[I] Tomb Raider Movie Review
MP
Look, it is absolutely awful!
The special effects are quite good, but we've seen them all before. The
plot is _there_, but less believable that Shrek's (and that features a
huge green ogre). Anjelina Jolie is a reasonable Lara, but has no real
purpose - in fact none of the characters do. The only one that had
_anything_ you could empathise with is Lara's geeky sidekick, and that
was mostly because he didn't do much...
Chris Barrie (credited with his full Christopher in the credits) was
good as the butler, but the entire thing was a mish-mash of set-pieces
and contrived jumps ("If I told you, I'd have to kill you") and about 2
hours too long.
Still, I had nothing else to do, and I do get NUS discount, so not a
completely wasted evening...
My rating? 0.5/5
Worth seeing? Only if you _seriously_ like special effects, and don't
care about anything else...
MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
Brian Howlett
by MP:
[snip]
> Still, I had nothing else to do, and I do get NUS discount, so not a
> completely wasted evening...
>
> My rating? 0.5/5 Worth seeing? Only if you _seriously_ like special
> effects, and don't care about anything else...
>
> MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
>
Tonight I saw The Dish. What can I say - one of the best movies I've
seen this year. Thoroughly recommended "feelgood" film. Hardly any
special effects - I was surprised to see prosthetics mentioned in the
end titles, as I hadn't noticed anything during the film, and there was
a PDP-9 credited in the titles as well...
IMO the best special effects are the kind where you don't even notice
there are any in the movie...
Lump in the throat time when you see the moon landing - brought back
vague memories of seeing it first time round as a twelve year old.
Gods, I feel old...
--
Brian Howlett
----------------------------------------------------
"Pride is all very well, but a sausage is a sausage"
The Famous Gaspode, Men at Arms, Terry Pratchett
David Sander
>
> While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
> by MP:
>
> [snip]
> > Still, I had nothing else to do, and I do get NUS discount, so not a
> > completely wasted evening...
> >
> > My rating? 0.5/5 Worth seeing? Only if you _seriously_ like special
> > effects, and don't care about anything else...
> >
> > MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
I agree - Shrek is great fun.
> Tonight I saw The Dish. What can I say - one of the best movies I've
> seen this year. Thoroughly recommended "feelgood" film. Hardly any
> special effects - I was surprised to see prosthetics mentioned in the
> end titles, as I hadn't noticed anything during the film, and there was
> a PDP-9 credited in the titles as well...
Sam Neil as an old man at the very beginning and end of the film needed prosthetics.
The PDP-9 was in the computer room of the Dish.
> IMO the best special effects are the kind where you don't even notice
> there are any in the movie...
Mwahahaha ... check out *my* film then :-)
> Lump in the throat time when you see the moon landing - brought back
> vague memories of seeing it first time round as a twelve year old.
>
> Gods, I feel old...
I was 10 weeks old ... but apparently wide awake and attentive. Must
explain why I'm a space nut now.
David
yes ... I'm back :-D
Brian Howlett
> Brian Howlett wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> I was surprised to see prosthetics mentioned in the end titles, as I
>> hadn't noticed anything during the film, and there was a PDP-9
>> credited in the titles as well...
>
> Sam Neil as an old man at the very beginning and end of the film
> needed prosthetics.
D'oh! Of course. Last time I "played" an old man I did it all with
make-up ;-)
>
> The PDP-9 was in the computer room of the Dish.
I probably didn't construct the above sentence terribly well - I
realised that, but thought merely to point it out to the computer nuts
around here who might be interested...
>
>> IMO the best special effects are the kind where you don't even notice
>> there are any in the movie...
>
> Mwahahaha ... check out *my* film then :-)
Care to hint at when/where this might be seen?
>
>> Lump in the throat time when you see the moon landing - brought back
>> vague memories of seeing it first time round as a twelve year old.
>>
>> Gods, I feel old...
>
> I was 10 weeks old ... but apparently wide awake and attentive. Must
> explain why I'm a space nut now.
>
Better a space nut than a space cadet :-)
--
Brian Howlett
--------------------------------
"I'm Brian, and so's my wife..."
hippo
Brian Howlett <Brian_...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:76b398964a.Brian@Brian_Howlett.btinternet.com...
<snip>
> IMO the best special effects are the kind where you don't even notice
> there are any in the movie...
>
> Lump in the throat time when you see the moon landing - brought back
> vague memories of seeing it first time round as a twelve year old.
It was one of the earliest times I can remember being allowed to stay up
late
"Mummy, mummy, can I ?" "Yes, of course,darling"
Its strange that I now sometimes tend to lump people, age-wise
into categories those who sat up with me and watched the TV,
those who were alive at the time and those who were born into
an already lunar age.
In subsequent school days, the whole 'moon race' penetrated the
inquisitive brain, and more strongly than any other event, made me
realise that the kings and queens and wars of history wre 'someones
reality' and not just stories. Tales of growing up during WW II from my
mother and grandmother took on a whole new signifigance, thanks to
Neil and Buzz.
One thing that still puzzles my brain every time I see the re-runs, is the
camera footage from Eagle on the landing approach. Maybe it's lack
of major references points : mountains, roads, airport runway lights <g>
but I can never figure out the attitude of the craft with regard to the
lunar surface, nor the scale of the craters filmed from the window.
Any one found any diagram or simulation that might help ?
hippo
--
David Sander
>
> While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
> by David Sander:
>
> > Brian Howlett wrote:
> >>
> [snip]
> >> I was surprised to see prosthetics mentioned in the end titles, as I
> >> hadn't noticed anything during the film, and there was a PDP-9
> >> credited in the titles as well...
> >
> > Sam Neil as an old man at the very beginning and end of the film
> > needed prosthetics.
>
> D'oh! Of course. Last time I "played" an old man I did it all with
> make-up ;-)
> >
> > The PDP-9 was in the computer room of the Dish.
>
> I probably didn't construct the above sentence terribly well - I
> realised that, but thought merely to point it out to the computer nuts
> around here who might be interested...
> >
> >> IMO the best special effects are the kind where you don't even notice
> >> there are any in the movie...
> >
> > Mwahahaha ... check out *my* film then :-)
>
> Care to hint at when/where this might be seen?
On DVD, in retail stores, by Christmas (fingers crossed)
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/surfacesrendered/MCSHomepage.html
> >> Lump in the throat time when you see the moon landing - brought back
> >> vague memories of seeing it first time round as a twelve year old.
> >>
> >> Gods, I feel old...
> >
> > I was 10 weeks old ... but apparently wide awake and attentive. Must
> > explain why I'm a space nut now.
> >
> Better a space nut than a space cadet :-)
Yup - one of them, too :-P
David
Arwen Lune
mpet...@softhome.net said in alt.fan.pratchett:
<Tomb Raider review>
> MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
In hindsight, even seeing The Mummy Returns for the third time
would have been more enjoyable than seeing Tomb Raider.
What I wrote about it in my journal:
Tomb Raider
Is the film we saw in the cinema today. Don't go, it's really not
worth it.
It's like watching someone else play a videogame. Lara is chased,
shot at and fought by a variety of uninteresting creatues. She also
spends a large amount of time shooting said creatures to bits.
There is very little plot, but (and some may see this as a plus
point) plenty of over-sized tits. (digitally.. ah, enhanced)
If you get free tickets, sure. But think twice about paying 10 UKP
to see it.
Cheers,
Arwen Lune
--
http://www.cuteandfluffy.co.uk/
Journal, photo's, quotes, best-of-AFP files..
Kalle Lintinen
> And lo! On the day of Sat, 07 Jul 2001 23:46:37 +0100, MP
> mpet...@softhome.net said in alt.fan.pratchett:
>
> <Tomb Raider review>
>
> > MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
>
> In hindsight, even seeing The Mummy Returns for the third time
> would have been more enjoyable than seeing Tomb Raider.
>
> What I wrote about it in my journal:
>
> Tomb Raider
> Is the film we saw in the cinema today. Don't go, it's really not
> worth it.
> It's like watching someone else play a videogame. Lara is chased,
> shot at and fought by a variety of uninteresting creatues. She also
> spends a large amount of time shooting said creatures to bits.
> There is very little plot, but (and some may see this as a plus
> point) plenty of over-sized tits. (digitally.. ah, enhanced)
>
> If you get free tickets, sure. But think twice about paying 10 UKP
> to see it.
The odd thing is that I loved to watch my brother play Tomb Raider. I
bought the game as soon as it came out and played it some while. But as
I'm not that great a fan of shooters I layed the game down for a while.
Then my brother started playing it and for some reason I was hooked. I
spent an unbelievable amount of time just watching him play, solving the
puzzles and shooting jurassic monsters. For some reason it has been one
of my favourite gaming moments. So I perhaps I'll watch the movie when
it comes on DVD. That way it seems I'm watching my brother play it
again.
KalEl
Quantum Moth
> > While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
> > by MP:
> >
> > > MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
>
> I agree - Shrek is great fun.
>
I have to say something at this point. Shrek is... entertaining. Don't
get me wrong, I was smiling for most of the movie. But there's something
missing there, right enough. A solid villain, for a start; folks, if
you've seen the trailer, you've seen Lord Farquaad's role. The ending is
incredibly pat, and somewhat disappointing... this isn't going to be
spoiler, filled, though, so I'll skip over that.
It's a kids movie, and, unfortunately, it's a kids movie in the way that
Toy Story, say, wasn't. Toy Story really does have jokes that adults can
enjoy, not simply because the kids won't get them , but because they're
damn funny. Children will laugh at Mrs Potato Head packing Mr Potato
Head's "Angry Eyes" in TS2, but I guarantee that adults will laugh
harder. Then think of the jokes in Shrek which are aimed at adults.
"Hur, hur, is he compensating for something, having a big castle, hur,
hur" - sheesh, this is *easy*[1]. But the younger members of the
audience will look blank, and you have to wonder "Who is this film
for?". The poorly-executed fart jokes and the easy sentimentality are
too unsophisticated and peurile for even the most childish adult[2], and
at times I felt uncomfortable, like I'd walked into the wrong
auditorium.
It's become pretty much accepted these days that movies for kids will -
if they've got any sense - work on more than one level, and be
entertaining for the grown-ups dragged along to watch them. Watching
Shrek, however, I noticed that the cinema was full of adults. Hardly any
children were in attendance. Shrek is a movie for kids, with a load of
jokes for grown-ups crammed in any old how. Fine if you're a parent
taking a kid along and don't want to be bored out of your skull, but
should roving gangs of adults *really* be spending their Saturday night
watching a movie aimed at 8 year olds? Toy Story *was* quantatively
different, in that it was aimed at everyone, and any age group could
appreciate all it had to offer. But I felt like I was waiting for the
jokes for *us*, while the stuff for *them* was going on.
