Re: Who is the BEST LUTHOR?
Duggy
>I thought that Sherman Howard was a very good Lex Luthor in the Superboy
>television show. He even wrote an episode where Superboy and Luthor were
>trapped in a mine shaft with kryptonite around. One of the better episodes,
>IMHO.
I haven't seen Superman vs Atom Man... was the Luthor in that any good?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
>I'll never understand Gene Hackman's interpretation of Lex Luthor. Great
>actor. Preposterous interpretation.
Hey, he's in a film based on a comics... no great actor actually tries in
those.
===
= DUG.
===
Justin Garrett Blum
"Duggy" <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.04050...@marlin.jcu.edu.au...
actually, it was. Just wrong is all. But maybe an actor is ultimately only
as good as his writer. In truth, I place a lot of the blame on Mario Puzo's
swiss-cheese scripts and insane characterizations. I'm not a huge fan of the
Superman films, to be sure. I only really like the second one. But Otis was
the shit. I'll say that much.
Regards,
Justin
http://www.uatu.net
Brian Doyle
Sir Ian McKellan sort of gives the lie to that, thank God....
M.O.R
"Brian Doyle" <No_...@freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c75koi$lcp$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
slightly more energetic version he does play. I just felt that the
concentration camp( I'm blanking on the word for this?) he stayed in made
him unemotional and cold, with barely an emotion. BTW, was it mentioned
what camp he was trapped in? I am blanking on the name, but I think it was
Auschwitz.
MOR
Comics Cards and Posters Oh My
<< I haven't seen Superman vs Atom Man... was the Luthor in that any good? >>
Actually, it's ATOM MAN VS. SUPERMAN. Don't know why they gave AM top billing.
It's available on VHS, and should be out on DVD in the next year.
Classic B-movie badguy Lyle Talbot played Lex Luthor, looking and sounding
dead-on to the Luthor of the 40s-50s comics.
Switching sides with a full head of hair and (I think) moustache, he played
Comissioner Gordon in the second Batman serial, BATMAN & ROBIN.
CCP
Duggy
They'd act scared...
Is that better?
>Say, my newsreader says there's no such thing as
>rec.arts.comics.other-media, so I'm not going to try telling it otherwise.
There isn't. It was destroyed by the arrogant and selfish.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I think Clancy Brown from the animated series is my favorite Lex Luthor.
> The character captures so much of what makes Lex great over years.
> Plus it's a great voice.
Sure, but I can't see him being a good LA Luthor.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
>"Duggy" <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 May 2004, Justin Garrett Blum wrote:
>> >I'll never understand Gene Hackman's interpretation of Lex Luthor. Great
>> >actor. Preposterous interpretation.
>> Hey, he's in a film based on a comics... no great actor actually tries in
>> those.
>Sir Ian McKellan sort of gives the lie to that, thank God....
Ah. You've destroyed my argument.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
>Lyle Talbot was the actor who portrayed Lex Luthor in "Atom Man Vs.
>Superman." He also played Commissioner Gordon in "Batman And Robin"
>(the second Batman serial).
>He wasn't bad at all. He LOOKED the part, and played the evil
>genius/businessman pretty well.
>I enjoyed his performance. :)
Good to know.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
>On Sun, 2 May 2004 22:53:03 -0400, "The Babaloughesian"
><m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>My favorite Luthor is Clancy Brown, who voiced him in the Superman/Batman
>>Adventures cartoon and Justice League. He simply has the coolest voice
>>ever. More sinister than any of the others. John Glover(Smallville's
>>Luthor Sr.) ranks second for me, but it's a very distant second. He really
>>strikes me as more of a Riddler type...
>And with his head shaved would probably make quite a good live action
>Lex as well.
I don't see it myself.
===
= DUG.
===
David Doty
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.040508...@marlin.jcu.edu.au:
> There isn't. It was destroyed by the arrogant and selfish.
Or the sensible. You know, whichever. If the silent masses had risen up
in protest of this domination by a selfish minority, there would still be a
group. A majority of the group felt that discussion of, say, Smallville,
would play better off of the group with other Superman stories than it
would off of a group consisting of Spider-Man 2 and Man-Thing discussion.
Go figure. What assholes.
