WONDER WOMAN (no spoilers)

[moviePig]

With a good IMDb score and a number of women in attendance, WONDER WOMAN
seemed a safe choice. And, indeed, it proved to be a popular one.
Alas, my history foretold my own polite reaction: superhero movies
aren't my thing. Accordingly, my only recommendation here is not to
expect this one to break such a trend...

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <59d10fb6$0$11103$b1db1813$f972...@news.astraweb.com>,

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>With a good IMDb score and a number of women in attendance, WONDER WOMAN
>seemed a safe choice. And, indeed, it proved to be a popular one.
>Alas, my history foretold my own polite reaction: superhero movies
>aren't my thing. Accordingly, my only recommendation here is not to
>expect this one to break such a trend...
>
>--

It was good, but not great. Godot is apparently born to play Wonder Woman,
but perhaps the writers weren't born to *write* Wonder Woman. Still a
decent launch.

I was amused at the "no characters..living or dead" disclaimer when
the almost big bad was a very real WWI German general.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[moviePig]

Class-action suit to follow from students flunking European History...

[BTR1701]

In article <f3cl9u...@mid.individual.net>,

I've seen *documentaries* with that disclaimer in the credits. One about
Lincoln stands out in my mind. It's almost like the studio legal
department requires it for all films regardless of whether it makes any
rational sense or not.

[moviePig]

On 10/1/2017 2:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <f3cl9u...@mid.individual.net>,
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> In article <59d10fb6$0$11103$b1db1813$f972...@news.astraweb.com>,
>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> With a good IMDb score and a number of women in attendance, WONDER WOMAN
>>> seemed a safe choice. And, indeed, it proved to be a popular one.
>>> Alas, my history foretold my own polite reaction: superhero movies
>>> aren't my thing. Accordingly, my only recommendation here is not to
>>> expect this one to break such a trend...
>>

>> It was good, but not great. Godot is apparently born to play Wonder Woman,
>> but perhaps the writers weren't born to *write* Wonder Woman. Still a
>> decent launch.
>>
>> I was amused at the "no characters..living or dead" disclaimer when
>> the almost big bad was a very real WWI German general.
>
> I've seen *documentaries* with that disclaimer in the credits. One about
> Lincoln stands out in my mind. It's almost like the studio legal
> department requires it for all films regardless of whether it makes any
> rational sense or not.

Seems that'd tend to weaken whatever protection the disclaimer affords
-- for not only a particular movie, but even a studio.

[trotsky]

On 10/1/17 12:00 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <59d10fb6$0$11103$b1db1813$f972...@news.astraweb.com>,
> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>> With a good IMDb score and a number of women in attendance, WONDER WOMAN
>> seemed a safe choice. And, indeed, it proved to be a popular one.
>> Alas, my history foretold my own polite reaction: superhero movies
>> aren't my thing. Accordingly, my only recommendation here is not to
>> expect this one to break such a trend...
>>
>> --
>
> It was good, but not great. Godot is apparently born to play Wonder Woman,
> but perhaps the writers weren't born to *write* Wonder Woman. Still a
> decent launch.

That begs the question if there was any other comparable movie that you
found to be great.

[alvey]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 11:54:27 -0400, moviePig wrote:

> With a good IMDb score and a number of women in attendance, WONDER WOMAN
> seemed a safe choice. And, indeed, it proved to be a popular one.
> Alas, my history foretold my own polite reaction: superhero movies
> aren't my thing. Accordingly, my only recommendation here is not to
> expect this one to break such a trend...

Correct.
Terribly acted childish mush. At least the first 30 minutes were. I can't
comment on it after that.



alvey

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <J4bAB.227586$8I2....@fx40.iad>,

The Incredibles

[reilloc]

On 10/1/2017 10:54 AM, moviePig wrote:
>
> With a good IMDb score and a number of women in attendance, WONDER WOMAN
> seemed a safe choice.  And, indeed, it proved to be a popular one. Alas,
> my history foretold my own polite reaction:  superhero movies aren't my
> thing.  Accordingly, my only recommendation here is not to expect this
> one to break such a trend...
>

Alexa, when was the movie "Wonder Woman" released?

"The film "Wonder Woman" was released on May 25th, 2017."