Social commentary aside, back to the movie. Now, as has been
mentioned elsewhere, the animation was very, very pretty indeed. But,
then, so was the animation for Antz, and that just wasn't a
terribly good movie. Dreamworks animation is still in the shadow of
Disney; Pixar seem to know that what makes an animated movie *live*.
Interesting characters, good performances and fantastic rendering are
apparent in both studio's work, but Disney take it all further. Their
characters live, the jokes sparkle, the whole is more than the sum of
its parts.
Here's hoping - desperately hoping - that their rendering of the
Bromeliad marks the point at which they get their act together and start
producing the stuff they're clearly capable of. All they need is a
scriptwriter who understands that an audience is an audience, not a
demographic.
Hmm... this should probably have been in the "Shrek movie reviews"
thread, but sod it, eh?
[1]Having said that, Eddie Murphy's Donkey gets a ton of great lines and
steals every single scene he appears in, though it does occasionally
seem like he was a donkey *just* so they could make a load of "ass"
jokes..
[2]And I should know
--
thom willis - sc...@mostly.com - Corinne's Worse Half
**movie- http://afpmovie.orcon.net.nz**
well, thank goodness we've got someone competent on the script.
what? it's *me*? we're doomed.
Torak
> to see it.
You'd pay a tenner to go to the cinema? I wait until I'm on the
Newcastle-Ijmuiden ferry, and watch 3 or 4 films for £3.50 each!
Kincaid
hippo <mda...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> One thing that still puzzles my brain every time I see the re-runs, is
> the camera footage from Eagle on the landing approach. Maybe it's lack
> of major references points : mountains, roads, airport runway lights <g>
> but I can never figure out the attitude of the craft with regard to the
> lunar surface, nor the scale of the craters filmed from the window.
That's one of the problems they had - the craters all look pretty much the
same at any size, so you can't use them to judge altitude. Radar
altimeters are your friend...
--
Kincaid Labs
Tampering in God's domain since 1975
Mary Messall
> Social commentary aside, back to the movie. Now, as has been
> mentioned elsewhere, the animation was very, very pretty indeed. But,
> then, so was the animation for Antz, and that just wasn't a
> terribly good movie. Dreamworks animation is still in the shadow of
> Disney; Pixar seem to know that what makes an animated movie *live*.
> Interesting characters, good performances and fantastic rendering are
> apparent in both studio's work, but Disney take it all further. Their
> characters live, the jokes sparkle, the whole is more than the sum of
> its parts.
Shrek was great fun; Toy Story may have been better; Antz is severely
under appreciated, and possibly my favorite of the three. 'Cause Antz
wasn't really a children's movie at all, except in the sense that
anything animated is apparently a children's movie. It's got Woody Allen
and Sharon Stone and Sylvester Stallone, for heaven's sake. We start in
a therepist's office with a nod to Woody Allen's other parts (which
children wouldn't know) do a whole bunch of jokes about working, and
then move to a bar where the humor comes from the usual patheticness of
singlehood. After the princess and the pleb get together, it turns into
a classic forties romantic comedy for a while (the kind where Clark
Gable starts every scene with an insult and the girl falls hopelessly in
love with him for it) and then becomes very military, convincingly sad
and scary and horrible.
It's smart, and funny, and does a good job of being serious and silly at
once.
-Mary (This should probably go in the Antz movie review thread...)
David Sander
>
<snip>
>
> One thing that still puzzles my brain every time I see the re-runs, is
> the camera footage from Eagle on the landing approach. Maybe it's lack
> of major references points : mountains, roads, airport runway lights <g>
> but I can never figure out the attitude of the craft with regard to the
> lunar surface, nor the scale of the craters filmed from the window.
>
> Any one found any diagram or simulation that might help ?
We discuss it all the time on sci.space.history, and occasionally a
decent reference arises. There's even a couple of guys who've come up
with sim games in the past (don't ask me - I don't play games).
This reminds me of something that happened just the other day, too - I
was showing a guy who'd never really taken much notice before a
photograph taken on the lunar surface of the Apollo 15 landing site. The
LM is situated centre frame, with Jim Irwin on the left saluting the
flag and the LRV to the right. In the background is what looks like a
low hill. It took a little explaining to my friend, but that "hill" is a
mountain 18,000 ft high. With no atmosphere or surface features to cue
just how far away the darn thing was, it looked like just a low hill. I
showed him a view of the area the Apollo 15 LM "Falcon" landed in from
orbit, and pointed to that very mountain - it looked like a small pimple
compare to other features.
I showed him another image - of low, rolling hills and maybe the odd
crater or two. He commented that yes, it was hard to get an idea of how
big things are. I then pointed out a tiny blotch which was in fact the
LM, and he gasped. Shortly after, he explained he was beginning to come
to terms with scale and his appreciation for what was in the surface
photos grew markedly.
I was doing this as I'm re-creating the lunar surface in my film, and am
aiming for decent accuracy, so this issue is very important to me at
this time.
David
David Sander
>
> David Sander <sur...@bigpond.net.au> said...
>
> > > While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
> > > by MP:
> > >
> > > > MP (go see Shrek instead. Even if you've already seen it...)
> >
> > I agree - Shrek is great fun.
> >
> I have to say something at this point. Shrek is... entertaining. Don't
> get me wrong, I was smiling for most of the movie. But there's something
> missing there, right enough.
<snip dissertation>
I think I have to agree with you on pretty much every point. I described
Shrek as "fun" as I was not quite prepared to describe it as
"sensational", "brilliant" or "a work of genius". To me, it lacks oomph,
and while its allusions are great fun to try and pick out, I felt it
ended too simply and lacked overall depth (and a unique, unpredictable ending).
Disney's had a gravy train ride with John Lasseter and the Pixar films.
His early, pre-Disney stuff *is* sheer genius, and I'm nervously hoping
his up-and-coming Monsters Inc maintains his style and flair (while
resisting total Disneyfication).
David
Sandriana
<sur...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>Brian Howlett wrote:
>>
>> While perusing the newsgroup, I chanced upon the following comment(s)
>> by David Sander:
>>
>> >
>On DVD, in retail stores, by Christmas (fingers crossed)
>
>http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/surfacesrendered/MCSHomepage.html
>
>> >>
Thanks David, that is *gorgeous*.
--
Sandriana
---------
"Take Two Parts Sand, One Part Girl, And Stir"
SJ Perelman, 'The Most of SJ Perelman'
Brian Howlett
> Quantum Moth wrote:
>> Social commentary aside, back to the movie. Now, as has been
>> mentioned elsewhere, the animation was very, very pretty indeed. But,
>> then, so was the animation for Antz, and that just wasn't a terribly
>> good movie.
[snip relative animation quality, which is subjective anyway...]
>
> Shrek was great fun; Toy Story may have been better; Antz is severely
> under appreciated, and possibly my favorite of the three. 'Cause Antz
> wasn't really a children's movie at all, except in the sense that
> anything animated is apparently a children's movie.
[snip]
>
> It's smart, and funny, and does a good job of being serious and silly
> at once.
What she said... Antz is definitely not a movie aimed at younger
children, unlike the Pixar offerings, although it won't _all_ go over
the heads of, say, 8 to 10 year olds. Definitely not aimed at pre-school
kids, though.
>
> -Mary (This should probably go in the Antz movie review thread...)
>
I've changed the thread title (again...!)
--
Brian Howlett
-----------------------------------------------
If you shoot a mime, should you use a silencer?
Suzi
perry.com> wibbled...
I'll probably go see it when it hits the local cinema... it's £3.00 for
the most expensive seats in the place :-)
Suzi
(and yes, it's a proper screen... and yes, it's dolby sound)
Barry R
spool of alt.fan.pratchett, shows Suzi as saying...
>Suzi
>(and yes, it's a proper screen... and yes, it's dolby sound)
and yes, it's 8 months out of date... ;)
Barry 'Of course, I'm joking' R
Flesh-eating dragon
> Shrek was great fun; Toy Story may have been better; Antz is severely
> under appreciated, and possibly my favorite of the three. 'Cause Antz
> wasn't really a children's movie at all, except in the sense that
> anything animated is apparently a children's movie.
Well, as long as you don't pretend that it's a biological authority,
that it tells you anything about ants...
Ants don't have an authority figure telling them what to do; studies
show they have a clever little scheme that ensures work is distributed
according to demand. An ant changes its odour according to whether
it's currently nest-repairing, foraging, or whatever, and the more
ants doing a particular job, the more demand there must be for that
job. So an ant that meets a critical number of subsequent job X'ers
along its way, it will itself go and do job X. It's a very effective
distributed decision algorithm.
It also contradicts just about everything in the movie...
Oh, and another thing. People who divide the world into 'things for
children' and 'things for adults' ... pthht! Extra ppthhhht to people
who think 'adult' and 'sexual' are synonyms.
Adrian.
Mary Messall
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
> <Antz>
> > wasn't really a children's movie at all, except in the sense that
> > anything animated is apparently a children's movie.
> children' and 'things for adults' ... pthht!
Only in the sense that there are some things it's not fair to spring on
children unprepared. Jokes and references they won't get being in that
category. Also scenes of suffering or terror they aren't yet inured to.
(Antz, I think, actually has a bit of that too. At least, I thought the
scene after the war, with the battlefield strewn with bodies and body
parts, was pretty brutal.) Also too much heavy breathing and naked bits,
again mainly because they won't understand except on an "ew gross
<snigger>" level.
It's just unfair to present children with stuff they can't enjoy,
because they haven't had time to get the proper background yet,
especially if it might really upset them. Someone who's scared of the
Smurfs, that is, shouldn't watch a Stephen King movie.
-Mary (yes, I was afraid of the Smurfs, why?)
Flesh-eating dragon
> > Oh, and another thing. People who divide the world into 'things for
> > children' and 'things for adults' ... pthht!
>
> Only in the sense that there are some things it's not fair to spring on
> children unprepared.
You didn't think my comment was aimed at you, did you? :-)
It's more aimed at the sort of nitwits who dismiss anything that isn't
positively rife with sexual references as "for kids".
