OT: Lord Of The Rings (Only One Month Left)
sharon.davies1
to go, and to top it off we get it one week before the Americans. Somehow
the world makes so much more sense.
P.s sorry about this outburst but I'm pissed and dont give a f*ck if ya
flame me. But then again please dont.
Dont tell me your not excited?
Duncan Armstrong
news:filF7.12387$N16.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
=)
Heheheheehehahahahahahaaa!!
(Words fail me when it comes to LOTR...)
Dunc
robinhood
anything.
Paul
"sharon.davies1" <sharon....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:filF7.12387$N16.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Inkubus
<paul.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I'm not particularly excited - its just a film of a book its not real or
>anything.
So you never get excited about films? ... they all start as scripts,
(just that this one started as a classic tale that's spawned a
generation of copies that never matched it)
robinhood
caught up in the hype beforehand - after all every movie ever made is the
best ever - according to it's publicity machine!
If I enjoy a film I recommend it to others with the proviso "make your own
minds up"
LOTR is a good story & one day a movie will be made to do justice to the
story, but I aint gonna piss my pants with excitement just because the movie
company tells me to.
Paul
"Inkubus" <ink...@shima.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cjtbutgediia4003d...@4ax.com...
TheFatBoy
> caught up in the hype beforehand - after all every movie ever made is the
> best ever - according to it's publicity machine!
> If I enjoy a film I recommend it to others with the proviso "make your own
> minds up"
> LOTR is a good story & one day a movie will be made to do justice to the
> story, but I aint gonna piss my pants with excitement just because the
movie
> company tells me to.
Wow, you're such a hard man.... You're my hero....
Lurch
"sharon.davies1" <sharon....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:filF7.12387$N16.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
ever since I first found out it was in the works!! I'm going to book way
ahead and get enough seats so that I don't have some huge sweaty person
munching away on crisps sat next to me!
oh my god, one month to go!!!!!!
Bardo
"sharon.davies1" <sharon....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:filF7.12387$N16.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
month
> to go, and to top it off we get it one week before the Americans. Somehow
> the world makes so much more sense.
A certain Mr Navin has seen it already - lucky fecker!
Keyser Soze
"robinhood" <paul.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:VHtF7.14784$N16.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> I might get enthusiastic about a film AFTER I've seen it but I don't get
> caught up in the hype beforehand - after all every movie ever made is the
> best ever - according to it's publicity machine!
> If I enjoy a film I recommend it to others with the proviso "make your own
> minds up"
> LOTR is a good story & one day a movie will be made to do justice to the
> story, but I aint gonna piss my pants with excitement just because the
movie
> company tells me to.
> Paul
>
That's not fair, you are so lucky. The movie companies never call me
and tell what to think. Also, I agree with TheFatBoy and think that
you are my Vulcan hero.
PRAISE BE THE HARD LORD PAUL "MR SPOCK" ARCHER
Celeborn
I'm not excited.... I just *know* they will have screwed around with it
so much it's unwatchable.
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
# 531-byte qrpff-fast, Keith Winstein and Marc Horowitz <sipb-i...@mit.edu> # MPEG 2 PS VOB file on stdin -> descrambled output on stdout
# arguments: title key bytes in least to most-significant order
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$t=255;@t=map{$_%16or$t^=$c^=(
$m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110;$t^=(72,@z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16
-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)[$_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h
=5;$_=unxb24,join"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$
d=unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d>>12^$d>>4^
$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^
(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval
Celeborn
>> I am way way too excited and hyped up to see this flick. Just one more
>month
>> to go, and to top it off we get it one week before the Americans. Somehow
>> the world makes so much more sense.
>
>A certain Mr Navin has seen it already - lucky fecker!
>
Doesn't work for Games Workshop does he? ;)
Patrick Navin
"Celeborn" <cele...@lpuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gvvdutcrus5cuvle5...@4ax.com...
>
> I'm not excited.... I just *know* they will have screwed around with it
> so much it's unwatchable.
> --
>
you may be in for a surprise!!
Patrick
Dave
>> >I'm not particularly excited - its just a film of a book its not real or
>> >anything.
