Lio (9-12 and this week)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
is all a misuderstanding, or there's something to the ingredients in
the cafeteria food . . .:
<http://www.gocomics.com/lio/2008/09/12/>
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Dann
news:bllmc4tknieiuioqv...@4ax.com.
> Another great Lio storyline/arc in the making; now to see if this
> is all a misuderstanding, or there's something to the ingredients in
> the cafeteria food . . .:
>
> <http://www.gocomics.com/lio/2008/09/12/>
>
While it _is_ a great storyline, it also feels like it breaks the rules
of the strip. If Lio isn't supposed to talk, reading complete sentences
that he's written that more or less reflect his thoughts seems to me like
a violation of the 'no speaking' rule.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
D. D. Degg
> Antonio E. Gonzalez said
> > Another great Lio storyline/arc in the making...
> > http://www.gocomics.com/lio/2008/09/12/
> While it _is_ a great storyline, it also feels like it breaks the rules...
I agree.
This past week has been awful wordy
for what is supposed to be, more than less, a pantomime strip.
D.D.Degg
Ted Goldblatt
I agree. It's possible that Tatulli just wanted to pursue this
particular story arc and didn't see any way to do so without a lot of
exposition, but it doesn't seem to fit the strip. I certainly hope that
this isn't an indication that he is finding himself too confined by
the wordless conceit and will be going down this path more in the future.
ted
aemeijers
Reminds me a lot of the Calvin detective arcs.
--
aem sends...
Mike Marshall
>This past week has been awful wordy
>for what is supposed to be, more than less, a pantomime strip.
Still... you can't do the noir detective shtick without the voiceover...
-Mike
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> Still... you can't do the noir detective shtick without the voiceover...
Explain that to Ridley Scott, please.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul L. Madarasz
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote, perhaps
among other things:
>
>In the previous article, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>> Still... you can't do the noir detective shtick without the voiceover...
>
>Explain that to Ridley Scott, please.
Isn't his version (aka "the director's cut) just what the Baldwin
ordered?
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey
cryptoguy
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:39:30 +0000 (UTC),
> among other things:
>
>
>
> >In the previous article, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> >> Still... you can't do the noir detective shtick without the voiceover...
>
> >Explain that to Ridley Scott, please.
>
> Isn't his version (aka "the director's cut) just what the Baldwin
> ordered?
Yes, that's the point. When Scott did the director's cut, he
dropped the voiceover (as well as the happy happy happy
ending he had to paste on).
Peter Trei
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Paul L. Madarasz <madp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Still... you can't do the noir detective shtick without the voiceover...
> >
> >Explain that to Ridley Scott, please.
>
> Isn't his version (aka "the director's cut) just what the Baldwin
> ordered?
Nope, I'm a heretic on that subject. I have observed that everyone
who hates the voiceovers (kind of by definition) has seen that picture
*with* them. Therefore, when they see it without them, they already
know everything that's going on, cheerfully oblivious to the fact that
the whole movie is just an incomprehensible goddam mess without that
bit of exposition. I'm not anti-artiness as such, but when a bunch of
over-stylistic foofery comes at the expense of *storytelling*, my
opinion becomes severe. The icing on the cake here comes when all the
fanboys start congratulating themselves by saying, "Oh, well, if you
need it dumbed down for you, by all means, watch the version with the
voiceovers!"
It's not all THAT great a movie anyway (more heresy!), so I don't get
too excited about this dispute. Still.
cryptoguy
wrote:
> In the previous article, Paul L. Madarasz <madpl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Still... you can't do the noir detective shtick without the voiceover...
>
> > >Explain that to Ridley Scott, please.
>
> > Isn't his version (aka "the director's cut) just what the Baldwin
> > ordered?
>
> Nope, I'm a heretic on that subject. I have observed that everyone
> who hates the voiceovers (kind of by definition) has seen that picture
> *with* them. Therefore, when they see it without them, they already
> know everything that's going on, cheerfully oblivious to the fact that
> the whole movie is just an incomprehensible goddam mess without that
> bit of exposition. I'm not anti-artiness as such, but when a bunch of
> over-stylistic foofery comes at the expense of *storytelling*, my
> opinion becomes severe. The icing on the cake here comes when all the
> fanboys start congratulating themselves by saying, "Oh, well, if you
> need it dumbed down for you, by all means, watch the version with the
> voiceovers!"
>
> It's not all THAT great a movie anyway (more heresy!), so I don't get
> too excited about this dispute. Still.
Well, I saw it originally with the voiceovers, and liked it better
without.
OTOH, I'm an SF fan, so I'm used to trying to puzzle out a world
from the barest of hints (I also loved 2001 from the first time I saw
it).
I didn't read the Dick story till later.
A few months ago, my 18 year old saw the Director's Cut without
having ever seen the original. She liked it, and didn't seem to have
a problem following it.