As for children and horror, my views are a *lot* more liberal than
most of the media around here. I think fear is supposed to happen
occasionally, it's part of life, and that children should be allowed
to learn from experience that some things make them uncomfortable (on
TV, of course, not in the cinema). That way the kids will *choose* not
to watch certain things, whereas if violent shows are forbidden
outright they'll only be curious, and possibly resentful.
Adrian.
Suzi
news:9icg14$1u0$1...@library.lspace.org...
[Snip]
> I think fear is supposed to happen
> occasionally, it's part of life, and that children should be allowed
> to learn from experience that some things make them uncomfortable (on
> TV, of course, not in the cinema).
:-)
My parents obviously had the same sort of views as you do - I was
allowed to stay up to watch the Saturday night (no school the next day)
Horror double bill that ran for a long time on BBC2 when I was young. My
parents wouldn't watch with me (preferring instead to go off to bed), as
they don't like horror movies <g>.
Contrary to what the Mary Whitehouse's of this world would have everyone
believe should happen in these circumstances, it has not turned me into
an axe-wielding crazed psychopath who sees danger in every shadow. Most
of the horror movies that were shown were an awful lot less scary than
some of the episodes of Doctor Who I watched at the same age (and that
was designed for children)!
My parents seemed to operate a policy of "if she doesn't run screaming
and enjoys the stuff, why not let her watch it (as long as we don't have
to watch it too)". On reflection, in some ways my parents were very
liberal as they let me read and watch pretty much whatever I wanted to
read or watch (as long as what I wanted to watch didn't clash with Dad's
soccer or westerns), figuring (I think) that if I was old enough to
understand it then that was fine, and if I wasn't old enough to
understand it then no harm done :-)
Suzi
Mary Messall
> My parents seemed to operate a policy of "if she doesn't run screaming
> and enjoys the stuff, why not let her watch it (as long as we don't have
> to watch it too)".
Definitely depends on the kid more than the age, methinks... I mean, I
*was* scared of the Smurfs.
-Mary (It's possible I still am.)
Flesh-eating dragon
> :-)
> My parents obviously had the same sort of views as you do - I was
> allowed to stay up to watch the Saturday night (no school the next day)
I basically remember what my opinions were as a kid... My family never
expressely forebade me to watch anything, but sometimes there was a news
story about some scary movie or other, and I remember thinking, I want
to see what the fuss is all about.
> of the horror movies that were shown were an awful lot less scary than
> some of the episodes of Doctor Who I watched at the same age (and that
> was designed for children)!
The ABC haven't screened any Doctor Who since it ceased production. The
first Doctor Who I seriously watched were the final Pertwee episodes,
and that was in 1986 I think, which was the *last* time that the ABC
screened any Pertwee. Ever. 'Course, I've got the videos.
Adrian (who updated fandom section of website today...)
pia
"Flesh-eating dragon" <morgan...@netyp.com.au> wrote
<snip: Antz, a good film>
> Well, as long as you don't pretend that it's a biological authority,
> that it tells you anything about ants...
Indeedy. For a biologist the most obvious blunder was the sex of
the workers. In real ants they all are females. But Hollywood probably
is not ready yet for a major lesbian love story.
Still, I enjoyed Antz immensely, and remember being quite pleasantly
surprised that I wasn't bothered by the numerous bio-howlers. A good
film makes you to suspend your disbelief almost against your will.
pia
Suzi
<morgan...@netyp.com.au> wibbled...
[Snip]
> The ABC haven't screened any Doctor Who since it ceased production. The
> first Doctor Who I seriously watched were the final Pertwee episodes,
> and that was in 1986 I think, which was the *last* time that the ABC
> screened any Pertwee. Ever. 'Course, I've got the videos.
Ah - you were watching repeats :-)
I was watching the originals at time of broadcast <g>
(earlier ones not shown as not relevant to this discussion)
Jon Pertwee 1970-74
Tom Baker 1974-81
Peter Davison 1982-84
Colin Baker 1984-86
Sylvester McCoy 1987-96
Suzi
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 09/07/01 19:18 GMT
>Message-id: <MPG.15b408a2c...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>
--
Dave, child of the Davison era
Elected for a second glorious term as Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.ed.ac.uk/~sesoc
There are only two kinds of people in the world: The kind who think there are
only two kinds of people in the world, and the kind who don't.
Julia Jones
<Su...@lspace.org> writes
>My parents obviously had the same sort of views as you do - I was
>allowed to stay up to watch the Saturday night (no school the next day)
>Horror double bill that ran for a long time on BBC2 when I was young. My
>parents wouldn't watch with me (preferring instead to go off to bed), as
>they don't like horror movies <g>.
>
>Contrary to what the Mary Whitehouse's of this world would have everyone
>believe should happen in these circumstances, it has not turned me into
>an axe-wielding crazed psychopath who sees danger in every shadow. Most
>of the horror movies that were shown were an awful lot less scary than
>some of the episodes of Doctor Who I watched at the same age (and that
>was designed for children)!
Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well... The
Deadly Assassin was one of the ones she kicked up a row about
(successfully).
I watched the late night Hammer double bill as well for a few months
when I happened to be in the right country to watch the BBC. I was 11 at
the time. I haven't noticed being an axe-wielding crazed psychopath
myself - and I did think that some of the Doctor Who on at the time was
a lot scarier. They were going through a horror-influenced period at the
time. Talons of Weng-Chien, anyone?
--
Julia Jones
Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent
Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5
http://www.smof.com/redemption
Jeremy C B Nicoll
<jajon...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <9icgum$leq$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk>, Suzi
> <Su...@lspace.org> writes
> >My parents obviously had the same sort of views as you do - I was
> >allowed to stay up to watch the Saturday night (no school the next
> >day) Horror double bill that ran for a long time on BBC2 when I was
> >young. My parents wouldn't watch with me (preferring instead to go off
> >to bed), as they don't like horror movies <g>.
> >
> >Contrary to what the Mary Whitehouse's of this world would have
> >everyone
> Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well...
But that was probably because she didn't want all those kids growing
afraid of British quarries...
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Suzi
Chiennedelh <daibhidc...@aol.comedy> wibbled...
[Snip]
> >(earlier ones not shown as not relevant to this discussion)
> >Jon Pertwee 1970-74
> >Tom Baker 1974-81
> >Peter Davison 1982-84
> >Colin Baker 1984-86
> >Sylvester McCoy 1987-96
> >
> Er, if you watched Sylv in '96 then surely Paul should be on the list.
Sorry -
1. I'm only relating the real TV series timeline here, not the movies
2. I don't count Paul as a real Dr Who. That movie was absolute penc,
and should be forgotten as soon as is human(e)ly possible.
Suzi
MP
<snip>
> Someone who's scared of the
> Smurfs, that is, shouldn't watch a Stephen King movie.
>
> -Mary (yes, I was afraid of the Smurfs, why?)
How are we supposed to know?
MP (I know!)
Flesh-eating dragon
> Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well... The
> Deadly Assassin was one of the ones she kicked up a row about
> (successfully).
Actually, even Tom Baker was disturbed by the violence in The Deadly
Assassin. There's some interesting information about his views on
violence on the "Tom Baker Years" video.
Adrian.
"As you know, violence and the failure of the imagination are closely
bound up" -- Tom Baker.
Mary Sophia Novak
<snip>
> Someone who's scared of the
> Smurfs, that is, shouldn't watch a Stephen King movie.
Oddly, that doesn't always follow. Beginning about age eight, my
younger sister spent her formative years watching every horror movie
ever made. She and her best friend played "Office" only it was
"Freddy Krueger's Office." They scheduled appointments so he'd have
more convenient access to his victims. I, on the other hand, am the
greatest horror movie coward of all time, and simply haven't seen 98%
of what's out there because the 2% I've caught (including certain
X-Files and Stephen King's IT) haunt me to this day. I have next to
no visual imagination or memory, and *that's* the stuff that sticks.
However, she is and always has been distinctly uneasy in the presence
of Muppets, where I had loved them from the first time I saw them aged
three or so.
I also remember my toddler brother seeing _Land of the Lost_ for the
first time and standing utterly transfixed and petrified for the
duration of the episode. It scared him, too, but on the spot he
conceived a lifelong passion for dinosaurs that he's never lost.
Mary Sophia Novak
ms_n...@hotmail.com
Siobhan
"Flesh-eating dragon" <morgan...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
> Actually, even Tom Baker was disturbed by the violence in The Deadly
> Assassin. There's some interesting information about his views on
> violence on the "Tom Baker Years" video.
> "As you know, violence and the failure of the imagination are closely
> bound up" -- Tom Baker.
And this is the man who wrote "The Boy Who Kicked Pigs"?????
Ye gods.
Siobhan
Flesh-eating dragon
Siobhan wrote, quoting myself:
> > Actually, even Tom Baker was disturbed by the violence in The Deadly
> > Assassin. There's some interesting information about his views on
> > violence on the "Tom Baker Years" video.
> *snip*
> > "As you know, violence and the failure of the imagination are closely
> > bound up" -- Tom Baker.
>
> And this is the man who wrote "The Boy Who Kicked Pigs"?????
>
> Ye gods.
OK, more detail.
After the controversial drowning scene in The Deadly Assassin was
made, Tom was disturbed and wanted to see how it had been cut. To
this end he knocked at the door of some total strangers and asked,
"Do you watch Doctor Who here?" ... the family were, of course,
most welcoming (an aspect of the part that Tom always enjoyed).
He explains that sometimes he would argue that certain scenes should
be *more* violent: "it should be violent on an operatic scale, because
then violence takes on a quality of the ridiculous, which violence
frequently is. Because, as you know, violence and the failure of the
imagination are closely bound up".
Adrian.
Jacqui
> Julia Jones wrote:
> > Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well...
>
> But that was probably because she didn't want all those kids growing
> afraid of British quarries...
There was a surreal moment (for me) on tv back when they were showing
Beau Geste. We had videoed Dr Who and were watching it on Sunday
evening, an episode with lots of Cybermen in a quarry. Switched off the
video and there were Benedict Taylor et al roaming around in exactly the
same place. Cue little brother shouting "watch out for the Cybermen" all
through the episode and spoiling it completely.
Jac
Terry Pratchett
writes
>I find there's a severe lack of screening by parents about what their
>kids see at the movies, such that ratings are practically useless.
>I'm not talking about kids seeing American Pie, I'm talking about
>Lion King and Jurassic Park and the like.