>>
Unfortualtely hardly anything put out by Hollywood is real even if
it's based on real events.
This really gets me when it supposedly depicts real events in warfare,
it's a great unjust to all who fought and died.
Dave
Elliot Johnson
news:fduF7.3534$ur6.207155@wards...
LOL.
Personally, I can't help but wet my pants in anticipation.
My most eagerly awaited film of the year. Deffo.
TheFatBoy
>
> LOL.
>
> Personally, I can't help but wet my pants in anticipation.
>
> My most eagerly awaited film of the year. Deffo.
I can't wait either having read the books in the last coupla months for the
first time ;)
I'm still looking forward to Harry Potter tho! 4 DAYS!!!!!!! :)))
Rob Hayward
robinhood <paul.a...@ntlworld.com> writes
>I might get enthusiastic about a film AFTER I've seen it but I don't get
>caught up in the hype beforehand -
Never listen to hype as the film will never match it and you'll leave (a
probably very good film) with a feeling of disappointment. However if
people tell you its bad then you will probably be expecting worse than
it really is and you will come out pleased.
TPM OTOH managed to be even worse than all the dire stories I'd heard
and that took some doing.
--
Rob
We ate for the one, we drank for the one.
,
,
,
We got fat for the one
Inkubus
<paul.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Inkubus" <ink...@shima.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> So you never get excited about films? ... they all start as scripts,
>> (just that this one started as a classic tale that's spawned a
>> generation of copies that never matched it)
>I might get enthusiastic about a film AFTER I've seen it but I don't get
>caught up in the hype beforehand - after all every movie ever made is the
>best ever - according to it's publicity machine!
>If I enjoy a film I recommend it to others with the proviso "make your own
>minds up"
>LOTR is a good story & one day a movie will be made to do justice to the
>story, but I aint gonna piss my pants with excitement just because the movie
>company tells me to.
All very fair points but still, it doesn't hur to look forward to
something based on what you *know* about it not just waht the
publicity people tell you ...
I'm certainly not saying you should like it before you see it (I'm
certainly not saying that myself either) but saying it's "just a film
of a book its not real or anything" doesn't mean it's anyhing less to
look forward to than any film of something 'real' or not from a book.
Inkubus
wrote:
>Unfortualtely hardly anything put out by Hollywood is real even if
>it's based on real events.
By definition it is practically impossible to present something real
as entertainment and supply all sides of the story ... 2 hours of film
to explain 4 people talking for 5 minutes (their motivations from past
events in thier lives explained, how each understood the words of the
others, what they were truing to say even if they failed) is not
likeyl to sell ...
>This really gets me when it supposedly depicts real events in warfare,
>it's a great unjust to all who fought and died.
Of course it is a great shame in this case especially since people
have risked or given everything in the real event ... but this doesn't
mean trying to retell it to a wider audience so that they can
appreciate it is a poor aim (obviously) and that if in that retelling,
to make it entertaining so that more people see it, some things are
not perfectly retold then surely (so long as it stays to the *spirit*
of the intended action, and lets the audience appreciate the essential
facts of the tue case) it is a worthy project.
Inkubus
wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 17:34:31 -0000, "Bardo" <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>A certain Mr Navin has seen it already - lucky fecker!
>Doesn't work for Games Workshop does he? ;)
He can't do; someone said he was lucky erather than "Hated by most of
the Earth's populace" ... :)
Celeborn
wrote:
>>>A certain Mr Navin has seen it already - lucky fecker!
>
>>Doesn't work for Games Workshop does he? ;)
>
>He can't do; someone said he was lucky erather than "Hated by most of
>the Earth's populace" ... :)
They tried to bribe my bloke into going back to work for Games Workshop
by saying they would allow him to watch the film (LOTR) as the higher
staff have seen it. He still point blank refused, he only worked there
as a summer job and had no intention of making a career :)
Rob Hayward
<ink...@shima.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 12:59:48 GMT, dha...@NOSPAMeidosnet.co.uk (Dave)
>wrote:
>
>>Unfortualtely hardly anything put out by Hollywood is real even if
>>it's based on real events.