Dave Doty
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Duggy
>Duggy <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> There isn't. It was destroyed by the arrogant and selfish.
>Or the sensible. You know, whichever.
I know which.
>If the silent masses had risen up
>in protest of this domination by a selfish minority, there would still be a
>group.
I didn't know it was coming.
>A majority of the group felt that discussion of, say, Smallville,
>would play better off of the group with other Superman stories than it
>would off of a group consisting of Spider-Man 2 and Man-Thing discussion.
Smallville wasn't out yet.
>Go figure. What assholes.
Yeah. The arseholes that fill a comics NG with discussion of episodes of
cartoons and TV series I'm not going to see for 6 months or more, just
because they can't handle marvel films being discussed in the same place
as DC films like the weeners they are.
===
= DUG.
===
David Doty
> I didn't know it was coming.
There were multiple RFDs and a LOT of discussion of these changes well
before they were voted on. If you didn't know it was coming, that's your
own fault for not paying enough attention. Those of us who wanted to keep
rac.dc.vertigo managed to get it off the ballot by showing up early with
persuasive arguments.
> Smallville wasn't out yet.
Duh. Neither were Spider-Man 2 and Man-Thing. I thought it was pretty
obvious I was giving current examples of why the dissolution was a good
thing.
> Yeah. The arseholes that fill a comics NG with discussion of episodes
> of cartoons and TV series I'm not going to see for 6 months or more,
So, you don't even want to USE the group? You just want it to exist to
save you the heartache of seeing threads for things you haven't seen? Why
don't you try not opening the threads about those movies and episodes? You
accuse us of selfishness, but that's absolutely one of the most selfish
arguments I've ever heard in any of these hierarchy debates.
As you know from another thread, I wait for the trades. Should discussion
of floppies be banned to another group just so I don't have to deal with
threads about comics I haven't read yet?
> just because they can't handle marvel films being discussed in the
> same place as DC films like the weeners they are.
If you go back and read my argument with the purpose of understanding it
instead of mindlessly ridiculing, you'll see that I said no such thing.
Duggy
>> Yeah. The arseholes that fill a comics NG with discussion of episodes
>> of cartoons and TV series I'm not going to see for 6 months or more,
>So, you don't even want to USE the group?
To stop spoiler discussion in the non *.other-media groups.
>Why don't you try not opening the threads about those movies and
>episodes? You accuse us of selfishness, but that's absolutely one of
>the most selfish arguments I've ever heard in any of these hierarchy
>debates.
I avoid the threads, but it creates a atmosphere of "American Spoiler
Friendliness" where, once the Americans can be considered to have seen it,
it's open slather. Taking the discussion out of here won't stop that, but
it will reduce it.
>As you know from another thread, I wait for the trades. Should discussion
>of floppies be banned to another group just so I don't have to deal with
>threads about comics I haven't read yet?
There is no other group...
However, I have been thinking since you suggested it that
rec.arts.comics.tpb or something would be a damn good idea.
Not that that affects this argument, but I think the idea's worth
pursuing.
>> just because they can't handle marvel films being discussed in the
>> same place as DC films like the weeners they are.
>If you go back and read my argument with the purpose of understanding it
>instead of mindlessly ridiculing, you'll see that I said no such thing.
As far as I could tell you were claiming that people felt that fan-casting
and film discussion would be better seperated to where the normal
discussion of those comics took place, rather than discussed where the
films can be discussed together, because for some reaseon you can't
discuss DC and Marvel comics at the same time. (Not that the movie
threads don't regularly go off topic into the other companies success and
failures, either, but hey, that's hardly a problem is it?)
If I've missed your point, please explain it again for me.
===
= DUG.
===
David Doty
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.040509...@marlin.jcu.edu.au:
> However, I have been thinking since you suggested it that
> rec.arts.comics.tpb or something would be a damn good idea.
I think it would be awful. I don't like needlessly propogating extra
groups and making the rules over what goes where even more complicated.
Would people who read the floppies and people who read the tpbs have to
discuss the books in different groups forever? Does discussion revert to
one or the other at some point? Or does the discussion wander aimlessly
between the two groups, always missing part of the potential target
audience?