>
>Basically, the kids whine about how they have to see the movie, and
>the parents give in. The result is toddlers crying unconsolably when
>the lion king dies, and slightly older kids freaking out when the
>lawyer gets eaten by the previously cute and cool dinosaurs. Very
>annoying when you're trying to watch the movie and realize that all
>the parents had to do was think "if it's PG-13, maybe I won't take my
>5 year old to see it", or "even though it's a cartoon maybe that PG
>rating means it's not completely benign".
Exactly. There should be a notice ahead of the movie that says 'This
movie is PG. Can you read? You are a Parent. Do you understand what
Guidance is? Or are you just another stupid toddler who thinks they're
an adult simple because they've grown older and, unfortunately, have
developed fully-functioning sexual organs? Would you like some
committee somewhere to decide *everything* for you? Get a damn grip,
will you? And shut the wretched kid up !'
--
Terry Pratchett
Richard Bos
> "Flesh-eating dragon" <morgan...@netyp.com.au> wrote
>
> <snip: Antz, a good film>
>
> > Well, as long as you don't pretend that it's a biological authority,
> > that it tells you anything about ants...
>
> Indeedy. For a biologist the most obvious blunder was the sex of
> the workers. In real ants they all are females. But Hollywood probably
> is not ready yet for a major lesbian love story.
Well, yeah, but if it'd been biologically accurate there wouldn't have
_been_ a love story between two workers...
Richard
The Flying Hamster
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> writes:
>
>> It's just unfair to present children with stuff they can't enjoy,
>> because they haven't had time to get the proper background yet,
>> especially if it might really upset them. Someone who's scared of the
>> Smurfs, that is, shouldn't watch a Stephen King movie.
>
> kids see at the movies, such that ratings are practically useless.
There's nothing wrong with the ratings, is it the fault of the ratings
system that some people choose to ignore them?
> Basically, the kids whine about how they have to see the movie, and
"welcome to planet earth, I am not here to be your friend, I am here
to be your parent and you are not seeing this because _I_ think it
will upset you at the moment, deal."
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@suespammers.org> http://hamster.wibble.org/
I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!
Colin Rosenthal
I felt _very_ sorry for the young girl I saw being led out about halfway
through "Sixth Sense" by her father (just after the bit with
the boy with the back of his head blown off). Then again, my parents
took me to see Jaws for my 12th birthday and look how I turned out.
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
The Flying Hamster
> Exactly. There should be a notice ahead of the movie that says 'This
> movie is PG. Can you read? You are a Parent.
Unfortunately these two don't always go hand in hand. This rule also
applies to common sense and self-preservation instincts.
> Do you understand what
> Guidance is? Or are you just another stupid toddler who thinks they're
> an adult simple because they've grown older and, unfortunately, have
> developed fully-functioning sexual organs? Would you like some
> committee somewhere to decide *everything* for you? Get a damn grip,
> will you? And shut the wretched kid up !'
No no no you completely misunderstand, we should give kids everything
they ask for without question otherwise they won't like or love us.
My take on this (with a mighty four years[1] of kid is that I'm here
to make sure that they are
o fed/watered
o clothed
o healthy
o protected (as far as I see necessary)
o educated (both on the accademic front and in the ways of the
real-world)
o can relate to and deal with people both singly and in groups in a
well mannered way
o Give them limits on what they can and can't do and explain _why_
o etc etc etc
I'm not here to be their best buddy (they've already got those) I'm
here to make sure they can function and survive in this world.
Mark
[1] Yup, completely buggerall compared with lots of people.
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@suespammers.org> http://hamster.wibble.org/
Discoveries are made by not following instructions.
elfin
[snipping Terry]
> No no no you completely misunderstand, we should give kids everything
> they ask for without question otherwise they won't like or love us.
> My take on this (with a mighty four years[1] of kid is that I'm here
> to make sure that they are
>
> o fed/watered
> o clothed
> o healthy
> o protected (as far as I see necessary)
> o educated (both on the accademic front and in the ways of the
> real-world)
> o can relate to and deal with people both singly and in groups in a
> well mannered way
> o Give them limits on what they can and can't do and explain _why_
> o etc etc etc
>
> I'm not here to be their best buddy (they've already got those) I'm
> here to make sure they can function and survive in this world.
AOL!
Now if only someone would explain that to the kids.
elfin
--
Art, OE Help, Beginners Guide and much more at
http://www.elfden.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Yannick Larvor
> "The Flying Hamster" wrote [snipping Terry]
>> I'm not here to be their best buddy (they've already got those) I'm
>> here to make sure they can function and survive in this world.
> AOL!
> Now if only someone would explain that to the kids.
Oh, someone possibly will, eventually. *Their* kids. So, maybe it'll be
a bit late from your point of view, but better late than never, no? :-)
--
Yannick
Yannick Larvor
> Contrary to what the Mary Whitehouse's of this world would have
> everyone believe should happen in these circumstances, it has not
> turned me into an axe-wielding crazed psychopath who sees danger in
> every shadow.
Instead, you're an axe-wielding crazed psychopath who fears no shadow,
right? Somehow, it doesn't reassure me. <g,d&r>
--
Yannick
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 09/07/01 21:32 GMT
>Message-id: <MPG.15b430a83...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk>
>
>In article <20010709154901...@ng-fe1.aol.com>, Daibhid
>Chiennedelh <daibhidc...@aol.comedy> wibbled...
>
>[Snip]
>> >(earlier ones not shown as not relevant to this discussion)
>> >Jon Pertwee 1970-74
>> >Tom Baker 1974-81
>> >Peter Davison 1982-84
>> >Colin Baker 1984-86
>> >Sylvester McCoy 1987-96
>> >
>> Er, if you watched Sylv in '96 then surely Paul should be on the list.
>
>Sorry -
>1. I'm only relating the real TV series timeline here, not the movies
Then McCoy's tenure finished in '89 8-).
>2. I don't count Paul as a real Dr Who. That movie was absolute penc,
>and should be forgotten as soon as is human(e)ly possible.
>
I try not to get involved in this discussion on rec.arts.drwho. (because
certain people would hunt me down and kill me) but, although the movie was bad
on many levels and wrong on a few more, McGann was pretty good. And to the
obsessive Who fan McGann must count 'cos of the books and audios (assuming they
are Canon; another perennial radw argument I avoid).
Personally, not only would I count McGann, but also Atkinson, Grant, Broadbent,
Grant and Lumley. If I said *that* on radw they'd be chanting "Heretic!" and
searching for the matches 8-).
--
Dave
Melody S-K
Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:un16dv...@nokia.com...
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> writes:
>
> > It's just unfair to present children with stuff they can't enjoy,
> > because they haven't had time to get the proper background yet,
> > especially if it might really upset them. Someone who's scared of
the
> > Smurfs, that is, shouldn't watch a Stephen King movie.
>
their
> kids see at the movies, such that ratings are practically useless.
> I'm not talking about kids seeing American Pie, I'm talking about
> Lion King and Jurassic Park and the like.
By *Some* parents , please do not tar us all with the same brush eh?
>
> Basically, the kids whine about how they have to see the movie, and
> the parents give in. The result is toddlers crying unconsolably
when
> the lion king dies, and slightly older kids freaking out when the
> lawyer gets eaten by the previously cute and cool dinosaurs. Very
> annoying when you're trying to watch the movie and realize that all
> the parents had to do was think "if it's PG-13, maybe I won't take
my
> 5 year old to see it", or "even though it's a cartoon maybe that PG
> rating means it's not completely benign".
I *must* be an old fashioned parent I guess. If the rating is PG ,
hubby and I will see if first and decide if it is suitable for my 2
youngest (8 and 10). I do not let them stay up past 7.30 and 8.00
respectively , nor do I let them have free rein with the video / dvd
machines. Afaik , it is called being a parent aka spoilsport.
Could I ask are you a parent yet? It is *exceedingly* difficult to
withstand the pressure that a whining 5 year old can place upon you
when *everyone* else at school has seen a movie and they are the
*only* ones to be denied it. However , it only takes about 18 years of
training and then they get the idea :o) HTH
Melody
--
Ku Klux Gran
Melody S-K
Jeremy C B Nicoll <Jer...@omba.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a978958...@omba.demon.co.uk...
>
> > Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well...
>
> But that was probably because she didn't want all those kids growing
> afraid of British quarries...
ARGHHHHHHHHHHH!
Don't mention the quarries!
Melody
--
Ku Klux Gran - one who remembers the very first episode of Dr Who
Jeremy C B Nicoll
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:27:00 GMT, Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net> wrote:
> > I find there's a severe lack of screening by parents about what their
> > kids see at the movies, such that ratings are practically useless.
> There's nothing wrong with the ratings, is it the fault of the ratings
> system that some people choose to ignore them?
That and the fact that the cinemas simply don't enforce the issue.
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 10/07/01 17:16 GMT
>Message-id: <9ifda9$io31p$1...@ID-6544.news.dfncis.de>
>
>
>Jeremy C B Nicoll <Jer...@omba.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4a978958...@omba.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> > Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well...
>>
>> But that was probably because she didn't want all those kids growing
>> afraid of British quarries...
>
>ARGHHHHHHHHHHH!
>
>Don't mention the quarries!
>
Jane Smith arrive on what Sarah assumes to be an alien planet, and it turns out
to actually be a deserted quarry in England...
elfin
>
> I *must* be an old fashioned parent I guess. If the rating
> is PG , hubby and I will see if first and decide if it is
> suitable for my 2 youngest (8 and 10). I do not let them
> stay up past 7.30 and 8.00 respectively , nor do I let
> them have free rein with the video / dvd machines. Afaik,
> it is called being a parent aka spoilsport.
We take PG to mean just that Parental Guidance, if the child is under 12
then *we* decide. My eldest stepson is 14, his so called father was letting
him watch 18 rated movies when he was 8 or 9. He is *still* under the
impression that he has a right to view them, despite constant reminders that
he isn't. The second stepson being 9 isn't so much of a problem, although he
was upset when he found that the new pokemon movie was a 12!
As to the bedtimes, well Kai goes to bed sometime between 7 & 8. The
'middlest' goes to bed at 8.30, but he dos have the little'un in his room.
The eldest gets to stay up until 10.
I don't think you are old fashioned, just the run of the mill spoilsport of
a parent, just like me!! <GRIN>
elfin
esmi
>> and
>"welcome to planet earth, I am not here to be your friend,
Good start!
> I am here
>to be your parent and you are not seeing this
Following through nicely!
> because _I_ think it
>will upset you at the moment, deal."