Why are you so untimely and is your recommendation so obtuse? As much as
I often enjoy your posts, I don't remain awake hoping that something'll
come along and turn you into a ________________ fan.

It would not be better simply to forego remarking when you know you're
predisposed to dislike--unless you have obtained an insight?

LNC

[reilloc]

I think I remember that. I think I thought it was really good. I'll have
to watch it again.

Thanks,

LNC

[Obveeus]

...and the sequel comes out next summer.

[trotsky]

So you don't distinguish between live action and animation, or are you
trying to be funny?

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <DHeAB.53192$bI2....@fx04.iad>,

Movies are movies.

[reilloc]

It may be he missed his own point since "Wonder Woman" was CGIy enough
to be called a cartoon.

LNC

[trotsky]

Wow, how fucked up would it be if you were in charge of the Oscars?

[moviePig]

I thought the pseudo-recommendation here was worth a mention, as I can't
be the only viewer who occasionally strays into a personally hostile
genre chasing rumors of a black swan. Also, WW just hit DVD.

[Obveeus]

Yes, exactly.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <59d24181$0$11488$b1db1813$fea9...@news.astraweb.com>,

It inspired a mostly on-topic discussion of a mostly current film.
That's a plus.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

People seem to have strong opinions on this. I suggested here a couple
of months ago that the "live" "Jungle Book" was basically an animated film
and didn't get much agreement.

[Obveeus]

On 10/2/2017 9:54 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <oqtg8p$gqb$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/2017 1:36 AM, reilloc wrote:
>>> On 10/1/2017 6:41 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>> In article <DHeAB.53192$bI2....@fx04.iad>,

>>>> trotsky  <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/1/17 4:19 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <J4bAB.227586$8I2....@fx40.iad>,

>>>>>> trotsky  <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/1/17 12:00 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <59d10fb6$0$11103$b1db1813$f972...@news.astraweb.com>,

>>>>>>>> moviePig  <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With a good IMDb score and a number of women in attendance,
>>>>>>>>> WONDER WOMAN

>>>>>>>>> seemed a safe choice.  And, indeed, it proved to be a popular one.
>>>>>>>>> Alas, my history foretold my own polite reaction:  superhero movies
>>>>>>>>> aren't my thing.  Accordingly, my only recommendation here is not to

>>>>>>>>> expect this one to break such a trend...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It was good, but not great.  Godot is apparently born to play

>>>>>>>> Wonder Woman,
>>>>>>>> but perhaps the writers weren't born to *write* Wonder Woman.
>>>>>>>> Still a
>>>>>>>> decent launch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That begs the question if there was any other comparable movie that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> found to be great.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Incredibles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you don't distinguish between live action and animation, or are you
>>>>> trying to be funny?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Movies are movies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may be he missed his own point since "Wonder Woman" was CGIy enough
>>> to be called a cartoon.
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
>
> People seem to have strong opinions on this. I suggested here a couple
> of months ago that the "live" "Jungle Book" was basically an animated film
> and didn't get much agreement.

I think we all agree that the lines between 'live action' and
'animation' are blurring. Likely, as long as there is any 'live
action', the film will not be classified as animation. However, for
purposes of this discussion and the question posed above...yes, it does
seem logical to state that THE INCREDIBLES and WONDER WOMaN are
'comparable'.

For my money, DEADPOOL and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY would be example of
more recent films that are more comparable...and are both far better
than WONDER WOMAN.

Side note: in the blur between 'live action' and 'animation'...where
would this film fall:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3262342/?ref_=nv_sr_1

They filmed live action actors recreating scenes depicted in Vincent
Vangogh paintings. Then, they had artists paint 65,000 different
paintings and used each of those paintings as a frame/cel of film.

