INSTANT REVIEW: LOTR:The Two Towers
Darla Vladschyk
Way WAY more bettah than the first installment.
Buy popcorn AND nachos. It's three hours.
You likely won't be tempted to look at your watch.
Luckily, Liv Tyler resembles her mother more strongly than her Dad.
Either don't buy the Big Drink, or do sit at the end of the row.
You will probably want to rush home and wash your hair.
The Orcs are even more disgusting the second time around.
Gollum kicks JarJar's not inconsiderable ass all to hell,
computer-generated-character-wise.
You should go!
-=Darla=-
_________________________________________________
"Any time you think you might be eating poo, stop."
---Ifaz, rec.food.cooking
_________________________________________________
http://www.yougotta.com/Darla
_________________________________________________
Kevin S. Wilson
Vladschyk) wrote:
>Gollum kicks JarJar's not inconsiderable ass all to hell,
>computer-generated-character-wise.
>
Really, Darla, that's the lamest troll EVER. Besides, it's hardly a
fair comparison, since Jar-Jar is only in the movie for one brief
scene.
>
>_________________________________________________
>"Any time you think you might be eating poo, stop."
> ---Ifaz, rec.food.cooking
You read rec.food.cooking? Isn't it filled with insane bozos snapping
and snarling at one another? If not, can we make it happen?
I've only seen the ocassional spillover from rec.food.cooking into
alt.food.barbecue. It wasn't pretty.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"You can safely ignore Kevin in order to
maximise life's experience." --A. Loon, in alt.religion.kibology
Chris McGonnell
> Gollum kicks JarJar's not inconsiderable ass all to hell,
> computer-generated-character-wise.
Well, DUH! You don't think ANZAC would let us down, as Lucas did? His rebel
alliance SUCKS compared with our ANZAC rebel alliance! And Gollum/Smeagol is
not created as comic relief for the kiddies.
--
Chris McG.
Harming humanity since 1951
Uh-oh. Looners. -- Darla
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Darla Vladschyk
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 02:34:56 GMT, DarlaVl...@hotmail.com (Darla
>Vladschyk) wrote:
>
>>Gollum kicks JarJar's not inconsiderable ass all to hell,
>>computer-generated-character-wise.
>>
>Really, Darla, that's the lamest troll EVER. Besides, it's hardly a
>fair comparison, since Jar-Jar is only in the movie for one brief
>scene.
Heehee!
>>
>>_________________________________________________
>>"Any time you think you might be eating poo, stop."
>> ---Ifaz, rec.food.cooking
>
>You read rec.food.cooking?
I read rec.food.cooking (or more truthfully, I occasionally read it
and more often "catch up" with it) because you told me to. And I will
do ANYTHING in order to persuade you to send me that GIF of you
wearing your tool belt, leaning against your truck. With your legs
spread. Looking back over your shoulder. But I digress.
RFC is a hell-hole of Bosch characters who have nothing to do but
cook, eat, and post. Every time I check this group there are 500
posts. It's unbelievable. It's hilarious. It's maddening. It's the
feel-good hit of Usernet.
Also, I accidentally sent rec.food.barbeque into a black hole and I
can't get it out again.
My bad.
-=Darla=-
_________________________________________________
"Any time you think you might be eating poo, stop."
---Ifaz, rec.food.cooking
_________________________________________________
http://www.yougotta.com/Darla
_________________________________________________
Darla Vladschyk
>"Darla Vladschyk" wrote ...
>> Gollum kicks JarJar's not inconsiderable ass all to hell,
>> computer-generated-character-wise.
>
>Well, DUH! You don't think ANZAC would let us down, as Lucas did? His rebel
>alliance SUCKS compared with our ANZAC rebel alliance! And Gollum/Smeagol is
>not created as comic relief for the kiddies.
Am I your precious, baybee? Hmmmm?
-=D=-
Chris McGonnell
> "Chris McGonnell" <sme...@key-net.net> wrote:
>
> >"Darla Vladschyk" wrote ...
> >> Gollum kicks JarJar's not inconsiderable ass all to hell,
> >> computer-generated-character-wise.
> >
> >Well, DUH! You don't think ANZAC would let us down, as Lucas did? His
rebel
> >alliance SUCKS compared with our ANZAC rebel alliance! And Gollum/Smeagol
is
> >not created as comic relief for the kiddies.
>
>
> Am I your precious, baybee? Hmmmm?
Ha! And if we says yes-s-s nas-s-sty Vlad will show up and get all
S-s-santayana on our ass-s-s, yes-s-s, dearie. _Reason and Common Sense_ we
hates forever!
Dean Lenort
> You likely won't be tempted to look at your watch.
I managed to restrain myself until after the first hour had expired and
then no more than every half hour after that.
Once the show was over and we did a quick comparison of impressions, of the
five people in the group I went with the person that appeared to enjoy it
the most was the one person who had never read the books. As for myself, I
went back and forth between a state of incredulous bafflement at some of
the changes and giggling at the some of the sheer idiocy. Mostly giggling.
In summary: WHAT HATH JACKSON WROUGHT?
--
Dean Lenort | Because if you don't check your facts, how can
dean.lenort | you be SURE you're posting nonsense????
@att.net | -- Beable van Polasm
Darla Vladschyk
>> Am I your precious, baybee? Hmmmm?
>
>Ha! And if we says yes-s-s nas-s-sty Vlad will show up and get all
>S-s-santayana on our ass-s-s, yes-s-s, dearie. _Reason and Common Sense_ we
>hates forever!
Okay now you're scaring me.
Darla Vladschyk
>... the person that appeared to enjoy it
>the most was the one person who had never read the books.
I never read the books. Neither has Vlad. So there you have it!
-=D=-
Bryce Utting
> In summary: WHAT HATH JACKSON WROUGHT?
he's wrought a year of us waiting for ROTK before we can see if
there's any special point to the Osgiliath detour that's not
immediately apparent from TTT, that's what he's wrought.
spoilers?
the elves-discussing-their-own-interests was neat (and we all know how
[redacted] and [redacted] were able to speak, don't we, my precious?),
and probably points toward a certain heirloom being presented to
Falls-Off-Cliffs as a major plot point of ROTK, which when you think
about it wouldn't be a bad bit of plotting at all. and it'll will
give she-who-dithers more to do than clinging on to Daddy's skirts
after ALL THESE YEARS (probably the weakest invention).
Gandalf and Beyond The Infinite was pretty damn cool, right down to
the sound design. Faramir, not so much.
Gollum was amazing, from just about all angles. the cuts during his
soliliquay were a pity (playing to the kiddie audience?), but his last
scene showed just how well Jackson could get inside a character. most
sorely missed dialogue? "Don't want fish." wahhhh!!!!!!