>
>>it's a great unjust to all who fought and died.
>
>Of course it is a great shame in this case especially since people
>have risked or given everything in the real event ... but this doesn't
>mean trying to retell it to a wider audience so that they can
>appreciate it is a poor aim (obviously) and that if in that retelling,
>to make it entertaining so that more people see it, some things are
>not perfectly retold then surely (so long as it stays to the *spirit*
>of the intended action, and lets the audience appreciate the essential
>facts of the tue case) it is a worthy project.
But what about projects like U571 which completely changes the story and
makes it seem that a completely different country (namely the one that
put up the money) is the heroes to pander to their low expectations of
the audience.
Inkubus
wrote:
>In article <ol4hutg94e33fcjde...@4ax.com>, Inkubus
><ink...@shima.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Of course it is a great shame in this case especially since people
>>have risked or given everything in the real event ... but this doesn't
>>mean trying to retell it to a wider audience so that they can
>>appreciate it is a poor aim (obviously) and that if in that retelling,
>>to make it entertaining so that more people see it, some things are
>>not perfectly retold then surely (so long as it stays to the *spirit*
>>of the intended action, and lets the audience appreciate the essential
>>facts of the tue case) it is a worthy project.
>
>But what about projects like U571 which completely changes the story and
>makes it seem that a completely different country (namely the one that
>put up the money) is the heroes to pander to their low expectations of
>the audience.
*Personally* I think that so long as it is not put forward/represented
as a retelling of the truth it's OK - others I know differ in this.
In the case of U571 I believe the events did happen to the US (only
much later in the war when it didn't matter!). The film company did
(in their defence) put up the accurate report at the end of the film
but I agree, in this case, U571 was represented as too much of a true
story rather than a rather fanciful reorganisation of a possible
series of events and thus falls on the bad side of the line.
I did say in above "let's the audience appreciate the *essential
facts* ..." and in this case some essential facts were omitted ... no
wonder many people I know didn't want to see it for this reason.
Again personally I think this is a shame since the film would probably
have done just as well (more so in the UK!) if they'd been more honest
about it being 'inspired by possible events' rather than a retelling.
I also rather enjoyed the film once I was able to treat it as an
adventure rather than a 'basically historical' film.
Jimmy B
cinema so how can the dvd be out next month? Maybe its a copy of that crap
animated version Bakshi started and couldnt finish.
"Inkubus" <ink...@shima.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m9njutkqoo36evnbe...@4ax.com...
Keyser Soze
we've been talking about the cinema release, not the DVD.
Maximum respect. Word.
"Jimmy B" <NOS...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:fnzG7.14618$ko4.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Nigel Ince
Nige
"sharon.davies1" <sharon....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:filF7.12387$N16.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Jimmy B
advance orders, although I suppose its a New Zealand film and may be of
limited interest to European and American punters. I'm in Edinburgh and I
suppose the only chance I have to see the movie on the big screen is to
watch out at the local art house cinemas.
Your post inspired me to dig out some old MC Hammer records.
"Keyser Soze" <verbalkint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1005244767.7450.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
BuggyŠ
>
> Nige
>
Don't want any flies round my ring.....no way.........
Buggy
Damon
win.server.ntlworld.com:
> Maybe you are right. I can't see the dvd at amazon or at play even in
> advance orders, although I suppose its a New Zealand film and may be of
> limited interest to European and American punters. I'm in Edinburgh and I
> suppose the only chance I have to see the movie on the big screen is to
> watch out at the local art house cinemas.
>
> Your post inspired me to dig out some old MC Hammer records.
You lost me with the limited interest and art house theatre bit.
I think films are classed nationally by the country that stumps up the
money for them.
You could by the same token claim that The tommyknockers, The frighteners,
Xena warrior princess, the legendary whatsits of Hercules are are New
Zealand productions by virtue of location but they are quite clearly US
productions despite the NZ locale and the prevalence of actors from
"Shortland Street" that appear in them.