[moviePig]

On 10/2/2017 9:54 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <oqtg8p$gqb$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/2017 1:36 AM, reilloc wrote:
>>> On 10/1/2017 6:41 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>> In article <DHeAB.53192$bI2....@fx04.iad>,

>>>> trotsky  <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/1/17 4:19 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <J4bAB.227586$8I2....@fx40.iad>,

>>>>>> trotsky  <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/1/17 12:00 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <59d10fb6$0$11103$b1db1813$f972...@news.astraweb.com>,

>>>>>>>> moviePig  <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With a good IMDb score and a number of women in attendance,
>>>>>>>>> WONDER WOMAN

>>>>>>>>> seemed a safe choice.  And, indeed, it proved to be a popular one.
>>>>>>>>> Alas, my history foretold my own polite reaction:  superhero movies
>>>>>>>>> aren't my thing.  Accordingly, my only recommendation here is not to

>>>>>>>>> expect this one to break such a trend...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It was good, but not great.  Godot is apparently born to play

>>>>>>>> Wonder Woman,
>>>>>>>> but perhaps the writers weren't born to *write* Wonder Woman.
>>>>>>>> Still a
>>>>>>>> decent launch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That begs the question if there was any other comparable movie that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> found to be great.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Incredibles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you don't distinguish between live action and animation, or are you
>>>>> trying to be funny?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Movies are movies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may be he missed his own point since "Wonder Woman" was CGIy enough
>>> to be called a cartoon.
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
>
> People seem to have strong opinions on this. I suggested here a couple
> of months ago that the "live" "Jungle Book" was basically an animated film
> and didn't get much agreement.

Here's my (tentative) opinion: although it's likely easy to populate
with examples a continuum between live-action films and animation, the
middle ground connecting the two seems sparse compared to the ends.

(Whatever I might've said a couple of months ago, I think that, more
than its actual content, the 'Disney' stamp leans JB to "animated".)

[reilloc]

On 10/2/2017 8:54 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <oqtg8p$gqb$2...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/2017 1:36 AM, reilloc wrote:
>>> On 10/1/2017 6:41 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>> In article <DHeAB.53192$bI2....@fx04.iad>,

>>>> trotsky  <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/1/17 4:19 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <J4bAB.227586$8I2....@fx40.iad>,

>>>>>> trotsky  <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> That begs the question if there was any other comparable movie that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> found to be great.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Incredibles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you don't distinguish between live action and animation, or are you
>>>>> trying to be funny?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Movies are movies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may be he missed his own point since "Wonder Woman" was CGIy enough
>>> to be called a cartoon.
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
>
> People seem to have strong opinions on this. I suggested here a couple
> of months ago that the "live" "Jungle Book" was basically an animated film
> and didn't get much agreement.
>

I didn't see your post about "Jungle Book." I did see your post about
"Wonder Woman" and "Movies are movies," is right--but...

You know what he meant.

Does that make a difference?

He knows what you meant.

Does that make a difference?

Remember that quaint term from the 20th Century, "special effects?" I
think we all used to think we knew what it meant.

What does it mean? When art meets business, what does it mean? Which one
wins? I'd sure like to see Ingrid Bergman make more movies. Will I get
what I want?

LNC

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Well, Peter Cushing is still making movies, so who knows? :-)

[trotsky]

Still waiting for someone to comment cogently about Oscar categories.
If they put live action movies in the "animated" category they would be
ridiculed to death. With you guys, though, this is a "topic for
discussion". It's kind of funny when you think about it.

[moviePig]

Not sure what sort of comment you're looking for. People make movies,
and other people categorize their work. E.g., the Golden Globes do it
somewhat differently from the Oscars, but both are merely subjective
groupings expected to be understood by viewers -- and neither is any
sort of definitive ontology.

[trotsky]

I'm specifically talking about the Oscars. There is a valid discussion
here, but you and the boys aren't making it. "Lord of the Rings"
brought up the question of whether or not a CGI character can receive an
Oscar. That question still remains. But to say "The Incredibles" can
be lumped into the same category as "Wonder Woman" is just silly.

[moviePig]

Iirc, Ted said only that they were "comparable". In context, I took
that to mean (more or less) that they were both comic-book superhero
flicks aimed mainly at grownups. Nothing to do with Oscars, etc.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <59d397d2$0$38410$b1db1813$d06e...@news.astraweb.com>,

Yeah, I didn't say anything about awards. I consider them both movies
and I compare them. The Academy is free to draw the lines it wishes.