Treebeard definitely looked like leisurely pulling walls to bits just
for something to do after the fun was entirely within character. NOT
ENOUGH SCREENTIME. FILM NEEDS TO BE LONGER.
on the three-night extended-edition DVD-fests it might end up feeling
like the weak spot, but even so. HELM'S DEEP!!!!!! WOOEEEE!!!!!!!
butting
James Vandenberg
> Dean Lenort <dean....@att.net> wrote:
>
> >... the person that appeared to enjoy it
> >the most was the one person who had never read the books.
>
> I never read the books. Neither has Vlad. So there you have it!
I read TTT again last night. Yes. In one night. No, I didn't skim. Yes,
I got every nuance. I just read fast. Quit bugging me.
I read them again because it doesn't open in Austria until December 26,
because Peter Jackson hates us. Well, he can just take his LOTR trilogy
[The rest of this message is unavailable.]
Ja-[redacted]-CENSORED-CENSORED-[redacted]-broomstick-mes
--
James Vandenberg Email: james at vandenberg.dropbear.id.au
GPG FP= 65AB 179A D884 EDC6 216D FE6A 6833 02BC 4425 4F70
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. ICQ: 151135390
Beware! Sometimes forks and candles fall from the sky.
Bryce Utting
> I read TTT again last night. Yes. In one night. No, I didn't skim. Yes,
> I got every nuance. I just read fast. Quit bugging me.
>
> I read them again because it doesn't open in Austria until December 26,
> because Peter Jackson hates us. Well, he can just take his LOTR trilogy
>
> [The rest of this message is unavailable.]
>
> Ja-[redacted]-CENSORED-CENSORED-[redacted]-broomstick-mes
now you know how all of us who were fans going right back to Bad Taste
felt when The Frighteners didn't get released here 'till TWO MONTHS
after its merkin release. GRRRRRRRRRRRR.
I'm entirely in favour of a reverse strategy for the ROTK release.
butting
Stephenls
> he's wrought a year of us waiting for ROTK before we can see if
> there's any special point to the Osgiliath detour that's not
> immediately apparent from TTT, that's what he's wrought.
"Make Faramir look like a bastard so when he turns up in the third movie
all noble and stuff it's a visible contrast to the bad end Boromir came
to."
and
"Give Sauron a radar blip on the location of the One Ring in Gondor, so
that he thinks it even more likely the Gondorians are going to use it
against him and thus doesn't expect it showing up in Mordor." (This is
like the book but makes even /more/ sense.)
and
"Show just how fucked Gondor is."
My one remaining quibble: That city was swarming with Uruks. When
Frodo had Sting drawn, why wasn't it glowing like a frikken'
lightsaber? Is "across the water" too far away, or does it just not
register Uruk-hai? Also, where did Sauron get Uruk-hai anyway? That
wasn't Saruman's force seiging Osgiliath and they sure weren't regular
orcs, on account of they were functional in daylight.
Or maybe they were just Southrons. I don't know.
> spoilers?
> the elves-discussing-their-own-interests was neat (and we all know how
> [redacted] and [redacted] were able to speak, don't we, my precious?),
> and probably points toward a certain heirloom being presented to
> Falls-Off-Cliffs as a major plot point of ROTK, which when you think
> about it wouldn't be a bad bit of plotting at all. and it'll will
> give she-who-dithers more to do than clinging on to Daddy's skirts
> after ALL THESE YEARS (probably the weakest invention).
Actually, the scene with [redacted] and [redacted] speaking to each
other was just a flashback to one of [redacted]'s memories back when he
was still hanging out in Elrond's place. That's why [redacted] says
"You must go with Frodo."
> Gandalf and Beyond The Infinite was pretty damn cool, right down to
> the sound design. Faramir, not so much.
I think Faramir is just being given a character arc. Jackson seems
really, really big on taking characters that had static personalities in
the books and giving them dynamic personalities in the movies. Thus,
anyone who's going to be noble by the end of the third movie /isn't/
noble when we first meet them.
For what it's worth, I don't consider the books perfect, and thus am
able to believe Jackson can improve on them in places. I know a lot of
people who disagree with me on this, because Tolkien Is Holy Writ.
Take a look at what he's done with the Elves, for example. I love how
Galadriel and Elrond are planning on just leaving, and then decide that
no they're /not/ going to take the cowards' way out, but are instead
going to lead the Elves to one last big stand against the Enemy. It's a
huge departure from the books, but one that leaves me liking Elrond and
Galadriel a lot more.
(Remember when Star Wars Episode One wasn't out yet, and we had the
trailer, and there's that bit where Amidala says "I will not watch my
people suffer and die while you discuss this matter in commitee," and it
looked really, really cool, because nobody had actually seen the movie
yet? Like that, only it didn't turn out to suck in the end.)
> Gollum was amazing, from just about all angles. the cuts during his
> soliliquay were a pity (playing to the kiddie audience?), but his last
> scene showed just how well Jackson could get inside a character. most
> sorely missed dialogue? "Don't want fish." wahhhh!!!!!!
Observation on Gollum's soliliquy, taken from both times I've seen the
movie now: everyone in the audience laughs at it, right up until Gollum
whispers "murderer." Then suddenly everyone starts taking it dead
seriously. It's great -- as much fun as watching the screen is,
watching the audience's reaction is more fun.
> Treebeard definitely looked like leisurely pulling walls to bits just
> for something to do after the fun was entirely within character. NOT
> ENOUGH SCREENTIME. FILM NEEDS TO BE LONGER.
Yes. I especially like the on-fire Ent ducking into the water.
> on the three-night extended-edition DVD-fests it might end up feeling
> like the weak spot, but even so. HELM'S DEEP!!!!!! WOOEEEE!!!!!!!
Again, yes. Also, every time Legolas looks both as cool and as stuck up
as he could reasonably ever be, he turns cooler and more stuck up.
"You're late. You look terrible." "Would you like me to describe it
for you, or should I find you a box?" "Two? I'm at seventeen!" "Watch
me skateboard down this flight of stone steps on a stolen Uruk-hai
shield while firing arrows the whole way down, land at the bottom in a
big pile of Uruks, impale one on the shield, and then draw my two
swords."
--
Stephenls
Geek
Zixia
> Bryce Utting wrote:
>
>> he's wrought a year of us waiting for ROTK before we can see if
>> there's any special point to the Osgiliath detour that's not
>> immediately apparent from TTT, that's what he's wrought.
>> spoilers?