> As far as I could tell you were claiming that people felt that
> fan-casting and film discussion would be better seperated to where the
> normal discussion of those comics took place, rather than discussed
> where the films can be discussed together, because for some reaseon
> you can't discuss DC and Marvel comics at the same time. (Not that
> the movie threads don't regularly go off topic into the other
> companies success and failures, either, but hey, that's hardly a
> problem is it?)
Not nearly as often as they go off into comparisons to the comics
versions. Since a discussion of, for example, the Batman films is much
more likely and much more often compared to Batman comics than to other
film/TV properties, it makes more sense to lump them with the Batman
comic group than with a group for other film/TV properties.
That way, all Batman, Superman, etc. discussion goes in one group. All
Spider-Man, FF, etc. discussion goes in another. All X-Men discussion
goes in a third. And so forth. Simple. Intuitive. A huge hierarchy
filled with niggling distinctions is not new-member friendly, and
requires a great deal more netcopping. And since we don't get nearly the
traffic we used to, the need to split up unwieldy traffic volume is gone.
But we've drifted from the original point of contention, which is your
assertion that people who voted to collapse raco-m are selfish assholes.
So, the argument you ultimately have to refute from me is that voters
looked at the issues, decided where they thought the discussion most
belonged, and voted appropriately.
You have yet to show convincingly that people who voted against raco-m
were not acting in what they considered to be the best interest of the
hierarchy as a whole. Since you've admitted that your primary interest
was in diverting threads to a group you wouldn't use so you wouldn't have
to be "American Spoiler Friendly," any argument from you that those
threads actually belong in a group together is suspect. After all, your
goal is to make them go away, not to put them in the environment where
they will best flourish.
Duggy
>> However, I have been thinking since you suggested it that
>> rec.arts.comics.tpb or something would be a damn good idea.
>I think it would be awful. I don't like needlessly propogating extra
>groups and making the rules over what goes where even more complicated.
Not really.
>Would people who read the floppies and people who read the tpbs have to
>discuss the books in different groups forever? Does discussion revert to
>one or the other at some point? Or does the discussion wander aimlessly
>between the two groups, always missing part of the potential target
>audience?
It was your idea, not mine.
>Not nearly as often as they go off into comparisons to the comics
>versions.
That's a matter of opinion.
>That way, all Batman, Superman, etc. discussion goes in one group. All
>Spider-Man, FF, etc. discussion goes in another. All X-Men discussion
>goes in a third. And so forth. Simple. Intuitive. A huge hierarchy
>filled with niggling distinctions is not new-member friendly, and
>requires a great deal more netcopping. And since we don't get nearly the
>traffic we used to, the need to split up unwieldy traffic volume is gone.
Probably because you've alienated all those not in the beloved US of A.
>But we've drifted from the original point of contention, which is your
>assertion that people who voted to collapse raco-m are selfish assholes.
Yup.
>So, the argument you ultimately have to refute from me is that voters
>looked at the issues, decided where they thought the discussion most
>belonged, and voted appropriately.
And decided based on what suited them, not what was best for all members.
>You have yet to show convincingly that people who voted against raco-m
>were not acting in what they considered to be the best interest of the
>hierarchy as a whole.
They were acting in their own interest not wanting to have to seperate out
comic discussion in comics.other-media from the other media discussion is
comics.other-media.
>Since you've admitted that your primary interest
>was in diverting threads to a group you wouldn't use so you wouldn't have
>to be "American Spoiler Friendly," any argument from you that those
>threads actually belong in a group together is suspect.
I avoided other-media because it wasn't spoiler friendly only to have the
spoilers come and meet me.
Which is fine. Spoiler protocol is used... for about a month. Then it's
old news, a month old episode must have been seen by everyone so screw
anyone who hasn't seen it.
>After all, your
>goal is to make them go away, not to put them in the environment where
>they will best flourish.
Hell, yeah.
===
= DUG.
===
David Doty
> On 8 May 2004, David Doty wrote:
>>Duggy <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> It was your idea, not mine.
No, it wasn't "my idea". I didn't raise it as a serious idea. I was
making a rhetorical point about what a *bad idea* it would be. You were
the one who claimed it was a *good* idea, so don't pass the buck off on
me.
>>Not nearly as often as they go off into comparisons to the comics
>>versions.