And this is where you lost it. That last part should be "because I said
so!" ;-)
esmi
--
* "2002: A Discworld Odyssey" * The Discworld Convention *
* Hanover International, Hinckley * August 16th-19th, 2002 *
* Web: http://www.dwcon.org/ * Email: in...@dwcon.org *
Paul Brown
Yes, but does Peter Cushing count?
Paul
--
Being a geek is a state of mind
Being paid to be a geek is a state of utopia
- p...@geekstuff.co.uk
Lady Kayla
[...]
>Things do seem vastly different when I was a kid (I'm 38), in that I
>see lots of young children that absolutely do not bother to do what
>their parents say. Ie, more brats around now than then. If my
>parents turned to me in a public place and said "be quiet", I knew
>quite well I'd better behave (though I'd resist a little, for
>appearances). But I see kids now at airports or restaurants where the
>parent is constantly saying "please sit down" and "stop yelling" or
>just ignoring them.
The general thought going through the kid's mind is likely to be
"Mum/Dad won't _dare_ shout at me or smack me or otherwise discipline
me in public." It didn't take my two long to become disabused of that
notion.
>Do I just see things differently with age, and things were the same
>between then and now? Or has something actually changed? And why?
There are an awful lot of parents out there who are just plain scared
to discipline their kids in public - how many news stories have you
read of a parent who has been charged for smacking their child on the
bottom in public? There are also a lot of parents who mistakenly
believe that their children won't love them any more if they are
disciplined, or who think that they have to be friends with their
child.
Mark got it right earlier in the thread, we are not supposed to be
their friends at this stage, we are supposed to be there to teach them
and help them to grow up to be able to function in society. Being
friends is something that may happen once they are adults, but is IME
a bad idea when they are young.
I have said to out two "I am not here to be your friend, I am here to
be your parent, there is a big difference."
I don't think I am being a blind mother when I say that our kids are
very well behaved in public for the most part (at home they can be
hell, but in public they are generally angels).
--
Lady Kayla
http://designs.ladykayla.org/
Look for the new Discworld designs.
pia
"Mary Sophia Novak" <ms_n...@hotmail.com> wrote
<snip: horror and kids who love it>
I've been quite fond of horror films from early childhood on.
This despite of the fact that I always was a wimpy, timid and nervous
child. Or perhaps it was *because* of that? I think a major part of
the attraction in horror was for me to learn to be safely afraid in
the comfort of the livingroom coach. It was self-therapy where I
challenged, faced and conquered my inner demons. Conquering in this
context would mean daring to watch the scary film through without
diverting/covering my eyes. I must admit though, that I seldom
achieved a complete victory. I have several memories of me and my
little sister watching a scary show and *taking turns* at who is going
to have to watch the worst bits. Neither of us wanted to miss anything
so the watcher would have to recite the events for the other one.
The most disturbing scene I've ever seen in a film was not in a horror
film at all. It was in Zorba the Greek when the people in the village
gather together to stone the widow to death. It truly made me feel
nauseated in body and spirit for days afterwards.
> However, she is and always has been distinctly uneasy in the
> presence of Muppets, where I had loved them from the first time I
> saw them aged three or so.
(she being Mary Sophia's sister)
I once would not watch Muppet Show - my favourite
TV-program - because the special guest star was Vincent Price. Later,
watching through The House Of Wax was one of my greatest victories.
Empowerment!
pia
Melody S-K
> "Melody S-K" <Mel...@Wibble.org> writes:
>
> > By *Some* parents , please do not tar us all with the same brush
eh?
>
Buggerit ...must try harde next time :o)
Snippage
> Things do seem vastly different when I was a kid (I'm 38), in that I
> see lots of young children that absolutely do not bother to do what
> their parents say. Ie, more brats around now than then. If my
> parents turned to me in a public place and said "be quiet", I knew
> quite well I'd better behave (though I'd resist a little, for
> appearances). But I see kids now at airports or restaurants where
the
> parent is constantly saying "please sit down" and "stop yelling" or
> just ignoring them.
>
> Do I just see things differently with age, and things were the same
> between then and now? Or has something actually changed? And why?
Well I am 46 :o) Yes I do think things have changed , a lot of younger
parebts give in when a bit of discipline would do the sprogs no harm
at all. Yelling at kids rarely works , they just shout louder ...btw ,
this took me 3 older children to learn before I could practise with my
2 younger ones . I shouted and gave way to the other 3 before becoming
aware that there is another way .
*shrugs* No one gives lessons in parenthood except *your* parents.
Maybe the parents of today had lenient parents themselves?
:o)
Annette Fraser
>"pia" <piage...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> The most disturbing scene I've ever seen in a film was not in a horror
>> film at all. It was in Zorba the Greek when the people in the village
>> gather together to stone the widow to death. It truly made me feel
>> nauseated in body and spirit for days afterwards.
>
>surrounded the bad guy while holding torches (the flaming kind). The
>bad guy is standing in a pile of sticks. The hero (the dashing
>handsome guy who keeps singing through most of the movie) turns and
>hands a small child his torch and the child then throws it on the
>pile, and the villagers join in.
>
>That disturbed me for quite some time.
I think the most disturbing scene I've ever seen (in a movie that is) is the
finale of 'The Wicker Man' with the people being burned. Freaked me out and
still does although it is over 20 years since I saw it.
Annette
--
High Priestess of The Big Penguin
The Merchandise Queen
PokeyBun - Gotta mug 'em all
Mary Sophia Novak
wrote:
>
>"Mary Sophia Novak" <ms_n...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> However, she is and always has been distinctly uneasy in the
>> presence of Muppets, where I had loved them from the first time I
>> saw them aged three or so.
>
>(she being Mary Sophia's sister)
>I once would not watch Muppet Show - my favourite
>TV-program - because the special guest star was Vincent Price. Later,
>watching through The House Of Wax was one of my greatest victories.
>Empowerment!
In the context of this thread, this was perhaps not such a bad
decision, because the Vincent Price episode featured the (only?)
appearance of the Theater Ghost, who Muppetophiles somehow have
determined was named Uncle Deadly.
He was utterly terrifying -- this pale blue spiky goat thing with, I
believe, empty eye sockets with pupils hovering in front, which may
even have lit up. (Ooh! I found a picture:
http://www.henson.com/fcreature/deadly_fcreature.html) Nightmares all
around for my brother and I, and apparently scarred my sister for
life. I'm not sure any of us made it all the way through that first
viewing, and certainly were then too young to appreciate the joke of
the closing number, Dear Vincent singing a basso profundo arrangement
of "You've Got A Friend" with a horde of unusually scary Muppet
monsters.
Mary Sophia Novak
ms_n...@hotmail.com
stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
> Cross link this with the absentmindeness thread, and I recall an
> instance where I thought I flipped back to the channel I had been
> watching and ended up on the wrong one. Same program, different
> episode (some Star Trek thingy if I recall). Only when the plot
> started becoming disjoint did I realize what happened ("if the ship
> was invaded why are they just sitting around chatting?").
Are you sure it was actually a different channel?
--
--Stewart Stremler----------------...@rohan.sdsu.edu--
....but I prefer to think control of a market leads to complacency.
--Rob Nicholson (December 1999)
Julia Jones
hotmail.com> writes
The Dorset group of Blake's 7 fans has an annual supersoaker outing to
Winspitt Quarry, which was used for location filming by both B7 and Dr
Who. Last year we were sitting on the ramp admiring the view, when
around the corner of an abandoned building came the local Dr Who fen,
who were taking the whole thing a bit more seriously. The commentary by
their leader went something as follows: "And this bit was used in the
scene where.. what the fuck are *you* lot doing here, it's Saturday!"
He'd deliberately brought his lot out on Saturday because he thought we
were doing the quarry on Sunday...
Oh, and we thrashed them in the ensuing supersoaker war <smirk>.
--
Julia Jones
Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent
Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5
http://www.smof.com/redemption
Flesh-eating dragon
> bottom in public? There are also a lot of parents who mistakenly
> believe that their children won't love them any more if they are
> disciplined, or who think that they have to be friends with their
> child.
I think it isn't discipline per se that children resent, so much as
the fact that discipline *in practise* has much more to do with the
parent's mood than the child's behaviour.
I think you and Mark must have a different dictionary to me, because I
don't follow your interpretation of the word "friend". To me, "friend"
means someone who is pleased to talk with me, someone who listens to
my point of view, etc, and it's critical that a parent should be that.
Adrian.
hippo
Melody S-K <Mel...@Wibble.org> wrote in message
news:9ifq5u$j3eg6$1...@ID-6544.news.dfncis.de...
<snip> >
> Things do seem vastly different when I was a kid (I'm 38), in that I
> > see lots of young children that absolutely do not bother to do what
> > their parents say. Ie, more brats around now than then. If my
> > parents turned to me in a public place and said "be quiet", I knew
> > quite well I'd better behave (though I'd resist a little, for
> > appearances). But I see kids now at airports or restaurants where
> the
> > parent is constantly saying "please sit down" and "stop yelling" or
> > just ignoring them.
> >
> > Do I just see things differently with age, and things were the same
> > between then and now? Or has something actually changed? And why?
>
> Well I am 46 :o) Yes I do think things have changed , a lot of younger
> parebts give in when a bit of discipline would do the sprogs no harm
> at all. Yelling at kids rarely works , they just shout louder ...btw ,
> this took me 3 older children to learn before I could practise with my
> 2 younger ones . I shouted and gave way to the other 3 before becoming
> aware that there is another way .
>
> *shrugs* No one gives lessons in parenthood except *your* parents.
> Maybe the parents of today had lenient parents themselves?
I don't think the range of parental skills has varied over the years
In public I see some, obviously, good parental 'control' and some less good
In some situations you can feel sympathy for the parent or parent concerned
who is clearly failing to 'cope'
I was extremely lucky to have good parents and, perhaps not so lucky to
have a grandmother who spoilt me rotten and also seemed to want to wrap me
in cotton wool for a lot of the time.
My father coming from a large strict east European family, was very strict
with me, in the home in the first instance, so I was less inclined to
misbehave
in public.
My mother, less so, and I could on some occasions get her on my side <g>
(I remember some excellent teachers at secondary school too, in particular
my french master who would always educate his class into
'wrapping you parents round your little finger' as he put it ;-) )
However strict my parents were, they always gave me a lot of love
( I dunno, sometimes thats a four-letter word people find hard to use
well, in my book, preferable to some of the others which are
scattered around more freely these days)
hippo
--
The Flying Hamster
> On 10 Jul 2001, ham...@vom.tm (The Flying Hamster) wrote
>>will upset you at the moment, deal."