> Take a look at what he's done with the Elves, for example. I love
> how Galadriel and Elrond are planning on just leaving, and then
> decide that no they're /not/ going to take the cowards' way out,
> but are instead going to lead the Elves to one last big stand
> against the Enemy. It's a huge departure from the books, but one
> that leaves me liking Elrond and Galadriel a lot more.
Jackson already showed us Legolas being curious about death, when
Boromir kicked the bucket, and I thought it was quite moving to see Mr
Haughty Elf (sorry, I don't know the names too well) buy the farm, and
see a lot of his people fallen as well. For a race that is immortal
and had turned around from leaving Middle Earth to join the war where
many ended up dying added a lot of weight to their actions.
> Yes. I especially like the on-fire Ent ducking into the water.
That was a nice touch.
>> on the three-night extended-edition DVD-fests it might end up
>> feeling like the weak spot, but even so.
Do you think this is perhaps because it is the only film of three
without a definite beginning or ending? The Fellowship has a lot of
introductions to the characters and the story, and Return of the King
will resolve the whole story, but The Two Towers bridges the two; it
doesn't want to break continuity by reintroducing the characters, and
it ends in much the same open-ended way as Fellowship, so when viewed
outside of context of the other films it could appear to be weaker, as
it is only the middle of a more-complete story.
>> HELM'S DEEP!!!!!! WOOEEEE!!!!!!!
It was mighty impressive.
--
@+----------------+@
_o)| Verbing Weirds |(o_
/\\| Language |//\
_\_V|________________|V_/_
Bryce Utting
> "Make Faramir look like a bastard so when he turns up in the third movie
> all noble and stuff it's a visible contrast to the bad end Boromir came
> to."
... that's not a bad point.
> and
>
> "Give Sauron a radar blip on the location of the One Ring in Gondor, so
> that he thinks it even more likely the Gondorians are going to use it
> against him and thus doesn't expect it showing up in Mordor." (This is
> like the book but makes even /more/ sense.)
that's a *bloody* good point. well spotted that man!
>
> and
>
> "Show just how fucked Gondor is."
>
> My one remaining quibble: That city was swarming with Uruks. When
> Frodo had Sting drawn, why wasn't it glowing like a frikken'
> lightsaber?
that I don't know, but Sting held to Sam's throat was bloody
impressive. big. and sharp. and BIG. and, and SHARP.
>> the elves-discussing-their-own-interests was neat (and we all know how
>> [redacted] and [redacted] were able to speak, don't we, my precious?),
>
> Actually, the scene with [redacted] and [redacted] speaking to each
> other was just a flashback to one of [redacted]'s memories back when he
> was still hanging out in Elrond's place. That's why [redacted] says
> "You must go with Frodo."
no, no, the other [redacted] and [redacted], discussing their own
travel plans. who *didn't* meet in FOTR. you know. who had secrets
of their own, oh yesssssss.
(and since the Elves mostly just get involved off-stage in the novels,
and we only hear about them at second-hand, moving 'em out to Helm's
Deep isn't a bad move.)
>> Gandalf and Beyond The Infinite was pretty damn cool, right down to
>> the sound design.
NO-ONE studies the classics anymore, do they? sigh. Gandalf as Star
Child is *damn* cool, even if no-one noticed.
(I'm still undecided about nods to other masters in FOTR: Butterbur
cowering from the Wraiths seemed very Bergmanesque, Gandalf's high-
overhead arrival at Isengard seemed very Hitchcockian [cf Cary Grant
fleeing the UN building in North by Northwest], and Gollum's eyes
might -just- have been a nod to Blade Runner; but who knows? but
Gandalf's trip through whizzing lights and coming to in a whited-out
echoey room was *pure* Kubrick, and just as certain as Lee Ermy's role
in The Frighteners.)
>> Faramir, not so much.
>
> I think Faramir is just being given a character arc. Jackson seems
> really, really big on taking characters that had static personalities in
> the books and giving them dynamic personalities in the movies. Thus,
> anyone who's going to be noble by the end of the third movie /isn't/
> noble when we first meet them.
and that makes a not bad point a very very very good one. damn. and
I was *doubting* Jackson for a day or two there!
> Take a look at what he's done with the Elves, for example. I love how
> Galadriel and Elrond are planning on just leaving, and then decide that
> no they're /not/ going to take the cowards' way out, but are instead
> going to lead the Elves to one last big stand against the Enemy. It's a
> huge departure from the books, but one that leaves me liking Elrond and
> Galadriel a lot more.
ditto. and it points again to Arwen arriving at Pellenor with Anduril
after skulking around like a sullen teenager... which I *still* say is
out of place, but hey.
>> Gollum was amazing, from just about all angles. the cuts during his
>> soliliquay were a pity (playing to the kiddie audience?), but his last
>> scene showed just how well Jackson could get inside a character. most
>> sorely missed dialogue? "Don't want fish." wahhhh!!!!!!
>
> Observation on Gollum's soliliquy, taken from both times I've seen the
> movie now: everyone in the audience laughs at it, right up until Gollum
> whispers "murderer." Then suddenly everyone starts taking it dead
> seriously. It's great -- as much fun as watching the screen is,
> watching the audience's reaction is more fun.
... I was watching in a dive in South Auckland, the whole sequence got
laughs. (though that "murderer" sent chills down me at least.) no
laughs in the last one. heh.
>> Treebeard definitely looked like leisurely pulling walls to bits just
>> for something to do after the fun was entirely within character. NOT
>> ENOUGH SCREENTIME. FILM NEEDS TO BE LONGER.
>
> Yes. I especially like the on-fire Ent ducking into the water.
was kinda a Star Wars moment, though, and lacked the pathos of...
Birchwood?'s death as seen by Merry and Pippin. though that really
needed more backstory -- a longer Entmoot, time with Quickbeam -- to
be told as in the novel.
>> on the three-night extended-edition DVD-fests it might end up feeling
>> like the weak spot, but even so. HELM'S DEEP!!!!!! WOOEEEE!!!!!!!
>
> Again, yes. Also, every time Legolas looks both as cool and as stuck up
> as he could reasonably ever be, he turns cooler and more stuck up.
> "You're late. You look terrible."
"I've been mostly dead all day."
<duck>
> "Watch
> me skateboard down this flight of stone steps on a stolen Uruk-hai
> shield while firing arrows the whole way down, land at the bottom in a
> big pile of Uruks, impale one on the shield, and then draw my two
> swords."
now, THAT's worth watching again. 'specially since I was too
dumbstruck to really be able to follow just what happened after he
kicked the shield out from under himself...