Although the director in this case is a Kiwi (and point of interest, used
to work with my Dad at the Evening Post in Wellington NZ, many moons ago
about the time he was making Bad Taste, which was a spare time project
filmed near where I grew up) calling TLOTR a NZ film would be inaccurate.
Now Bad Taste, Braindead and Heavenly creatures on the other hand.....
Jimmy B
> You could by the same token claim that The tommyknockers, The frighteners,
> Xena warrior princess, the legendary whatsits of Hercules are are New
> Zealand productions by virtue of location but they are quite clearly US
> productions despite the NZ locale and the prevalence of actors from
> "Shortland Street" that appear in them.
Kinda proves my point though. No-ones ever heard of these films - and Zena
never even made it to the cinema, straight to tv job. Dont get me wrong -
I'm not knocking New Zealand. I love that dance the Zulus do at the start of
the rugby.
My prediction - in the UK LOTR will be a straight to video job and we'll be
lucky to even see it on DVD. Maybe Sky will pick it up as a mini-series.
Shame that the finest medieval litereature in British history ends up being
filmed in the outback by an unknown director and a cast who'd barely make it
even on UK television.
TheFatBoy
> never even made it to the cinema, straight to tv job. Dont get me wrong -
> I'm not knocking New Zealand. I love that dance the Zulus do at the start
of
> the rugby.
The Matrix was filmed in Oz and had a large number of Ozzy soap stars in it.
SW : TPM was partly filmed in Oz.
> My prediction - in the UK LOTR will be a straight to video job and we'll
be
> lucky to even see it on DVD. Maybe Sky will pick it up as a mini-series.
> Shame that the finest medieval litereature in British history ends up
being
> filmed in the outback by an unknown director and a cast who'd barely make
it
> even on UK television.
Good troll.
Damon
> Kinda proves my point though. No-ones ever heard of these films - and
> Zena never even made it to the cinema, straight to tv job. Dont get me
> wrong - I'm not knocking New Zealand. I love that dance the Zulus do at
> the start of the rugby.
>
> My prediction - in the UK LOTR will be a straight to video job and
> we'll be lucky to even see it on DVD. Maybe Sky will pick it up as a
> mini-series. Shame that the finest medieval litereature in British
> history ends up being filmed in the outback by an unknown director and
> a cast who'd barely make it even on UK television.
Oh right, I see your just a time wasting piss taker.
D
Jimmy B
> Oh right, I see your just a time wasting piss taker.
Not trying to waste anyones time or take the piss out of anyone. Neither am
I a Troll which I believe is someone who deliberately posts to cause
annoyance or start arguments. Just expressing my opinion which you obviously
think is the dogs bollocks. Sorry I spoke.
TheFatBoy
am
> I a Troll which I believe is someone who deliberately posts to cause
> annoyance or start arguments. Just expressing my opinion which you
obviously
> think is the dogs bollocks. Sorry I spoke.
Hehe, I think you'll find that you think your opinions are THE dog's
bollocks. We just think your opinions are BOLLOCKS. There's a world of
difference ;)
Jimmy B
taking off as hoped and as such your news group will die a slow death
anyway.
"TheFatBoy" <gr...@gfield.NOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:R3TG7.4003$ur6.244792@wards...
Inquisitor
Hayward (r...@battle-axe.org) scrawled...
> But what about projects like U571 which completely changes the story and
> makes it seem that a completely different country (namely the one that
> put up the money) is the heroes to pander to their low expectations of
> the audience.
Precisely. That's one of my major gripes about Braveheart, the others
being (high spoiler content):
* the only way I enjoy the film is playing it like PLAN 9 FROM
OUTER SPACE or a Rocky Horror session - shouting lines at the
screen - because it's just an abominable film. Worst Oscar
winner for a long time - we're talking ROCKY beating NETWORK,
TAXI DRIVER and ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN mayhem here.
* the custom of the lord shagging every woman après marriage only
exists in bad Mills & Boon romantic fiction
* mostly, the castles remained under Scottish control - the lords
were very subservient to Edward I and remained so until the time
was right to change. They were opportunist to the last.
* the child acting! UGH! AND I'd like to strangle the bloody
narrator!
