>> Robert John Guttke wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> There is certainly nothing wrong with being illuminated by those who
> >>>> CAN write something of merit.
> >>>
> >>> Who decides what is meritorious? Isn't that entirely subjective, and
> >>> potentially different for each and every individual?
> >>
> >> I think that there is a huge component that is subjective, but at
> >> the same time there are objective standards by which art can be
> >> measured. It's a cop- out to pull the subjectivity card out when
> >> someone disagrees with you. I also think that it's intellectually
> >> dishonest to express an opinion as without a qualification
> >> indicating that one is speaking not as an authority, but claim
> >> later that an argument against one's opinion is invalid because
> >> "all opinons in the matter are equally subjective, thus equally
> >> valid". That kind of crap (Ross) is nihilism, not criticism.
> >>
> >
> > I got confuzzled. :(
>
> Rewrite:
>
> I think that there is a huge component that is subjective, but at the
> same time there are objective standards by which art can be measured.
Just for the sake of argument, name five objective standards by
which any individual can measure the "art" of a "Farscape" episode.
Tyler Trafford
I merely question who these 'experts' are that come up with these Rules-
that-make-things-worthy-of-merit and why it is somehow impossible to
diverge from this static, forlorn existence that the past has trapped us
into.
--
Tyler Trafford (sigh)
I despise the pleasure of pleasing people whom I despise.
Tyler Trafford
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a difference between making something which has ingredients
>>>> which match some entirely arbitrary historical standard; and
>>>> something that is "good".
>>>
>>> Again: "Good" can be subjective, or it can reflect a pre-determined
>>> standard.
>>
>> There is a part of me which rebels at any standard which I did not help
>> create. Certainly "prior existence" doesn't earn any standard a pass
>> from me.
>
> Hmmmm. Nihilism AND egocentrism. Will gluttony be close behind? (I
> am a major fan of sloth)
True.
My point, though, is that I'm not about to believe something just
because everyone has been telling me to for my entire life.
--
Tyler Trafford
Old MacDonald had an agricultural real estate tax abatement.
Tyler Trafford
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a difference between making something which has ingredients
>>>>> which match some entirely arbitrary historical standard; and
>>>>> something that is "good".
>>>>
>>>> Again: "Good" can be subjective, or it can reflect a pre-determined
>>>> standard.
>>>
>>> There is a part of me which rebels at any standard which I did not help
>>> create. Certainly "prior existence" doesn't earn any standard a pass
>>> from me.
>>
>> Hmmmm. Nihilism AND egocentrism. Will gluttony be close behind? (I
>> am a major fan of sloth)
>
> True.
>
> My point, though, is that I'm not about to believe something just
> because everyone has been telling me to for my entire life.
(I'm sleepy, bring me a pillow! -And a sandwich!)
--
Tyler Trafford
Between infinite and short there is a big difference.
-- G.H. Gonnet
Mark Morrison
<robert...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > ~sigh.... morons of parade....~
>>
>> Welcome to the lineup.
>>
>> Cap.
>
>Oh no. You have made it more than obvious that I "don't fit in", and I
>thank you. You can't go changing your ways now. Tisn't cricket.
Yeah, but Cricket is crap.
Not as bad as baseball, but still crappy.
--
Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
And what's with all the carrots ?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
John Iwaniszek
> <snip>
>
> I merely question who these 'experts' are that come up with these Rules-
> that-make-things-worthy-of-merit and why it is somehow impossible to
> diverge from this static, forlorn existence that the past has trapped us
> into.
It's not, dude.
However, there is nothing really new. Schools of art all built on previous
bodies of work. It's inescapable. People may add new insight and advance
art (take Cubism for example), or they may defy the conventional and
produce something in opposition to what has gone before (Dada). Both kinds
of action, however, incorporate the traditions that preceded them. Cubism
grew out of Impressionism, building on the techniques explored in that camp
while adding a new perceptual aspect to the process, while Dada was a
rebellion that could not have existed except as a reaction to then
contemprorary schools of art. Both produced revolutions in art, but
neither did so by ignoring what went before.
John Iwaniszek
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a difference between making something which has ingredients
>>>>> which match some entirely arbitrary historical standard; and
>>>>> something that is "good".
>>>>
>>>> Again: "Good" can be subjective, or it can reflect a pre-determined
>>>> standard.
>>>
>>> There is a part of me which rebels at any standard which I did not help
>>> create. Certainly "prior existence" doesn't earn any standard a pass
>>> from me.
>>
>> Hmmmm. Nihilism AND egocentrism. Will gluttony be close behind? (I am
>> a major fan of sloth)
>
> True.
>
> My point, though, is that I'm not about to believe something just
> because everyone has been telling me to for my entire life.
yay!
Tyler Trafford
But at the same time, if I evaluate Impressionist work by looking for
the same things I would in a Cubist work; I am missing the whole point.
Robert's comparison, I feel, makes a similar mistake.
--
Tyler Trafford
Many a man in love with a dimple makes the mistake of marrying the
whole girl.
-- Stephen Leacock
John Iwaniszek
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I merely question who these 'experts' are that come up with these
>>> Rules- that-make-things-worthy-of-merit and why it is somehow
>>> impossible to diverge from this static, forlorn existence that the
>>> past has trapped us into.
>>
>> It's not, dude.
>>
>> However, there is nothing really new. Schools of art all built on
>> previous bodies of work. It's inescapable. People may add new
>> insight and advance art (take Cubism for example), or they may defy
>> the conventional and produce something in opposition to what has gone
>> before (Dada). Both kinds of action, however, incorporate the
>> traditions that preceded them. Cubism grew out of Impressionism,
>> building on the techniques explored in that camp while adding a new
>> perceptual aspect to the process, while Dada was a rebellion that
>> could not have existed except as a reaction to then contemprorary
>> schools of art. Both produced revolutions in art, but neither did so
>> by ignoring what went before.
>
> But at the same time, if I evaluate Impressionist work by looking for
> the same things I would in a Cubist work; I am missing the whole
> point.
I may not be understanding you, but I think that you can make judgements
and statements of fact about them individually and in comparison.
>
> Robert's comparison, I feel, makes a similar mistake.
(I don't think Robert's motives were pure).
Tyler Trafford
I meant you shouldn't be refering to your checklist for Good
Impressionism while evaluating a Cubist work.
--
Tyler Trafford
One man's folly is another man's wife.
-- Helen Rowland
John Iwaniszek
> John Iwaniszek wrote:
>> Tyler Trafford wrote:
>>
>>> But at the same time, if I evaluate Impressionist work by looking for
>>> the same things I would in a Cubist work; I am missing the whole
>>> point.
>>
>> I may not be understanding you, but I think that you can make
>> judgements and statements of fact about them individually and in
>> comparison.
>
> I meant you shouldn't be refering to your checklist for Good
> Impressionism while evaluating a Cubist work.
I don't have that checklist. This is the one I use every day:
___ Pants
___ Shoes
Tyler Trafford
Pants-wearing conformist!
--
Tyler Trafford
I wish you were a Scotch on the rocks.