(minor fx quibble from the warg fight: Legolas was too obviously
composited in to the background, running and firing at the same time.
his one-two-three-four-STAB-five with the arrows at the Falls tolchock
must surely have been done the same way, but you couldn't see the
seams *there*.)
butting
Beable van Polasm
>
> Actually, the scene with [redacted] and [redacted] speaking to each
> other was just a flashback to one of [redacted]'s memories back when he
> was still hanging out in Elrond's place. That's why [redacted] says
> "You must go with Frodo."
Actually, the scene with Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader speaking to
each other was just a flashback to one of Yoda's memories back when he
was still hanging out in Elrond's place. That's why Jabba The Hut
says "You must go with Frodo."
> Yes. I especially like the on-fire Ent ducking into the water.
QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK!
_ _ _
>(.)__ <(.)__ =(.)__
(___/ (___/ (___/
_ _ _
__(.)< __(.)> __(.)=
\___) \___) \___)
--
cheers
Beable van Polasm
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
http://beable.com
Jacob W. Haller
[. . .]
Who let Tam's ducks out?
> QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK! QUACK!
>
> _ _ _
> >(.)__ <(.)__ =(.)__
> (___/ (___/ (___/
>
> _ _ _
> __(.)< __(.)> __(.)=
> \___) \___) \___)
-jw'sorry for the top-posting'gh
--
"I still wish I looked like Shania Twain. And sang like somebody else."
- Paula <mmmtoblerone at earthlink.ent> in alt.religion.kibology
9 Dec 2002 <1fmw7bm.1uzgtrw1dvbxm4N%mmmtob...@earthlink.ent>
Ted Frank
Dean Lenort <dean....@att.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, DarlaVl...@hotmail.com (Darla Vladschyk) wrote:
>> You likely won't be tempted to look at your watch.
>
>I managed to restrain myself until after the first hour had expired and
>then no more than every half hour after that.
I didn't look at my watch until shortly before the end of the second hour.
Still. The battle-scenes at the storming of the Keep were the first
awe-inspiring thing I've seen in movies since I was eight or nine when I
saw the first "Star Wars." Lucas is very lucky that this movie didn't
come out simultaneously with Clones.
Also, I now understand why Elijah Wood had only one expression in the
first movie; he was saving his limited range for the sequels.
The movie needed more Agent Smith in it, though.
"Do you hear that, Mr. Frodo? That is the sound of inevitability."
>Once the show was over and we did a quick comparison of impressions, of the
>five people in the group I went with the person that appeared to enjoy it
>the most was the one person who had never read the books.
Maybe that's why I liked it so much -- the books are just a vague memory
from two decades ago.
Of course, I also enjoyed the mental picture of Noam Chomsky as Gríma
Wormtongue shouting "Warmongerer!" at the forces of good who wanted
to act in self-defense before the orcs sent a suicide bomber
to take down the walls of the keep so they could massacre the civilians.
Jorn Barger will now explain why the orcs are entitled to
self-determination and lebensraum and that the elves and hobbits are the
real terrorists.
Ted Frank
>"Watch
>me skateboard down this flight of stone steps on a stolen Uruk-hai
>shield while firing arrows the whole way down, land at the bottom in a
>big pile of Uruks, impale one on the shield, and then draw my two
>swords."
Who knew that the Yoda sequence would be only the second-most
crowd-pleasing scene this year?
Ted Frank
The scene where he leaps onto the horse was pretty damn cool, too.
Stephenls
> The scene where he leaps onto the horse was pretty damn cool, too.
I actually thought that kinda looked like they had him fall off the
horse and then ran the film backwards.
--
Stephenls
Geek
Darla Vladschyk
>The movie needed more Agent Smith in it, though.
>
>"Do you hear that, Mr. Frodo? That is the sound of inevitability."
I kept expecting him to suddenly lean down and snarl "I can't stand
the SMELL..."
Perhaps someone less distracting in the role might have been the way
to go.
-=D=-
Ben Allard
> Who knew that the Yoda sequence would be only the second-most
> crowd-pleasing scene this year?
I don't know what crowd you were in, but I certainly wasn't pleased with
that scene. I think Maul's duel with Obi Wan and Ol'Wossname in ep I was
better by far. Here is my synopsis of the Yoda v. Dukoo fight:
Dukuu: I shall wave my sword at this person that I am fighting who really
is really here and is not absent at all! Here I go!
Yoda: I am FIGHTING! See how I spin and whirl in this real and actual
duel!
Dookoo: My fighting style is a synthesis of eastern martial arts and
western fencing! I wave my sword up and down because many techniques in
the east AND west tell you to wave your sword up and also down!
Yoda: It is clear that my attacks clearly do produce in you the response
with which you respond to my attacks that I clearly do do!
&c.
There. Now nobody has ANY reason to go see that movie.
--ben
Jeremy Impson
>
> You read rec.food.cooking? Isn't it filled with insane bozos snapping
> and snarling at one another? If not, can we make it happen?
>
> I've only seen the ocassional spillover from rec.food.cooking into
> alt.food.barbecue. It wasn't pretty.
That's because barbecuing is *NOT* cooking.
--Jeremy
--
Jeremy Impson
jdim...@acm.org
http://impson.tzo.com/~jdimpson
Jeremy Impson
Spoilers ect.
On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Stephenls wrote:
> Bryce Utting wrote:
>
> > he's wrought a year of us waiting for ROTK before we can see if
> > there's any special point to the Osgiliath detour that's not
> > immediately apparent from TTT, that's what he's wrought.
>
> "Make Faramir look like a bastard so when he turns up in the third movie
> all noble and stuff it's a visible contrast to the bad end Boromir came
> to."
AAANDD, because in teh book, Faramir (is that how you spell it?) did have
a little of Boromir's attitude regarding the idea of taking the ring to
use it as his own. But in teh book, Tolkein used a very long discussion
between Faramir and Frodo to sway Faramir towards letting Frodo go.
> "Show just how fucked Gondor is."
I would add to my above description that the journey to Gondor was to
provide in a physical way the conviction that Faramir receives after the
long discussion in the book, but your point is actually better.
> (Remember when Star Wars Episode One wasn't out yet, and we had the
No, but I blame MTV for my decrease attenti- OOH SHINEY!
> > Gollum was amazing, from just about all angles. the cuts during his
> > soliliquay were a pity (playing to the kiddie audience?), but his last
> > scene showed just how well Jackson could get inside a character. most
> > sorely missed dialogue? "Don't want fish." wahhhh!!!!!!
>
> Observation on Gollum's soliliquy, taken from both times I've seen the
> movie now: everyone in the audience laughs at it, right up until Gollum
> whispers "murderer." Then suddenly everyone starts taking it dead
> seriously. It's great -- as much fun as watching the screen is,
> watching the audience's reaction is more fun.