[Obveeus]

On 10/3/2017 9:18 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/3/2017 7:17 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 10/2/17 9:34 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2017 9:54 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>
>>>> People seem to have strong opinions on this.  I suggested here a couple
>>>> of months ago that the "live" "Jungle Book" was basically an
>>>> animated film
>>>> and didn't get much agreement.
>>>
>>> Here's my (tentative) opinion:  although it's likely easy to populate
>>> with examples a continuum between live-action films and animation,
>>> the middle ground connecting the two seems sparse compared to the ends.
>>>
>>> (Whatever I might've said a couple of months ago, I think that, more
>>> than its actual content, the 'Disney' stamp leans JB to "animated".)
>>
>>
>> Still waiting for someone to comment cogently about Oscar categories.
>> If they put live action movies in the "animated" category they would
>> be ridiculed to death.  With you guys, though, this is a "topic for
>> discussion".  It's kind of funny when you think about it.
>
> Not sure what sort of comment you're looking for.

What makes you think he is looking for anything other than an
opportunity to flail around pretending that he has achieved some sort of
'gotcha' moment? His question doesn't even make sense.

Here are some hints:

1. Animated films are not prevented from appearing in the Oscar Best
Picture category.

2. CGI films are rarely considered for Oscar contention in the main
categories because the people who decide these things seem to feel that
box office $$$ is its own reward.

3. A film like THE JUNGLE BOOK is mostly CGI...animated, and yet
everyone who thinks about it for even half a second will recognize that
only the live action boy would be in contention for 'best actor'...not
anyone limited simply to voice work.

4. As far as I can recall, the Best Animated film category is reserved
for 100% animated (drawn, CGI'd, stop motioned, whatever), not films
that are a mixture of live action and animation.

>  People make movies,
> and other people categorize their work.  E.g., the Golden Globes do it
> somewhat differently from the Oscars, but both are merely subjective
> groupings expected to be understood by viewers -- and neither is any
> sort of definitive ontology.

Yep...and if the Oscars care to include CGI heavy films, they could
always start a separate category for them. That might even be a good
idea since it would give most people a chance to see a film they
actually watched in the theater get a major award on the TV telecast
ceremony.

[moviePig]

My experience of CGI-heavy films (as opposed to "pure animation") is
that they're nearly always clear *non*-contenders for Best Picture
awards. (LIFE OF PI, others?)

[Obveeus]

On 10/3/2017 10:55 AM, moviePig wrote:

> My experience of CGI-heavy films (as opposed to "pure animation") is
> that they're nearly always clear *non*-contenders for Best Picture
> awards.

Yes...non-contenders because the Academy doesn't want to award that kind
of film. Sci-fi, fantasy, and horror all fall into the category of
'almost always ignored film genres' by the Oscars.


> (LIFE OF PI, others?)

The Academy threw a ton of nominations at the LORD OF THE RINGS...and
even gave it a bunch of lifetime achievement payoff wins in the final
installment. I think the treatment of that film was mostly based upon
the voters having loved the books, though, not simply because they felt
the films were head and shoulders above other CGI films.

Last year, forget THE JUNGLE BOOK...where was DEADPOOL?
A couple years before that...GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY.

Even the expanded 10 film category didn't seem to have room for these
excellent films and that all comes down to genre and box office.

[moviePig]

Though I enjoyed DEADPOOL -- and GOtG a *lot* -- I don't see them as
broaching terrain nearly as difficult as any of last year's B.P.
nominees'. And, yes, that means that even pretentiousness counts for
something (though, for Oscars, quite possibly more than it should).

[Lewis]

In message <or07j1$2fm$1...@dont-email.me> Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> 4. As far as I can recall, the Best Animated film category is reserved
> for 100% animated (drawn, CGI'd, stop motioned, whatever), not films
> that are a mixture of live action and animation.

"The best animated film with a running time of more than 40 minutes, a
significant number of the major characters animated, and at least 75
percent of the picture's running time including animation."


CGI is not considered "Animation" but Computer Animation is.

--
Train Station: where the train stops. Work Station: ...

[Bill Steele]

CGI is just one of an array of "special effects" that films use to tell
stories about things that don't happen in the real world.

When somebody falls out of a plane we see a superimposed image of the
guy on a picture of the ground coming up. Do we complain because the
actor didn't really jump out of a plane? For "The Invisible Man" they
used wires to pick up objects and move them around. What a cheat!

Christopher Reeve can't really fly (Neither can George Reeves), and Gail
Godot can't really catch bullets on her bracelets, but I'm willing to
acct that the characters they play an do that stuff. Just like I accept
that some actress is a natural blonde.

It's the story that matters.