>
> And this is where you lost it. That last part should be "because I said
> so!" ;-)
Oh I pull that one as well, usually punctuated with a kick up the
backside.
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@suespammers.org> http://hamster.wibble.org/
Stop quoting the laws to us. We carry swords. - Pompey the Great
David Chapman
> "pia" <piage...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > The most disturbing scene I've ever seen in a film was not in a horror
> > film at all. It was in Zorba the Greek when the people in the village
> > gather together to stone the widow to death. It truly made me feel
> > nauseated in body and spirit for days afterwards.
>
> surrounded the bad guy while holding torches (the flaming kind). The
> bad guy is standing in a pile of sticks. The hero (the dashing
> handsome guy who keeps singing through most of the movie) turns and
> hands a small child his torch and the child then throws it on the
> pile, and the villagers join in.
>
> That disturbed me for quite some time.
I suggest you try reading The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson, both of you.
Now that *seriously* hassled me - partly because Lottery Day falls on
my birthday, but mainly because Jackson was a bloody good writer.
You can also watch the TV movie, but it ain't as good [1].
[1] Unlike the TV movie of Harrison Bergeron, which *is* as good.
--
Call it what you will, I call it
Pontiac to Home Girl
Adrian Ogden
>In article <3B4AA4ED...@hotmail.com>, Jacqui <Sirlawrenceoblivion@
>hotmail.com> writes
>>Jeremy C B Nicoll wrote:
>>> Julia Jones wrote:
>>
>>> > Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well...
>>>
>>> But that was probably because she didn't want all those kids growing
>>> afraid of British quarries...
>>
>Wonder if the same bit of quarry showed up in Blake's 7?
Legend has it that during the filming of one episode of Dr Who
the cast were required to run up the slope of the quarry and
over the lip of the hill, and just as they reached the top they
ran straight into the cast of Blake's 7 doing the same thing
from the other side.
Dunno if that one was ever verified, but if it's true I'd love
to see the outtake reel.
--
<< Adrian Ogden -- "Sic Biscuitus Disintegrat" -- www.rdg.ac.uk/~sssogadr/ >>
"Don't taunt the fear demon!" "Why, can he hurt me?" "No. It's just... tacky."
Jen Birren
> >I once would not watch Muppet Show - my favourite
> >TV-program - because the special guest star was Vincent Price. Later,
> >watching through The House Of Wax was one of my greatest victories.
> >Empowerment!
>
> In the context of this thread, this was perhaps not such a bad
> decision, because the Vincent Price episode featured the (only?)
> appearance of the Theater Ghost, who Muppetophiles somehow have
> determined was named Uncle Deadly.
>
> He was utterly terrifying -- this pale blue spiky goat thing with, I
> believe, empty eye sockets with pupils hovering in front, which may
> even have lit up. (Ooh! I found a picture:
> http://www.henson.com/fcreature/deadly_fcreature.html)
It looks familiar- I think he may have been one of the bad guys in
Muppet Treasure Island. (Unless there are two evil Muppet goat-things?)
Jen
<fx: wanders off singing "I've got cabin fever, it's driving me insane
(OI!)"
Daniel Goldsmith
news:v10nkts092ec7rqer...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:27:00 GMT, Darin Johnson <da...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> The result is
> [snip]
>
>> slightly older kids freaking out when the lawyer gets eaten by the
>> previously cute and cool dinosaurs.
>
> Sorry, but how can anyone have problems with lawyers being eaten by
> dinosaurs? Or eaten by anything, come to that. :-)
Lawyers are fluffy and cuddly and only want the world to be nice.
Dinosaurs are evil and an abomination and were judged and found wanting.
This is why they became extinct.
Daniel.
The Flying Hamster
> I don't think you are old fashioned, just the run of the mill spoilsport of
> a parent, just like me!! <GRIN>
Spoilsport, parent, what is difference?
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@suespammers.org> http://hamster.wibble.org/
"at least I'm not so far back in the closet that I'm in fucking Narnia!" -
Gimme, gimme, gimme
Ailbhe Leamy
(on 10 Jul 2001 20:09:14 GMT):
> I don't think I am being a blind mother when I say that our kids
> are very well behaved in public for the most part (at home they can
> be hell, but in public they are generally angels).
I can vouch for that. They have always, IME, been angels in public -
unless they felt themselves to be very much At Home. As for the
quantities of slave labour one can get from them when they're not in
their own house! *grin*
And they have a nice attitude to adults, too. They listen to me when I
verbally discipline them, but I like to think they'd set Mark on me if
I tried to smack 'em.
Ailbhe
MikeXXXX
>
> And this is where you lost it. That last part should
> be "because I said so!" ;-)
>
Let me guess,
Nappy Table negotiations,
Food Choice negotiations,
Dressing negotiations,
Authorized Areas negotiations,
Big Red Button negotiations,
Power Point negotiations,
Gas Heater, Oven and Electric Radiator negotiations,
:-)
Mike
--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California; do not
send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail
Ailbhe Leamy
(on Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:50:57 +0100):
> I suggest you try reading The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson, both of
> you. Now that *seriously* hassled me - partly because Lottery Day
> falls on my birthday, but mainly because Jackson was a bloody good
> writer.
*shudder*
Ailbhe
Paul Brown
Cue spoof news item:
Tradgedy occurred today when a bus with a lawyers tour party on it went
over a 1000' cliff. The driver was the only survivor. The tradgedy? There
were 5 spare passenger seats.
Paul
Who can't understand people wanting to be lawyers or accountants, I mean,
I get to charge them the same rates as they charge the rest of the world
and for some reason they don't seem to like it much. My accountant has
learned the hard way that IT support doesn't come cheap, especially when
he's trying to price gouge me. In his case my rate is 145 per hour. His
is 140 per hour.
Jenny Radcliffe
> Who can't understand people wanting to be lawyers or accountants,
> I mean, I get to charge them the same rates as they charge the
> rest of the world and for some reason they don't seem to like it
> much. My accountant has learned the hard way that IT support
> doesn't come cheap, especially when he's trying to price gouge me.
> In his case my rate is 145 per hour. His is 140 per hour.
Just be glad he *does* want to be an accountant - people may think they're
pointless and dull, but you imagine our capitalist society without them and
you'd find the world falling apart.
Me, I find accountancy and finance fascinating. I find tax intriguing. I
find VAT - especially pertaining to charities - compelling.
I want to be an accountant, because I'm interested in how money flows,
where, and why. Because I believe that the capitalist world we live in
needs the regulations that accountancy supplies. Because I *want* to,
dammit!
Lots of people *want* to, as well - or apply to, at any rate, because most
firms can afford to turn their noses up at my 3rd Class degree without
thinking about my useful experience. They can only afford to do this
because of the high application to place ratio.
Anyone out there looking for a trainee?
--
"I like chasing up Jackie Bettess" - Robin Hall
la haine
message news:9ihk9c$5lv$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk:
> Just be glad he *does* want to be an accountant - people may think
> they're pointless and dull, but you imagine our capitalist society
> without them
/me imagines a world of peace. love, and harmony, where everyone shares and
nobody is unhappy...
--
Reality is for people that can't handle Star Trek
Paul Brown
> In article <3B4AA4ED...@hotmail.com>, Jacqui <Sirlawrenceoblivion@
> hotmail.com> writes
>>Jeremy C B Nicoll wrote:
>>> Julia Jones wrote:
>>
>>> > Yes, but Mary Whitehouse complained about Doctor Who as well...
>>>
>>> But that was probably because she didn't want all those kids growing
>>> afraid of British quarries...
>>
>>There was a surreal moment (for me) on tv back when they were showing
>>Beau Geste. We had videoed Dr Who and were watching it on Sunday
>>evening, an episode with lots of Cybermen in a quarry. Switched off the
>>video and there were Benedict Taylor et al roaming around in exactly the
>>same place. Cue little brother shouting "watch out for the Cybermen" all
>>through the episode and spoiling it completely.
>>
> Wonder if the same bit of quarry showed up in Blake's 7?
> The Dorset group of Blake's 7 fans has an annual supersoaker outing to
> Winspitt Quarry, which was used for location filming by both B7 and Dr
> Who. Last year we were sitting on the ramp admiring the view, when
> around the corner of an abandoned building came the local Dr Who fen,
> who were taking the whole thing a bit more seriously. The commentary by
> their leader went something as follows: "And this bit was used in the
> scene where.. what the fuck are *you* lot doing here, it's Saturday!"
> He'd deliberately brought his lot out on Saturday because he thought we
> were doing the quarry on Sunday...
I did once see reference to a slight filming problem where Blake, Avon
et al were being chased around said quarry by the Federation *again*
and the end of the scene was for them to run out of shot and over the
lip of the quarry and they ran into Tom Baker and company coming the
other way running from the baddie de jour.
Probably UL, but would have been interesting if the cameras had still
been running.
Paul
Richard Bos
> *shrugs* No one gives lessons in parenthood except *your* parents.
> Maybe the parents of today had lenient parents themselves?
Judging by the way a lot of my generation were raised, how that
generation turned out, and the kind of parents they are, yes, I think
they have. It may not be a nice thing of me to say, but the hippy
generation has a hell of a lot to answer for, IMO, and calling their
children things like "Moonshadow Galadriel" is one of their lesser sins.
Richard
Richard Bos
> Suzi wrote:
> > My parents seemed to operate a policy of "if she doesn't run screaming
> > and enjoys the stuff, why not let her watch it (as long as we don't have
> > to watch it too)".
>
> Definitely depends on the kid more than the age, methinks... I mean, I
> *was* scared of the Smurfs.
>
> -Mary (It's possible I still am.)
Sounds reasonable to me. A bunch of minute, blue... creatures... who
walk around consuming weird weeds, talking in odd voices, constantly
forgetting words, and thinking they're being persecuted by a large
wizard, _and_ who can crawl up your trouser legs or shirt sleeves. I
think I'd rather have the pictsies any day. Scared? You should be!
Richard
Nanny Ogg
>Anjelina Jolie is a reasonable Lara, but has no real purpose
Errrrm, I thought her purpose was to do lots of extremely sexy-looking
gymnastics and show off how big a pair of tits can look with computer
enhancement? I thought that sort of thing _did_ qualify as a real purpose in
film-making. Officially.
wondered
Sarah
--
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you'll be
taller than everyone else.' Kipling and _I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue_
`Unfortunately Real Life lacks a decent tourist information service' Adrian
Morgan
Nanny Ogg
Rosenthal) writes:
>I felt _very_ sorry for the young girl I saw being led out about halfway
>through "Sixth Sense" by her father (just after the bit with
>the boy with the back of his head blown off). Then again, my parents
>took me to see Jaws for my 12th birthday and look how I turned out.