The DC leaves a lot of ambiguity. Some people hate that in movies,
others don't. I've seen it enough times that now I just float along on
the imagery and music.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
Peter Trei
Robin
> A few months ago, my 18 year old saw the Director's Cut without
> having ever seen the original. She liked it, and didn't seem to have
> a problem following it.
Same here. The only time I've seen the movie was the Director's Cut,
no voiceovers. I thought it was quite good, and I had no trouble
following the story.
Of course there may well be some angle in the deleted voiceovers that
I never picked up, and I did notice some loose ends and unanswered
questions, but that's pretty typical of a lot of movies, and the film
was by no means incomprehensible.
--Robin
George W Harris
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>Nope, I'm a heretic on that subject. I have observed that everyone
>who hates the voiceovers (kind of by definition) has seen that picture
>*with* them. Therefore, when they see it without them, they already
>know everything that's going on, cheerfully oblivious to the fact that
>the whole movie is just an incomprehensible goddam mess without that
>bit of exposition.
That isn't true. I have a friend who only ever
saw the narrationless-director's cut; she loved it, and
understood everything that was going on.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Charlie Foxtrot
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>It's not all THAT great a movie anyway (more heresy!), so I don't get
>too excited about this dispute. Still.
Put me in the heresy corner with you, JD. I've never figured out why
people love Blade Runner so much.
I was in high school when it came out. My girlfriend and I both hated
it. When the internet came along and I found out the movie had so
many devotees I checked it out again. I had the same reaction I did
twenty-some years ago.
Foxtrot
If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron
If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace.
Mike Marshall
>Nope, I'm a heretic on that subject. I have observed that everyone
>who hates the voiceovers (kind of by definition) has seen that picture
>*with* them.
I saw it way back when. I tried to watch it recently, though, and thought
it was unwatchable. Didn't watch it all the way to the end.
>Therefore, when they see it without them, they already
>know everything that's going on, cheerfully oblivious to the fact that
>the whole movie is just an incomprehensible goddam mess without that
>bit of exposition.
Perhaps that's it. I don't even remember what Katie Couric said on the
Today Show this morning, much less what was said in the Voiceover in
1982...
-Mike "she what?!?!?"
Dann
@hubcap.clemson.edu.
> Perhaps that's it. I don't even remember what Katie Couric said on the
> Today Show this morning, much less what was said in the Voiceover in
> 1982...
It is pretty hard to recall what Ms. Couric says on the Today Show these
days....
racs...@gmail.com
> On 17 Sep 2008, Mike Marshall said the following in news:gar21m$8pr$1
> @hubcap.clemson.edu.
>
> > Perhaps that's it. I don't even remember what Katie Couric said on the
> > Today Show this morning, much less what was said in the Voiceover in
> > 1982...
>
> It is pretty hard to recall what Ms. Couric says on the Today Show these
> days....
She said Vince Young was chosen by the Titans in the first round.
I think that was this morning. Might have been yesterday.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:db06d795-c9b9-458b...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com.
Either this is some form of 12th level black belt jujitsu sarcasm or else
Ms. Couric has recently strayed from her regular reporting desk.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/eveningnews/main3420.shtml
--
Regards,
Dann
Media Central, MI
racs...@gmail.com
> On 17 Sep 2008, peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following innews:db06d795-c9b9-458b...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com.
>
> > On Sep 17, 12:14 pm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 17 Sep 2008, Mike Marshall said the following in news:gar21m$8pr$1
> >> @hubcap.clemson.edu.
>
> >> > Perhaps that's it. I don't even remember what Katie Couric said on
> >> > the Today Show this morning, much less what was said in the
> >> > Voiceover in 1982...
>
> >> It is pretty hard to recall what Ms. Couric says on the Today Show
> >> these days....
>
> > She said Vince Young was chosen by the Titans in the first round.
>
> > I think that was this morning. Might have been yesterday.
>
> Either this is some form of 12th level black belt jujitsu sarcasm or else
> Ms. Couric has recently strayed from her regular reporting desk.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/eveningnews/main3420.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NFL_Draft#Round_one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_(NBC_program)#Anchors
Still can't walk across the room without tearing the rice paper, can
you?
http://www.dekoele.nl/Keye%20Luke%20Master%20Po.jpg
Mike Peterson
Grasshopper Falls, ME
Dann
news:4f484f66-83e3-4229...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com.
> Still can't walk across the room without tearing the rice paper, can
> you?
I get scared when you look at me that way.
--
Regards,
Dann
Humble Pie, MI
Mike Marshall
>Either this is some form of 12th level black belt jujitsu sarcasm or else
>Ms. Couric has recently strayed from her regular reporting desk.
>http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/eveningnews/main3420.shtml
Whack! Whack! Bad Dann! Don't scrutinize the things I say! No!
-Mike