I thought it quite a clever and interesting take on the talking to
yourself schtick/insanity.
The argument starts with Gollum obviously talking to himself, and very
quickly we fall into the pattern of speaker associated with facial
expression, side of face, and lighting, until all of a sudden we see
distinct shots from either side, portraying Smeagol and Gollum
as a separate entities. At the end, the camera starts panning between the
two sides again, to remind us that it was just on person/thing.
>
> > Treebeard definitely looked like leisurely pulling walls to bits just
> > for something to do after the fun was entirely within character. NOT
> > ENOUGH SCREENTIME. FILM NEEDS TO BE LONGER.
>
> Yes. I especially like the on-fire Ent ducking into the water.
ENTS need to be bigger (wider, thicker, whatever). Because of their
height, they seemed too skinny.
Also, I missed the part where the trees actually came alive to participate
in the fight, although I realize that explaining that would have been just
one more relatively minor thing to have to explain, so just sticking to
Ents was easier but effective.
> "Watch me skateboard down this flight of stone steps on a stolen
> Uruk-hai shield while firing arrows the whole way down, land at the
> bottom in a big pile of Uruks, impale one on the shield, and then draw
> my two swords."
CONFUSING SWORDS WITH VERY LONG KNIVES *PLINK*.
Jeremy Impson
> Stephenls <step...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > I think Faramir is just being given a character arc. Jackson seems
> > really, really big on taking characters that had static personalities in
> > the books and giving them dynamic personalities in the movies. Thus,
> > anyone who's going to be noble by the end of the third movie /isn't/
> > noble when we first meet them.
>
> and that makes a not bad point a very very very good one. damn. and
> I was *doubting* Jackson for a day or two there!
In the Director's Commentary for one of the new Star Wars movies, Lucas
made an off-hand comment about all of the movies, including the first
three. He said, in different words, that the dialogue is the least
important thing for him. What is seen is most important, and what is
heard (musically and then via sound effects) second. These are important
for the contiuation of his stylistic themes. Dialogue is only there as a
last resort, really.
Anyways, after thinking about this for a while, I forgave him for
_Phantom_, and for almost everything else I didn't like about his movies
(except for making Greedo shoot first).
Jeremy Impson
I'm not accusing anyone, but...
When I hear someone say that something looks fake, as in "Spiderman's web
swining looked fake", or "Pamela Anderson's breasts look fake"... oh wait,
strike that last one..
Anyway, I ask "Oh, and what's it supposed to look like?"
I saw a bicyclist get hit by a car, right in front of mine eyes. The car
turned left in an intersection and cut off the cyclist, who was traveling
very quickly in the opposite direction. The cyclist went FLYING through
the air.
It looked fake, because I've never seen it before.
Louis Nick III
> Darla Vladschyk said:
> > Dean Lenort <dean....@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >... the person that appeared to enjoy it
> > >the most was the one person who had never read the books.
> >
> > I never read the books. Neither has Vlad. So there you have it!
>
> I read TTT again last night. Yes. In one night. No, I didn't skim. Yes,
> I got every nuance. I just read fast. Quit bugging me.
This is cheating, because you picked the longest night of the year in
which to read it.
Also, I liked it, and haven't read the book, but I didn't find it as
good as the first one. It had some great moments, and, well, the third
act was eye-boggling. I really really liked the trees' assault at the
end. But all in all, it felt like what I understand it was based on: a
footnote. Good clean fun, all in all, though.
-LAN3
Happy Soltice!
Ben Wolfson
<ja...@vandenberg.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
>I read TTT again last night. Yes. In one night. No, I didn't skim. Yes,
>I got every nuance. I just read fast. Quit bugging me.
That's not really that impressive; they're pretty quick reads when you're
re-reading them.
--
You're going to set me up as a kind of slovenly attached pig that
Jack Kornfeld can slice down in his violent zen compassion?
-- Larry Block
Bryce Utting
> In the Director's Commentary for one of the new Star Wars movies, Lucas
> made an off-hand comment about all of the movies, including the first
> three. He said, in different words, that the dialogue is the least
> important thing for him. What is seen is most important, and what is
> heard (musically and then via sound effects) second. These are important
> for the contiuation of his stylistic themes. Dialogue is only there as a
> last resort, really.
>
> Anyways, after thinking about this for a while, I forgave him for
> _Phantom_, and for almost everything else I didn't like about his movies
> (except for making Greedo shoot first).
yahbut Lucas couldn't compose a shot to express any damn thing worth a
crap. an aesthetic worldview is all well and good, IF YOU'RE ANY GOOD
AT IT. I've seen spam that's more visually expressive than anything
Lucas has done since, ohhhhhh, American Graffiti. (unless... who was
DOP on that? or maybe it's just that GL hasn't shot any shiny cars at
night since.)
Jackson has a love of cinema that goes right back to Griffith, Mack
Sennett, and the Lumieres, taking in Burton, Kubrick, Scott, Kurosawa,
Bergman, Hitchcock, Ray Harryhausen and a host of others along the
way, and an ability behind the camera that makes it all pay off.
check the *unbelievably* expressive shot of Sam teared up immediately
after the flight from Moria, and tell me if Lucas has ever in his life
been within a hundred miles of pulling that off. (rapport with the
actors helped too, but consider the composition, along with the
editing that put it in place.) the man knows what he's doing, and has
raw talent. Lucas is Beavis with a budget, minus the tit fetish.
butting (a fan since Bad Taste)
Stephenls
> In the Director's Commentary for one of the new Star Wars movies,
> Lucas made an off-hand comment about all of the movies, including the
> first three. He said, in different words, that the dialogue is the
> least important thing for him. What is seen is most important, and
> what is heard (musically and then via sound effects) second. These
> are important for the contiuation of his stylistic themes. Dialogue
> is only there as a last resort, really.
> Anyways, after thinking about this for a while, I forgave him for
> _Phantom_, and for almost everything else I didn't like about his
> movies (except for making Greedo shoot first).
I disagree. I strongly disagree.
The fact that he made a conscious decision to not care if the dialogue
is good or not doesn't make the dialogue not be bad. It just means that
he's slacking at dialogue composition, rather than incompetent at it. I
don't really think proper grammar or spelling in my posts are important
when compared to, say, content, but that doesn't mean I don't put any
effort into making sure my grammar and spelling are up to snuff.
Also, the dialogue in _Phantom_ is miles worse than the dialogue in the
original three, and at least kilometers worse than the dialogue in
_Clones_.
Mind you, I forgive him for _Phantom_ too, but I do so because of the
lightsaber fight at the end. Darth Maul was neat; I did a painting of
him for my art class a couple years ago. I really like doing lightsaber
effects with airbrushes.