1984, rated 15, came out when I was still 14. My mother decided it was
educational and she should take me to see it anyway, so we both went.
I watched it with complete equanimity. My mother, 25 years older, was a
nervous wreck during all of the more disturbing scenes and couldn't look at the
screen.
Incidentally - it's just hit me that although my mother did monitor what I read
(or at least, what I read when at home - I was hanging round libraries and
reading all sorts of unsuitable stuff from an early age) she never displayed
the slightest objection that I can recall to me and my sister (then something
like 11) watching `American Werewolf in London' repeatedly on video. Thinking
back on it, that's fairly bizarre.
All the best,
Jen Birren
> > *shrugs* No one gives lessons in parenthood except *your* parents.
> > Maybe the parents of today had lenient parents themselves?
>
> Judging by the way a lot of my generation were raised, how that
> generation turned out, and the kind of parents they are, yes, I think
> they have. It may not be a nice thing of me to say, but the hippy
> generation has a hell of a lot to answer for, IMO, and calling their
> children things like "Moonshadow Galadriel" is one of their lesser
> sins.
But the hippies were boomers, mostly- ie *their* parents were the
upstanding bunch having children just after the war, who seem to be
deified for having "proper family values" these days. If they could turn
out a batch of treehugging wierdos, who knows what social pressures can
do to any given cohort of parents/children?
Jen
Mary Messall
> Lady Kayla wrote:
> > bottom in public? There are also a lot of parents who mistakenly
> > believe that their children won't love them any more if they are
> > disciplined, or who think that they have to be friends with their
> > child.
> I think it isn't discipline per se that children resent, so much as
> the fact that discipline *in practise* has much more to do with the
> parent's mood than the child's behaviour.
AOL. My family are great believers in discipline, as were the teachers
in Catholic school. I'm not a parent, but I had a pretty long
babysitting career and a sister young enough to have had a hand in
upbringing, and I've never taken pride in my willingness to discipline
kids left in my charge. Instead I take pride in my ability to reason
with them. It's amazing how often this works, if you can speak on their
level.
When I was a little kid, I was perfectly capable of rational thought, if
lacking some useful background, and furious with rules without reasons
behind them. "Because I said so," burns me up even now. It's true, I
have no respect for authority. I don't obey rules unless I understand
their purpose.
But the lack of respect for authority I think grew from all of that
"discipline" I got. What I learned from it is that rules are often
stupid and arbitrary, and enforcement has much more to do with the
adult's temper than any kind of justice.
> I think you and Mark must have a different dictionary to me, because I
> don't follow your interpretation of the word "friend". To me, "friend"
> means someone who is pleased to talk with me, someone who listens to
> my point of view, etc, and it's critical that a parent should be that.
Again AOL.
-Mary
Mary Messall
> However strict my parents were, they always gave me a lot of love
> ( I dunno, sometimes thats a four-letter word people find hard to use
> well, in my book, preferable to some of the others which are
> scattered around more freely these days)
Those other four letter words have become completely meaningless and
without force because of being scattered so freely. That people are
reluctant to use "love" casually means that it still carries a lot of
significance, and power.
Not really anything to do with your post, just something that occured to
me when I got to that last paragraph.
-Mary
MikeXXXX
>
>
> Anyone out there looking for a trainee?
>
Come to Australia. "The New Tax System" has meant that the place
has a severe deficit.
In fact it's so severe that you could probably pack your bag *before*
you apply for the piece of paper.
Actually, you might get a job before leaving and then get the firm to
sponsor you and pay the trip out.
Who knows.
regards
Richard Bos
> Flesh-eating dragon wrote:
> > I think it isn't discipline per se that children resent, so much as
> > the fact that discipline *in practise* has much more to do with the
> > parent's mood than the child's behaviour.
>
> AOL. My family are great believers in discipline, as were the teachers
> in Catholic school. I'm not a parent, but I had a pretty long
> babysitting career and a sister young enough to have had a hand in
> upbringing, and I've never taken pride in my willingness to discipline
> kids left in my charge. Instead I take pride in my ability to reason
> with them. It's amazing how often this works, if you can speak on their
> level.
Well, yes, as long as you don't have the end responsibility, and the
child behaves reasonably. It doesn't, unfortunately, always work this
way.
> When I was a little kid, I was perfectly capable of rational thought, if
> lacking some useful background, and furious with rules without reasons
> behind them. "Because I said so," burns me up even now. It's true, I
> have no respect for authority. I don't obey rules unless I understand
> their purpose.
That's all very well, and I agree with it, as far as it goes, but it
doesn't go all the way. There are children who will insist on hitting
their little brother. Reason with them as much as you like, they _will_
hit their little brother. In such cases (and IME, every child has a case
like that sooner or later) reasoning may be more democratic, but saying
"You're not to hit your brother because I say so, and if you do so
you'lll get slapped" is sometimes the only solution. It may not be nice,
but in some situations, it's the only thing that works.
> > I think you and Mark must have a different dictionary to me, because I
> > don't follow your interpretation of the word "friend". To me, "friend"
> > means someone who is pleased to talk with me, someone who listens to
> > my point of view, etc, and it's critical that a parent should be that.
>
> Again AOL.
Myeah. Except that you can listen to a child's point of view until both
you and he are blue in the face, but in the end, it's you who has the
responsibility, not he, and therefore you take the final decision, not
he, no matter how much he disagrees with you.
Richard
Richard Bos
> John Ewing <jo...@gelsalba.co.uk> wrote in
> news:v10nkts092ec7rqer...@4ax.com:
>
> > Sorry, but how can anyone have problems with lawyers being eaten by
> > dinosaurs? Or eaten by anything, come to that. :-)
>
> Lawyers are fluffy and cuddly and only want the world to be nice.
>
> Dinosaurs are evil and an abomination and were judged and found wanting.
> This is why they became extinct.
Yes, that's the official view. Here's the more likely one:
Lawyers are evil and an abomination.
Dinosaurs are fluffy and cuddly and only want the world to be nice.
However, when the decision came up who should be extincted, the lawyers
had the expert defence, and the dinosaurs had no representation at all.
Therefore, the judges decided against the dinos and for the lawyers.
Case closed, award that lawyer a nice fee, someone.
Richard
MikeXXXX
>
> Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
>
> > Flesh-eating dragon wrote:
> > > I think it isn't discipline per se that children resent, so much as
> > > the fact that discipline *in practise* has much more to do with the
> > > parent's mood than the child's behaviour.
> >
> > AOL. My family are great believers in discipline, as were the teachers
> > in Catholic school. I'm not a parent, but I had a pretty long
> > babysitting career and a sister young enough to have had a hand in
> > upbringing, and I've never taken pride in my willingness to discipline
> > kids left in my charge. Instead I take pride in my ability to reason
> > with them. It's amazing how often this works, if you can speak on their
> > level.
>
> Well, yes, as long as you don't have the end responsibility, and the
> child behaves reasonably. It doesn't, unfortunately, always work this
> way.
It ends whatever way you determine you want it to end, actually.
8'FED has a point but I'm wondering if Mary means 'discipline' = 'smacks'.
I don't think he does - but Mary might.
> > When I was a little kid, I was perfectly capable of rational thought, if
> > lacking some useful background, and furious with rules without reasons
> > behind them. "Because I said so," burns me up even now. It's true, I
> > have no respect for authority. I don't obey rules unless I understand
> > their purpose.
What age little kid are we talking here?
>
> That's all very well, and I agree with it, as far as it goes, but it
> doesn't go all the way. There are children who will insist on hitting
> their little brother.
> Reason with them as much as you like, they _will_ hit their little
> brother.
> In such cases (and IME, every child has a case like that sooner
> or later) reasoning may be more democratic, but saying
> "You're not to hit your brother because I say so, and if you do so
> you'lll get slapped" is sometimes the only solution.
Slapping is out - so is smacking and other physical things of a
hurting nature. Cuddling is ok, Loud Volume (yelling) is also out.
You're just legitimizing physicality - and it comes back to haunt you.
Distraction, separation - they work until the mood has left them.
Talking is sometimes not a solution because 'they' are not listening.
I've been lucky in that all the children love being read to, and they
all hate sweeping leaves up. One or the other works a treat.
Time-out works too.
> It may not be nice, but in some situations, it's the only
> thing that works.
It's a short term solution with long term problems.
> > > I think you and Mark must have a different dictionary to me, because I
> > > don't follow your interpretation of the word "friend". To me, "friend"
> > > means someone who is pleased to talk with me, someone who listens to
> > > my point of view, etc, and it's critical that a parent should be that.
> >
> > Again AOL.
>
> Myeah. Except that you can listen to a child's point of view until both
> you and he are blue in the face, but in the end, it's you who has the
> responsibility, not he, and therefore you take the final decision, not
> he, no matter how much he disagrees with you.
and your point is?
regards
Mike
[1] (except the 18mth old who will get out the vacuum cleaner to do
the living room carpet at the drop of a hat)
Flesh-eating dragon
Mary Messall <mmes...@ups.edu> wrote:
> AOL. My family are great believers in discipline, as were the teachers
> in Catholic school. I'm not a parent, but I had a pretty long
> babysitting career and a sister young enough to have had a hand in
> upbringing, and I've never taken pride in my willingness to discipline
> kids left in my charge. Instead I take pride in my ability to reason
> with them. It's amazing how often this works, if you can speak on their
> level.
I was babysitting a kid once (every week, for a while). We went for a
walk. There was a big puddle at the end of the drive. He splashed in
it. I said if he did it again I would carry him back to the house.
It wasn't long before he did it again. I carried him, kicking and
screaming, back to the house.
That's discipline, but it's also, quite definately, /fair/.
> When I was a little kid, I was perfectly capable of rational thought, if
> lacking some useful background, and furious with rules without reasons
> behind them. "Because I said so," burns me up even now.
Ditto. Did you answer, "That's not a reason", same as I did?
(I also agree with Richard's comments. But those are exceptions, not
rules.)
Adrian.
Julia Jones
<ssso...@reading.ac.uk> writes
>Legend has it that during the filming of one episode of Dr Who
>the cast were required to run up the slope of the quarry and
>over the lip of the hill, and just as they reached the top they
>ran straight into the cast of Blake's 7 doing the same thing
>from the other side.