>
> That's a matter of opinion.
Well, since you avoid the threads, your opinion is worthless.
> Probably because you've alienated all those not in the beloved US of
> A.
Other than pulling it out of your ass, do you have any evidence of this?
> And decided based on what suited them, not what was best for all
> members.
A majority of voters decided this was what was best for them. Therefore,
this was what was best for a majority of users. The votes were well
advertised and well-discussed. Anyone who chose not to vote doesn't
deserve to have their feelings considered.
> They were acting in their own interest not wanting to have to seperate
> out comic discussion in comics.other-media from the other media
> discussion is comics.other-media.
And people on the other side were acting in their own interest. The
interest of the majority won. What's the problem again? Oh, right,
Americans are intrinsically bad, even when doing the exact same thing as
everyone else.
>>Since you've admitted that your primary interest
>>was in diverting threads to a group you wouldn't use so you wouldn't
>>have to be "American Spoiler Friendly," any argument from you that
>>those threads actually belong in a group together is suspect.
>
> I avoided other-media because it wasn't spoiler friendly only to have
> the spoilers come and meet me.
Irrelevant. You weren't thinking what was in the best interest of other
media discussion. The people who voted to combine it were. You were the
more selfish, and the bigger asshole.
>>After all, your
>>goal is to make them go away, not to put them in the environment where
>>they will best flourish.
>
> Hell, yeah.
As I said.
Since you're blatantly admitting your own selfish agenda while pretending
that the desires of them majority should have given in to you, your open
hypocricy makes this a pointless discussion to continue. I'm done.
M.O.R
I haven't seen alot of the episodes either, so I'm grateful for people
putting *SPOILERS* at the top of the post so I know to avoid it, even tho
curiousity gets the better of me most of the time, but I don't watch
Smallville anyway.
MOR
Duggy
>your opinion is worthless.
Fuck you.
>Other than pulling it out of your ass, do you have any evidence of this?
Fuck you.
>> And decided based on what suited them, not what was best for all
>> members.
>A majority of voters decided this was what was best for them. Therefore,
>this was what was best for a majority of users.
But not all users.
>Anyone who chose not to vote doesn't
>deserve to have their feelings considered.
Fuck you.
>And people on the other side were acting in their own interest.
Yes.
>The
>interest of the majority won. What's the problem again? Oh, right,
>Americans are intrinsically bad, even when doing the exact same thing as
>everyone else.
Americans are intrinsically bad when they do things to the determent of
everyone who isn't American.
The thing that voters always forget is that voting isn't about you chosing
what is best for you, but you chosing what is best for the community.
When choosing between the options of a slightly worse rac.* for yourself
and an unusable one for others there are people who will selfishly vote
for what's best for themselves on both sides. But some people will
realise that what's best for everyone is better.
>Irrelevant.
Fuck you.
>You weren't thinking what was in the best interest of other
>media discussion.
No. I was thinking of what was best for the rac.* community.
>The people who voted to combine it were.
No. They were thinking of what was best for rec.other-media users.
>You were the more selfish, and the bigger asshole.
I know you are, but what am I?
>Since you're blatantly admitting your own selfish agenda while pretending
>that the desires of them majority should have given in to you, your open
>hypocricy makes this a pointless discussion to continue.
You really don't get sarcasm, do you?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
>I haven't seen alot of the episodes either, so I'm grateful for people
>putting *SPOILERS* at the top of the post so I know to avoid it, even tho
>curiousity gets the better of me most of the time, but I don't watch
>Smallville anyway.
Well, that's different. I do the same thing on the aus.tv newsgroup read
spoilers for shows I don't watch. However, I avoid American TV newsgroups
because of the spoilers for shows I do watch.
The issue isn't that lack of spoiler space which is generally handled
OK... but the belief that nearing the end of season 3 that season 2 isn't
spoilers anymore dispite the fact they've only shown half of it here.
===
= DUG.
===
Todd
"Duggy" However, I avoid American TV newsgroups because of the spoilers for
shows I do watch.>>
Good. SO GET LOST ALREADY. Just because you live in some backwater town in
Bumfork, Australia should not stop THE REST OF THE WORLD from discussing
whatever we want. Go lick a 'roo.