--
Stephenls
Geek
Zixia
> In the Director's Commentary for one of the new Star Wars movies,
> Lucas made an off-hand comment about all of the movies, including
> the first three. He said, in different words, that the dialogue is
> the least important thing for him. What is seen is most
> important, and what is heard (musically and then via sound
> effects) second. These are important for the contiuation of his
> stylistic themes. Dialogue is only there as a last resort,
> really.
>
> Anyways, after thinking about this for a while, I forgave him for
> _Phantom_, and for almost everything else I didn't like about his
> movies (except for making Greedo shoot first).
I haven't forgiven him for The Phantom Menace, because it really is a
bad film. I tried listening to the commentary a little while back and,
while the opening of the film is actually quite good, as soon as Jar
Jar comes on-screen the whole film goes to pot. There is a dumb
creature actually like an idiot, then a trip to see another stupid
creature over-act, another trip through some water that is almost
completely pointless and isn't helped by the Jedi being entirely
uninvolved in the happenings, and then I could watch no more. It was
that bad.
I, too, heard Lucas speak of the music being so important. All that
did for me was explain why it was so damn intrusive in Attack of the
Clones. When I watched Episode II the first time I noticed all too
much how the music relentlessly continued, and the second time I saw it
I was able to confirm my suspicion that there wasn't a gap in the
soundtrack for a good two hours. Hey, Lucas, I can see what's
happening on the screen, TURN THAT FUKKING MUSIC OFF! It becomes
annoying after a while.
This is also a reason why I started to dislike the X-Files after a
while, because Snow's music just kept on going and going and going
throughout the episodes, rather than punctuating moments. It was just
there.
Sherilyn
>
> I haven't forgiven him for The Phantom Menace, because it really is a
> bad film.
Sure, but that was only the first one! The last three were real
stonkers, I'm sure you'll agree!
--
Sherilyn
"[Sherilyn] isn't poking fun - [she] is manipulating people...for some
deranged reason...If it weren't about sigs it would be about something
else, like...Lisp expressions" -Tony Wright barks in dl. Translations?
talysman
maybe it's because lucas doesn't do what he does best. jackson does
what he does best; he's good at those highly emotional scenes in LotR
and also "heavenly creatures" (that movie is simply AMAZING. it will
wrench you.)
what did lucas do best? as far as I'm concerned, his best movie was
THX 1138. it's the OPPOSITE of emotional, and in fact the opposite
of "star wars". lucas does well at subtle and disturbing.
so, of course, he NEVER DOES subtle and disturbing.
instead, he does pumped-up propaganda about reviving
obsolete elitist
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Kevin S. Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> You read rec.food.cooking? Isn't it filled with insane bozos snapping
>> and snarling at one another? If not, can we make it happen?
>>
>> I've only seen the ocassional spillover from rec.food.cooking into
>> alt.food.barbecue. It wasn't pretty.
>
>That's because barbecuing is *NOT* cooking.
I believe you're supposed to crosspost this sort of thing, Jeremy.
--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a University Somewhere in Idaho
"Sometimes I almost feel/Just like a human being"
Glenn Knickerbocker
>very quickly in the opposite direction. The cyclist went FLYING through
>the air.
>
>It looked fake, because I've never seen it before.
I saw a deer run across the highway into a speeding car and literally
flip end over end 12 feet in the air. It must have been fake, because,
by the time we got back, the deer had apparently gotten up and run away.
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr "The notion of objecting to a fake Web
ŹR site on the grounds that it might possibly incite other people
to do bad things is so dangerous to our constitutionally protected
freedoms that it must never be mentioned, even in jest." --Matt McIrvin
Zixia
> Zixia <ab...@clu.org.uk> writes:
>
>> I haven't forgiven him for The Phantom Menace, because it really
>> is a bad film.
>
> Sure, but that was only the first one! The last three were real
> stonkers, I'm sure you'll agree!
What are the odds that, in 10 years time or so, we are treated to a new
trilogy of films to accompany the three Lord of the Rings films that
Jackson has crafted, and that the films suck as much arse as the new
Star Wars films?
Beable van Polasm
> Bryce Utting <but...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
> >
> > Jackson has a love of cinema {BLAH BLAH BLAH YADDAH YADDAH MONEY
> > IN THE BANK SUCK SUCK KISS KISSY KISS KISS} and has raw talent.
> > Lucas is Beavis with a budget, minus the tit fetish.
>
> maybe it's because lucas doesn't do what he does best. jackson does
> what he does best; he's good at those highly emotional scenes in LotR
> and also "heavenly creatures" (that movie is simply AMAZING. it will
> wrench you.)
What about on the "OFFICIAL LOTR web page"? It says
"2 GOLDEN GLOBE NOMINATIONS: BEST PICTURE and BEST DIRECTOR".
http://www.lordoftherings.net/
HAW HAW HAW! Didn't Ricky Schroeder win a Golden Globe for "Silver
Spoons"? And these guys are penguining about just being NOMINATED!
COME BACK WHEN YOU WIN A REAL AWARD, PETER JACKSON! COME AND TELL
US WHEN YOU WIN A GRAMMY!
> instead, he does pumped-up propaganda about reviving
> obsolete elitist
CRAP!
Stephenls
> What are the odds that, in 10 years time or so, we are treated to a
> new trilogy of films to accompany the three Lord of the Rings films
> that Jackson has crafted, and that the films suck as much arse as the
> new Star Wars films?
I fully expect to see movies based on The Hobbit and The Silmarillion
within the next two decades. The Hobbit probably won't suck, since IIRC
it's being speculated on as a movie to be made directly after the
release of Return of the King so that Ian Holm can still be made to look
like he did in the bit of the Fellowship intro where he finds the One
Ring.
OTOH, the Silmarillion movies will most likely be made twenty years from
now, be heavily altered or invented (since most of the Silmarillion
doesn't actually have /stories/, just events), and really, really suck.
But I don't care. Because I'll have the double-disc and quintouple-disc
versions of all three LotR movies, and thus my enjoyment of them won't
be ruined by a senile Peter Jackson doing them over with all new special
effects and making the older versions impossible to find.
--
Stephenls
Geek
Stephenls
> I saw a deer run across the highway into a speeding car and literally
> flip end over end 12 feet in the air. It must have been fake,
> because, by the time we got back, the deer had apparently gotten up
> and run away.
I saw the same thing, once. Only I actually saw it get up and run away
into the woods afterwards.
Apparently deer have evolved immunity to road fatalities.
--
Stephenls
Geek
Dean Lenort
> In summary: WHAT HATH JACKSON WROUGHT?