* unbelievable plot twists - the entire Romeo & Juliet ripoff
* half-assed attempts at symbolism that just don't work - the
handkerchief?
* I *love* the Edward I role for its campiness, but it's nowhere
like the character Edward I really was - that is to say a bloody
clever, highly strategised, well respected English king.
* In 1297, Edward of Caenarvon (the future Edward II) was 14 and
desparately trying to find something he could actually do in a
desolate forest (and separate household) in Kent. He married
Isabella in 1309, after he had become king, and had the first
child in 1312. So, as much as I like Sophie Marceau, she wasn't
there. At all.
* Contrary to the film, Wallace never even got as far as
Newcastle - he preferred to stay in Scottish boundaries.
* After Falkirk, Edward was forced to turn back due to supply
problems, meaning that Scotland was still under control of the
Guardians. This was a combination of Robert Bruce, earl of
Carrick, and John Comyn from 1298 to 1301, then Sir John Soulis
until the final English takeover in 1303/1304. Wallace led
guerilla skirmish raids and expeditions to France during this
time, but was not the leader of the Scottish army.
* Wallace fought in the name of John Balliol, the exiled king of
Scotland, and as such was not acceptable to Bruce family
sympathies. Plus, it's very uncertain that Wallace ever met
the Earl of Carrick, the future king.
* Practically the only thing the film gets right is the recapture
of Wallace, although as per usual it puts it in the name of the
wrong person (in this case, Carrick's father; it was actually
a collection of Glaswegian lords and earls) - and, of course,
the actual method of execution. One of the many things it
doesn't get right is the battle of Stirling Bridge, which took
place on a wooden bridge in Stirling. In the film, it's
obviously a flat plain in Ireland and makes the achievement of
Wallace (in beating a gigantic cavalry army) look like pot luck.
It actually wrecks the character of Wallace to do this.
* The film is very ineptly set up - the IMDB goofs list is very
long indeed for simple stuff like continuity mistakes and
anachronisms (spot the white Transit! It's even easier in the
wide version!)
* Oh, and the English court spoke... French. No English king
actually spoke native English until around 1400, with Richard
II. Remember, they WERE from Normandy, and still held
possessions there. So the Marceau character wouldn't have been
out of place at all.
* in short - it's crap romantic fiction, crafted (if that's the
word) by Randall Wallace and let through the film grinder. If
possible, the script is actually worse at the "mind-bogglingly
crap" problem - as is the book, written by Randall W.
Can you guess why I don't like "Braveheart"? I wrote this up in fifteen
minutes.
Do I have a life? No, but I am currently taking an Advanced Higher
course in medieval Scottish history and have, as such, *lots* of book
references. Care to begin?
--
I N Q U I S I T O R / www.spamhunter.co.uk / inquisitor (at) my domain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two types of Linux developers - those who can spell, and
those who can't. There is a constant pitched battle between the two.
(From one of the post-1.1.54 kernel update messages posted to c.o.l.a)
TheFatBoy
isnt
> taking off as hoped and as such your news group will die a slow death
> anyway.
I'm not trying to insult you, just correcting you ;)
DVD has taken off like a rocket, and you're a troll!
Celeborn
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Do I have a life? No, but I am currently taking an Advanced Higher
>course in medieval Scottish history and have, as such, *lots* of book
>references. Care to begin?
Where are you studying that? I'd actually be quite interested in it
myself.
Damon
> Not trying to waste anyones time or take the piss out of anyone.
> Neither am I a Troll which I believe is someone who deliberately posts
> to cause annoyance or start arguments. Just expressing my opinion which
> you obviously think is the dogs bollocks. Sorry I spoke.
Ah but you are wrong, you are wating peoples time.
By posting drivel you are causing them to reply to correct you which is a
waste of their time.
As for posting your opinion, again you are talking shite because what you
are posting, you know not to be true therefore it is not your opinion and
you are posting it in an attempt to get a rise out of people but it is just
making you look like a pillock.
Zulu's before the rugby, c'mon noone is that thick.
Now back under your rock.
oh and the dogs bollocks means it is good, I think you mean just plain old
"bollocks"
Damon