Kipling had lots of special effects: He could make animals talk.

[Obveeus]

On 10/3/2017 1:22 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <or07j1$2fm$1...@dont-email.me> Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 4. As far as I can recall, the Best Animated film category is reserved
>> for 100% animated (drawn, CGI'd, stop motioned, whatever), not films
>> that are a mixture of live action and animation.
>
> "The best animated film with a running time of more than 40 minutes, a
> significant number of the major characters animated, and at least 75
> percent of the picture's running time including animation."

By that standard, THE JUNGLE BOOK is definitely a film that qualified
for the 'best Animated film' category.

I guess I haven't been paying attention to that category enough to
notice films that aren't all animation getting nominated, though. Any
examples of films that were 0% < film < 25% live action and got nominated?

[Obveeus]

On 10/3/2017 1:22 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/3/2017 11:16 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/3/2017 10:55 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>
>>> My experience of CGI-heavy films (as opposed to "pure animation") is
>>> that they're nearly always clear *non*-contenders for Best Picture
>>> awards.
>>
>> Yes...non-contenders because the Academy doesn't want to award that
>> kind of film.  Sci-fi, fantasy, and horror all fall into the category
>> of 'almost always ignored film genres' by the Oscars.
>>
>>
>>  >  (LIFE OF PI, others?)
>>
>> The Academy threw a ton of nominations at the LORD OF THE RINGS...and
>> even gave it a bunch of lifetime achievement payoff wins in the final
>> installment.  I think the treatment of that film was mostly based upon
>> the voters having loved the books, though, not simply because they
>> felt the films were head and shoulders above other CGI films.
>>
>> Last year, forget THE JUNGLE BOOK...where was DEADPOOL?
>> A couple years before that...GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY.
>>
>> Even the expanded 10 film category didn't seem to have room for these
>> excellent films and that all comes down to genre and box office.
>
> Though I enjoyed DEADPOOL -- and GOtG a *lot* -- I don't see them as
> broaching terrain nearly as difficult as any of last year's B.P.
> nominees'.

Are you kidding?
LA LA LAND mad singing, but it was a lousy film.
HIDDEN FIGURES had black issues, but played like a Hallmark TV movie.
ARRIVAL was sci-fi, but quite lame and aimless.
MANCHESTER BY THE SEA was a boring trip through the land of depression
and hopelessness.

That's 4 spots right there that should have been opened up for DEADPOOL
even assuming that the Academy hadn't chosen to only nominate 9 films
instead of the 10 that could have been nominated.

> And, yes, that means that even pretentiousness counts for
> something (though, for Oscars, quite possibly more than it should).

Stuffed shirts.

[moviePig]

...but in a tux. It's not only what those 4 achieved, which is indeed
subjective, but also what they tried for. As much as I liked GOtG, I'm
content to let its success be decided by the box office -- whereas,
though I had my own reservations about HIDDEN FIGURES (and enjoyed it
much less), I'm glad its filmmakers got the boost of its nomination.

[trotsky]

I get your drift. We mentally masturbate about what sci-fi is and then
"mix it up" a little by saying animation is comparable to live action.
FAIL.

[trotsky]

Kipling wrote more about armies than animals.

[william ahearn]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 5:16:17 PM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:

> Kipling wrote more about armies than animals.

Cite?

[moviePig]

Well, that does seem a-drift...

[trotsky]

https://www.loc.gov/item/2016591915/

> Title
> Kipling and war : from 'Tommy' and 'My boy Jack'
> Summary
> "Although Rudyard Kipling never fought, he was one of Britiain's foremost observers of and commentators on war. Through his writing on the harsh realities of life as a private and accounts of feats of courage and comradeship during the frontier wars in India, 19th century British campaigns in Sudan, the Boer Wars and the First World War, he became the poet of the common soldier. Although he wrote propaganda for the government in the Boer and First World Wars, Kipling was also acerbic in his criticism of military incompetence, deeply compassionate towards the victims of war and despairing of the senseless bloodshed that he witnessed. Through his writing, the voices of countless soldiers and the guns of many battles echo through the years and place Kipling firmly firmly among the leading practitioners of 19th and 20th century war literature" -- Provided by publisher.