AND ANOTHER THING (that I just remembered), what's up with the two towers
thing? In the books the two towers are Minas Tirith (Anor if you prefer)
and Minas Morgul (Ithil if you prefer) while the movie just rams Isengard
and Barad-dūr down our throats. That annoyed the heck out of me (among
many things).
And like I said in my commentary on the first movie, changing things that
needed to be changed for time reasons are okay by me, but changing things
that didn't have any apparent need to be changed just pisses me off.
--
Dean Lenort | Hate is a strong word. It's the right word,
dean....@att.net | but it's still a strong word. - Jaffo
Nick Bensema
talysman <taly...@globalsurrealism.com> wrote:
>
>maybe it's because lucas doesn't do what he does best. jackson does
>what he does best; he's good at those highly emotional scenes in LotR
>and also "heavenly creatures" (that movie is simply AMAZING. it will
>wrench you.)
Yes. There were many scenes in the middle with the elf chyk, and she
is so beautiful I am afraid to look at the screen because she'll know
I'm looking and shoot me a dirty look or something.
--
Nick Bensema <ni...@io.com> ICQ#2135445
==== ======= ============== http://www.io.com/~nickb/
talysman
> Zixia wrote:
>
> > What are the odds that, in 10 years time or so, we are treated to a
> > new trilogy of films to accompany the three Lord of the Rings films
> > that Jackson has crafted, and that the films suck as much arse as the
> > new Star Wars films?
>
> I fully expect to see movies based on The Hobbit and The Silmarillion
> within the next two decades. The Hobbit probably won't suck, since IIRC
> it's being speculated on as a movie to be made directly after the
> release of Return of the King so that Ian Holm can still be made to look
> like he did in the bit of the Fellowship intro where he finds the One
> Ring.
>
> OTOH, the Silmarillion movies will most likely be made twenty years from
> now, be heavily altered or invented (since most of the Silmarillion
> doesn't actually have /stories/, just events), and really, really suck.
I am guessing they will not do a Silmarillion movie or any of the
Lost Tales books, but will instead take the individual stories and
flesh them out. thus, we may see "LotR: Erendil", "LotR: Beren and
Luthien", and "LotR: the Fall of Numenor".
which might not suck. that Stuart Gordon guy didn't do such a bad
job expanding Lovecraft stories and directing them. true, they're
cheesy, and we would want Jackson to do a *better* job on "Erendil"
than Gordon did on "From Beyond".
however, if I see ads for "LotR Episode One: the Phantom Morgoth"
or "Gollum's First Christmas", I will scream.
Joseph Michael Bay
>On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Dean Lenort <dean....@att.net> beabled:
>> In summary: WHAT HATH JACKSON WROUGHT?
>AND ANOTHER THING (that I just remembered), what's up with the two towers
>thing? In the books the two towers are Minas Tirith (Anor if you prefer)
>and Minas Morgul (Ithil if you prefer) while the movie just rams Isengard
>and Barad-dur down our throats.
Ouch.
STOP CAKEHOLING ISENGARD AND BARAD DUR!
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ DO NOT PRESS
When encryption is outlawed, om;u h$g9!ap k#-j tv*d$]p.
Stephenls
> however, if I see ads for "LotR Episode One: the Phantom Morgoth"
> or "Gollum's First Christmas", I will scream.
Oh, c'mon. You know you want to see the Gollum Christmas Special.
Hey, it'd be better than Jim Carey's How The Grinch Stole Christmas.
--
Stephenls
Geek
Dean Lenort
> [...] thus, we may see "LotR: Erendil", "LotR: Beren and
> Luthien", and "LotR: the Fall of Numenor".
Erendil?
> [...] and we would want Jackson to do a *better* job on "Erendil"
> than Gordon did on "From Beyond".
Erendil?
After you did this twice, I realized it could be an accident and that you
were TROLLING. What I'm not sure of is whether you're abusing the name
Elindil or Eärendil. Either way you're a bad talysman, no biscuit!
> however, if I see ads for "LotR Episode One: the Phantom Morgoth"
> or "Gollum's First Christmas", I will scream.
I'll be up on the clocktower.
--
Dean Lenort | Cry Havoc! And let slip the dogs of crochet!
dean....@att.net | -- Theresa Willis
Jim Vandewalker
<dean....@att.net> wrote:
>
> Erendil?
>
> After you did this twice, I realized it could be an accident and that you
> were TROLLING. What I'm not sure of is whether you're abusing the name
> Elindil or Eärendil. Either way you're a bad talysman, no biscuit!
>
> I'll be up on the clocktower.
With Eörwig? Or ‘arwax?
--
Jim the Dead Guy
Hexar le Saipe
sun...@seanet.com wrote on 12/23/02 10:36 pm:
>
> Also, I liked it, and haven't read the book, but I didn't find it as
> good as the first one.
The only real problem that TTT has is that it is the 2nd act of a three act
play. It doesn't work quite as well as a stand alone book or stand alone
movie.
Reverend Doctor Hexar le Saipe
Goddamn Electric
Jasin Zujovic
> > In summary: WHAT HATH JACKSON WROUGHT?
>
> AND ANOTHER THING (that I just remembered), what's up with the two towers
> thing? In the books the two towers are Minas Tirith (Anor if you prefer)
> and Minas Morgul (Ithil if you prefer) while the movie just rams Isengard
> and Barad-dūr down our throats. That annoyed the heck out of me (among
> many things).
>
> And like I said in my commentary on the first movie, changing things that
> needed to be changed for time reasons are okay by me, but changing things
> that didn't have any apparent need to be changed just pisses me off.
I think the two towers (in the books) are Isengard and Cirith Ungol, Book
Three being all about the struggle against Isengard and Book Four about
Frodo's and Sam's (mis)adventure at Cirith Ungol.
--
Jasin Zujovic
jzuj...@inet.hr
Dean Lenort
> Dean Lenort wrote:
>
> > AND ANOTHER THING (that I just remembered), what's up with the two towers
> > thing? In the books the two towers are Minas Tirith (Anor if you prefer)
> > and Minas Morgul (Ithil if you prefer) while the movie just rams Isengard
> > and Barad-dūr down our throats. That annoyed the heck out of me (among
> > many things).
>
> I think the two towers (in the books) are Isengard and Cirith Ungol, Book
> Three being all about the struggle against Isengard and Book Four about
> Frodo's and Sam's (mis)adventure at Cirith Ungol.