The story is, as far as I know, apocryphal, but we were still very happy
to re-enact it:-) There was some comment on this story the day we
managed to do it, but as far as anyone present knew, it is just a
legend. It's the sort of thing that should have happened even if it
didn't. Pity, as *I'd* like to have seen it. I think it was supposed to
have taken place in Betchworth Quarry, aka the BBC chalkpit, and now a
landfill site:-(
Gareth Thomas did want to have a little scene in Blake's 7 where he'd
pass Tom Baker on the street on some alien planet, nod to him and say
"Morning, Doctor", but the Beeb wouldn't have it...
--
Julia Jones
Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent
Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5
http://www.smof.com/redemption
Flesh-eating dragon
> Slapping is out - so is smacking and other physical things of a
> hurting nature. Cuddling is ok, Loud Volume (yelling) is also out.
> You're just legitimizing physicality - and it comes back to haunt you.
I don't agree with this as a universal. Physical discipline has been
part of human existence since long before recorded history; I expect
that we even /evolved/ around it. Physical discipline isn't the
long-term problem you claim UNLESS it's *common* and not balanced
out by the respect that children, being human, are due. This includes
the right to know the reasons for rules, which in turn includes the
responsibility to listen to the reasons for rules.
Apparently when my parents resorted to physical discipline, they'd
still be totally shaken the next day, but I'd be as if I'd forgotten
all about it. Children are /very/ forgiving. Yes, I did resent Mum's
"wooden spoon" (I even threw the thing away once), but what I really
resented was the inconsistency of its use, and the feeling that my
side was not being heard.
Most parents I know use physical discipline to mean, "No matter what
we do, we're both going to get hurt, either emotionally or physically.
So let's just get it over and done with". Now, that's exactly the
situation where a parent *is* likely to be irrational, hence a lot of
injustice, but it is possible to be objective. If you're going to use
physical discipline, you have a responsibility to be ten times more
careful than usual to judge the behaviour rationally, and not just be
driven by your mood.
Every now and then, physical discipline is a viable option. But it
should always be very much the exception, and brings with it a lot of
/very/ serious responsibilities.
Adrian.
Daniel Goldsmith
news:3b4c6587...@news.worldonline.nl:
> Daniel Goldsmith <anti...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> Lawyers are fluffy and cuddly and only want the world to be nice.
>> Dinosaurs are evil and an abomination and were judged and found wanting.
>> This is why they became extinct.
>
> Yes, that's the official view. Here's the more likely one:
>
> Lawyers are evil and an abomination.
> Dinosaurs are fluffy and cuddly and only want the world to be nice.
> However, when the decision came up who should be extincted, the lawyers
> had the expert defence, and the dinosaurs had no representation at all.
> Therefore, the judges decided against the dinos and for the lawyers.
> Case closed, award that lawyer a nice fee, someone.
All lawyer's fees are part of the Great Fee, much as all lawyers
are, in fact, an element of the One True Litigator.
Oh yes, all those gold-edged business cards... Why do *you*
think we need them gold-edged? Lots of uses for gold things.
Fortunately, the controler units are now becoming much smaller,
so we don't need to wear them quite as ostentatiously as before.
Many people, including afpers, were beginning to cotton on.
'scuse me while I roll me trouser legs back down.
Daniel.
Jacob Aron
> and slightly older kids freaking out when the
>> lawyer gets eaten by the previously cute and cool dinosaurs.
I saw it when I was 8 and wasn't fazed at all by that scene...
<relurk>
++++++++++++
Jacob - Bearer of Black and White Hat #1 and *RGMW Merit Badge [Gold]*
"He's spending a year dead for tax reasons" - a tribute to Douglas Adams
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/fluff40k - The only Yahoo! fluff club
"BIKKIT"
elfin
> elfin wrote:
> > I don't think you are old fashioned, just the run of the mill
> > spoilsport of a parent, just like me!! <GRIN>
>
> Spoilsport, parent, what is difference?
We get more abuse?
elfin
--
Art, OE Help, Beginners Guide and much more at
http://www.elfden.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Sherilyn
Nanny Ogg <swhi...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>Incidentally - it's just hit me that although my mother did monitor what I read
>(or at least, what I read when at home - I was hanging round libraries and
>reading all sorts of unsuitable stuff from an early age) she never displayed
>the slightest objection that I can recall to me and my sister (then something
>like 11) watching `American Werewolf in London' repeatedly on video. Thinking
>back on it, that's fairly bizarre.
>
Watch for the children glued to some muppetry on television
whilst nasty machine-gun toting wolf monsters massacre their
parents. Then see how they shriek when a stray shot destroys
the television.
--
Sherilynsend me unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial e-mail.
Rocky Frisco
Me too . . . and I'm a "guy."
-Rock http://www.rocky-frisco.com
--
Red Dirt Rangers (Rocky on piano): http://www.reddirtrangers.com
JJ Cale Live (w/ Rocky): http://www.rocky-frisco.com/calelive.htm
The Flying Hamster
> "The Flying Hamster" wrote
>> elfin wrote:
>> > I don't think you are old fashioned, just the run of the mill
>> > spoilsport of a parent, just like me!! <GRIN>
>>
>> Spoilsport, parent, what is difference?
>
> We get more abuse?
shedloads...
--
The Flying Hamster <ham...@suespammers.org> http://hamster.wibble.org/
If a picture is worth a thousand words, why are ALT attribute values
usually so short? - Womble on #drum
David Chapman
Whither shudder, Ailbhe? Was it because:
a) you've read The Lottery and YKWIM,
b) I was seriously hassled by the story,
or
c) I think Shirley Jackson was a good writer?
Careless followups cost lives, y'know.
--
Call it what you will, I call it
Pontiac to Home Girl
Quantum Moth
> jake...@aol.comspamspam (Jacob Aron) writes:
>
> > > and slightly older kids freaking out when the
> > >> lawyer gets eaten by the previously cute and cool dinosaurs.
> >
> > I saw it when I was 8 and wasn't fazed at all by that scene...
>
>
Grrr... the kids in the audience for Jurassic Park annoyed me like
nothing else. I mean, they were *laughing*! Especially during Dennis
Nedry's death scene, where I was scrabbling at the arm of the seat in
terror - I guess it was because I'd read the book first and that bit
really freaked me out on paper.
--
thom willis - sc...@mostly.com - Corinne's Worse Half
**movie- http://afpmovie.orcon.net.nz**
oof
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 11/07/01 11:14 GMT
>Message-id: <3B4C350F...@invalid.see.Reply.to>
>
<Vincent Price on The Muppet Show>
>Mary Sophia Novak wrote:
>>the Vincent Price episode featured the (only?)
>> appearance of the Theater Ghost, who Muppetophiles somehow have
>> determined was named Uncle Deadly.
>>
>> He was utterly terrifying -- this pale blue spiky goat thing with, I
>> believe, empty eye sockets with pupils hovering in front, which may
>> even have lit up. (Ooh! I found a picture:
>> http://www.henson.com/fcreature/deadly_fcreature.html)
>
>It looks familiar- I think he may have been one of the bad guys in
>Muppet Treasure Island. (Unless there are two evil Muppet goat-things?)
>Jen
><fx: wanders off singing "I've got cabin fever, it's driving me insane
>(OI!)"
I've got cabin fever, it's a-burning in my brain!
ahem. Anyway. He doesn't look much like a goat to me, but he does bear some
resemblence to the Muppet version of Blind Pew. It *could* be the same one.
(There *was* a goat in MTI, BTW. His name was Clueless Morgan, and although he
was one of Silver's blackhearted crew of scum, he wasn't scary at all. He later
found fame in a series of bizzarre and pointless bar sketches on Muppets
Tonight, along with fellow pirate Polly Lobster).
--
Dave
Elected for a second glorious term as Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.ed.ac.uk/~sesoc
There are only two kinds of people in the world: The kind who think there are
only two kinds of people in the world, and the kind who don't.
Gid Holyoake
Hamster generously decided to share with us..
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:35:20 GMT, elfin <el...@lspace.org> wrote:
> > "The Flying Hamster" wrote
> >> elfin wrote:
> >> > I don't think you are old fashioned, just the run of the mill
> >> > spoilsport of a parent, just like me!! <GRIN>
> >>
> >> Spoilsport, parent, what is difference?
> >
> > We get more abuse?
>
> shedloads...
Well.. file it away somewhere in case it comes in hfrshy for summat,
innit..
Gid
--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
ISTP http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/ for The Irrelevant Page! MJBC
Wear short sleeves!.. support your right to bare arms!..
Mary Sophia Novak
<inv...@invalid.see.Reply.to> wrote:
>Mary Sophia Novak wrote:
>> In the context of this thread, this was perhaps not such a bad
>> decision, because the Vincent Price episode featured the (only?)
>> appearance of the Theater Ghost, who Muppetophiles somehow have
>> determined was named Uncle Deadly.
>>
>> He was utterly terrifying -- this pale blue spiky goat thing with, I
>> believe, empty eye sockets with pupils hovering in front, which may
>> even have lit up. (Ooh! I found a picture:
>> http://www.henson.com/fcreature/deadly_fcreature.html)
>
>It looks familiar- I think he may have been one of the bad guys in
>Muppet Treasure Island. (Unless there are two evil Muppet goat-things?)
While the extent of my Muppet trivia knowledge indeed knoweth some
bounds, this is within them.
The goat in Muppet Treasure Island was named Clueless Morgan, and was
neither scary nor evil, just endearingly stupid.
It's 20 years or more since I saw the entire Uncle Deadly episode, so
I can't remember how evil he was, but (at least to a child) he was
genuinely frightening, Verrry creeeepy in a way that was rare in the
Henson universe.
Though I have no memory at all of what happened in the Alice Cooper
episode, so maybe there was competition there...
Mary Sophia Novak
ms_n...@hotmail.com
MP
>
> In article <3B47914D...@softhome.net>, MP <mpet...@softhome.net> writes:
>
> >Anjelina Jolie is a reasonable Lara, but has no real purpose
>
> Errrrm, I thought her purpose was to do lots of extremely sexy-looking
> gymnastics and show off how big a pair of tits can look with computer
> enhancement? I thought that sort of thing _did_ qualify as a real purpose in
> film-making. Officially.
Well, yes. But that doesn't mean that we should let filmakers get away
with it! Don't go see it...
MP (still prefers Shrek)