[william ahearn]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 5:42:51 PM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:

> > Kipling and war : from 'Tommy' and 'My boy Jack'
> > Summary
> > "Although Rudyard Kipling never fought, he was one of Britiain's foremost observers of and commentators on war. Through his writing on the harsh realities of life as a private and accounts of feats of courage and comradeship during the frontier wars in India, 19th century British campaigns in Sudan, the Boer Wars and the First World War, he became the poet of the common soldier. Although he wrote propaganda for the government in the Boer and First World Wars, Kipling was also acerbic in his criticism of military incompetence, deeply compassionate towards the victims of war and despairing of the senseless bloodshed that he witnessed. Through his writing, the voices of countless soldiers and the guns of many battles echo through the years and place Kipling firmly firmly among the leading practitioners of 19th and 20th century war literature" -- Provided by publisher.

No comparison to what he wrote about animals. FAIL.

[Lewis]

In message <or0m08$t7i$1...@dont-email.me> Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> HIDDEN FIGURES had black issues, but played like a Hallmark TV movie.
> ARRIVAL was sci-fi, but quite lame and aimless.
> MANCHESTER BY THE SEA was a boring trip through the land of depression
> and hopelessness.

Totally wrong on those three.

--
Seeing, contrary to popular wisdom, isn't believing. It's where belief
stops, because it isn't needed any more. --Pyramids

[Lewis]

In message <or0lir$poj$1...@dont-email.me> Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:


> On 10/3/2017 1:22 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <or07j1$2fm$1...@dont-email.me> Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> 4. As far as I can recall, the Best Animated film category is reserved
>>> for 100% animated (drawn, CGI'd, stop motioned, whatever), not films
>>> that are a mixture of live action and animation.
>>
>> "The best animated film with a running time of more than 40 minutes, a
>> significant number of the major characters animated, and at least 75
>> percent of the picture's running time including animation."

> By that standard, THE JUNGLE BOOK is definitely a film that qualified
> for the 'best Animated film' category.

No, because CGI is not considered animation.

> I guess I haven't been paying attention to that category enough to
> notice films that aren't all animation getting nominated, though. Any
> examples of films that were 0% < film < 25% live action and got nominated?

I don't think so.


--
Exit, pursued by a bear.

[trotsky]

Do you have any proof of this or are you just talking out of your ass
per your usual m.o.?

[william ahearn]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 6:16:53 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:

> Do you have any proof of this or are you just talking out of your ass
> per your usual m.o.?

Why don't you have the balls to answer the question. Intellectual cowardice.

[trotsky]

So you have no proof.

[hector]

On 4/10/2017 4:27 AM, Bill Steele wrote:
> CGI is just one of an array of "special effects" that films use to tell
> stories about things that don't happen in the real world.
>
> When somebody falls out of a plane we see a superimposed image of the
> guy on a picture of the ground coming up. Do we complain because the
> actor didn't really jump out of a plane? For "The Invisible Man" they
> used wires to pick up objects and move them around. What a cheat!
>
> Christopher Reeve can't really fly (Neither can George Reeves), and Gail
> Godot can't really catch bullets on her bracelets, but I'm willing to
> acct that the characters they play an do that stuff. Just like I accept
> that some actress is a natural blonde.

If you go that far back it might be called a moveable matte. The
breakthrough on Star Wars was that the matte could be moved much more
freely than had been done on 2001. Computers assisted that.

[hector]

On 4/10/2017 4:27 AM, Bill Steele wrote:

CGI today is almost the same as what was called once live action animation.

[william ahearn]

You made the assertion and you couldn't back it up. That is the proof that you're a know-nothing asshole who thinks he can slink away by changing the subject. Proof that you're a dishonest wanker. (Not that anyone here needs any since you embarrass yourself on an almost daily basis.)

[trotsky]

On 10/4/17 8:36 PM, william ahearn wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:38:29 PM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
>> On 10/4/2017 12:55 PM, william ahearn wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 6:16:53 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you have any proof of this or are you just talking out of your ass
>>>> per your usual m.o.?
>>>
>>> Why don't you have the balls to answer the question. Intellectual cowardice.
>>>
>>
>> So you have no proof.
>
> You made the assertion and you couldn't back it up.

No, that's what you did. I made an assertion and did back it up.
Perhaps you missed the post.

[william ahearn]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 6:57:27 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
>
> No, that's what you did. I made an assertion and did back it up.
> Perhaps you missed the post.

Show me where I made an assertion. All I wrote was "Cite," a troll trick I learned from you. Your cite failed. It did not back up what you wrote. And, now, you lie and weasel like the punk troll that you are. Thanks for playing, I needed a laugh this morning.

[trotsky]

On 10/5/17 10:13 AM, william ahearn wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 6:57:27 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
>>
>> No, that's what you did. I made an assertion and did back it up.
>> Perhaps you missed the post.
>
> Show me where I made an assertion. All I wrote was "Cite,"

No, that's not correct. Here's the exchange in question:

You wrote:


> No comparison to what he wrote about animals. FAIL.
>

I responded:

Do you have any proof of this or are you just talking out of your ass
per your usual m.o.?

You then refused to answer the question, apparently because the onset of
Alzheimer's didn't allow you to recall what was asked. Would you like
to take another shot at the title?

[william ahearn]

On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 6:03:39 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:

> I responded:
>
> Do you have any proof of this or are you just talking out of your ass
> per your usual m.o.?

Yes. I read the cite and it made no comparison to writing about animals to support your assertion. Ergo, it failed. How stupid are you?

>
>
> You then refused to answer the question, apparently because the onset of
> Alzheimer's didn't allow you to recall what was asked. Would you like
> to take another shot at the title?

I didn't refuse to do anything. The question had been answered for anyone with a brain. Oh, that rules you out. Now, go away. Smacking you around borders on child abuse.

[trotsky]

On 10/6/17 9:35 AM, william ahearn wrote:
> On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 6:03:39 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
>
>> I responded:
>>
>> Do you have any proof of this or are you just talking out of your ass
>> per your usual m.o.?
>
> Yes. I read the cite and it made no comparison to writing about animals to support your assertion.

You know, you're right. There is no cite for this, it's merely my
opinion. Although the passage I cited, particularly "Although Rudyard

Kipling never fought, he was one of Britiain's foremost observers of and

commentators on war" could lead one to come to the same conclusion. Do
you have an opinion on this, or is this exercise just to show how shitty
a job you do at trolling?

[william ahearn]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 6:06:41 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
> On 10/6/17 9:35 AM, william ahearn wrote:
> > On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 6:03:39 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
> >
> >> I responded:
> >>
> >> Do you have any proof of this or are you just talking out of your ass
> >> per your usual m.o.?
> >
> > Yes. I read the cite and it made no comparison to writing about animals to support your assertion.
>
>
> You know, you're right. There is no cite for this, it's merely my
> opinion.

"Opinion stated as fact." Now, where did I hear that?

[trotsky]

As ever, you lack the intellectual firepower to address the gist of the
post.

[william ahearn]

Really? I just wiped the floor with you. Kicked your ass and didn't even need to think about it. You're a poseur and a troll and a total lightweight. Now, back in the trotsky hole and thanks for the laughs. Buh-bye, asshole.

[trotsky]

On 10/7/2017 11:21 AM, william ahearn wrote:
> On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 11:56:28 AM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:
>> On 10/7/17 7:50 AM, william ahearn wrote:
>
>> As ever, you lack the intellectual firepower to address the gist of the
>> post.
>
> Really? I just wiped the floor with you.

All Usenet shitheads utter false declarations of victory. Thanks for
playing.

[william ahearn]

So tired, so weak. Anyone can read the thread and watch you sputter and die. I'm still laughing.

[trotsky]

I'll bet you're laughing because it sounds like you're playing with
yourself.

[william ahearn]

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 7:06:59 PM UTC-4, Greg Singh wrote:

> I'll bet you're laughing because it sounds like you're playing with
> yourself.

There you go, obsessed with my dick again. I'm laughing because you're a sucker for your own tricks. Go ahead and read the thread. Most of my posts I stole from you and you bit and swallowed it like a noob. It was like playing with a kitten and wiggling some shiny string. That's what is so funny. Watching you punching yourself in the face. Priceless.

[jgro...@hotmail.com]

The dvd’s First 30 minutes are a setup for the Island, skippable. Last half was basically The Dirty Dozen castle attack with angry Gods. I guess they choose WW-1 instead of WW2 to avoid disturbing the Proud Boys crowd. I want Shiska Woman to hit Hitler !!