Hmm, if this wasn't UNSENET I'd say something along the lines of "That's an
interesting point. For some reason I made the decision some time ago that
the Two Towers referred to Tirith and Morgul. Perhaps it was based on some
of the things that Faramir says at in the last few pages of "The Forbidden
Pool" where references are made to "...Minis Ithil, the twin sister of our
own city." and then "Shall there be two cities of Minas Morgul..." (the
quick scan I was willing to put into the search only turned up these likely
choices). And while Isengard does figure much more prominently in the book
than either of the other towers, it stands apart from them both so much
that pairing it up with either just doesn't seem to ring true. And with
that said I think we agree that making the two towers to blatantly be
Isengard and Barad-dūr, as was done in the movie, is definitely wrong."
But this is UNSENET so instead my reply to your comment has to instead be
"YOU ARE A FAGG0RT AND OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE BOOKS TO MAEK SUCH
AN ID1OTIC CLAME!!1! PL0NK!!! ALSO, THERE'S ONLY THREE BOOKS, NOT SIX AS
YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING!!! DOUBLE PL0NK!!!"
--
Dean Lenort | Because if you don't check your facts, how can
dean.lenort | you be SURE you're posting nonsense????
@att.net | -- Beable van Polasm
Rich Holmes
> With Eörwig? Or ‘arwax?
Precisely. If some major studio isn't doing "Bored of the Rings" for
release in December 2004, some major studio needs its head examined,
as if that weren't already obvious. I'd nominate Terry Gilliam to
direct, but he's got enough problems.
--
- Doctroid Doctroid Holmes <http://www.richholmes.net/doctroid/>
Sewing buttons is just about the easiest thing you can do with a
needle and thread, aside from hurting yourself. -- Ben Wolfson
Matt McIrvin
ni...@io.com (Nick Bensema) wrote:
> Yes. There were many scenes in the middle with the elf chyk, and she
> is so beautiful I am afraid to look at the screen because she'll know
> I'm looking and shoot me a dirty look or something.
Just concentrate on her overbite.
--
Matt McIrvin http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/
Jasin Zujovic
Dean Lenort
> Dean Lenort wrote:
>
> > Hmm, if this wasn't UNSENET I'd say something along the lines of "That's an
> > interesting point. [...]
> >
> > But this is UNSENET so instead my reply to your comment has to instead be
> > "YOU ARE A FAGG0RT AND OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE BOOKS TO MAEK SUCH
> > AN ID1OTIC CLAME!!1! PL0NK!!! ALSO, THERE'S ONLY THREE BOOKS, NOT SIX AS
> > YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING!!! DOUBLE PL0NK!!!"
>
> And I really can't argue with that, now, can I?
It's like you're not even trying! It's not like you even need to go to
other newsgroups as ARK has more than enough sniping to provide a fine
example of how this sort of "argument" is supposed to go.
Let me help you out. First off, a good way to start is to make up some
outrageous statement based on my name. Something along the lines of "WITH
A NAME LIKE LENORT IT'S NO SURPRISE THAT YOU'RE NOT INTELLIGENT ENUF TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING. WHY DON'T YOU GET BACK TO FRANCE WHERE YOU
BELONG YOU CHEESE EATING SURRENDER MONKEY!!!".
Now it doesn't really matter that I'm not at all French, or that this reply
doesn't contain any actually arguments, these types of things are _not at
all important_ in an USENET debate! What is important is the occasional
typo, lots of exclamation points (!!!! <- here's some extras), and, this is
entirely optional, a pop-culture reference or two (in this case a Simpson's
quote). And of course please keep the argument going long after other's
are bored to tears by the whole thing as a peaceful resolution is NOT
ALLOWED.
While you could take the high road and continue with reasoned debate while
the other person continues to post idiocy, that kind of thing isn't really
appropriate and sets a poor example for others. However, if you insist
please be sure to use "ad hominem" or its equivalent on occasion as its use
is _required_ in any discourse of that type.
HTH!
--
Dean Lenort dean....@att.net
European: 'American culture is all crap'
American: 'Why don't you come over here and say that and I'll KICK YOUR ASS'
- Tom Thornhill in alt.religion.kibology on cultural differences
Beable van Polasm
> Dean Lenort wrote:
> >
> > But this is UNSENET so instead my reply to your comment has to
> > instead be "YOU ARE A FAGG0RT AND OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE
> > BOOKS TO MAEK SUCH AN ID1OTIC CLAME!!1! PL0NK!!! ALSO, THERE'S
> > ONLY THREE BOOKS, NOT SIX AS YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING!!! DOUBLE
> > PL0NK!!!"
>
> And I really can't argue with that, now, can I?
Well you could if you tried, "Jasin Zujovic", if that IS your REAL name!
This is ARK, baybee, and you are REQUIRED to argue with ANYTHING, even
if you know that you are TOTALLY WRONG. "Why?" you may ask. Well I'll
tell you: IT'S A HARD JOB BUT SOMEBODY'S GOT TO DO IT! Now get in there
and ARGUE, or else I will PLONK you with EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!1!
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
<snip useful lesson on chatroom netiquette>
> However, if you insist
>please be sure to use "ad hominem" or its equivalent on occasion as its use
>is _required_ in any discourse of that type.
>
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that I toss out the phrase "ad
hominem" from time to time, or that I actually call you a
cheese-eating surrender monkey?
Dean Lenort
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 15:20:40 GMT, Dean Lenort <dean....@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip useful lesson on chatroom netiquette>
>
> > However, if you insist
> >please be sure to use "ad hominem" or its equivalent on occasion as its use
> >is _required_ in any discourse of that type.
> >
> I'm confused. Are you suggesting that I toss out the phrase "ad
> hominem" from time to time, or that I actually call you a
> cheese-eating surrender monkey?
I don't know. I don't know as much about Japanese men as you do.
(See just how easy it can be, Jasin? My response has absolutely *NOTHING*
to do with what SniveK SnosliW wrote! It's just THAT easy! And yes, I
realize I didn't throw in any typos or exclamation points which are
generally figure prominently in any USENET debate, but as I was quoting
someone else's earlier work the standard posting style wouldn't have worked
in this particular context. This is sort of an advanced topic so don't
feel pressured to step up to using anything other than the YUO == FAGG0RT
for the time being in your early debates.)
--
Dean Lenort | WITHOUT a through discussion of FINSLER SPACE
dean.lenort | your remarks are incompetent...
@att.net | -- George Hammond
Kevin S. Wilson
wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, res...@spro.net (Kevin S. Wilson) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 15:20:40 GMT, Dean Lenort <dean....@att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip useful lesson on chatroom netiquette>
>>
>> > However, if you insist
>> >please be sure to use "ad hominem" or its equivalent on occasion as its use
>> >is _required_ in any discourse of that type.
>> >
>> I'm confused. Are you suggesting that I toss out the phrase "ad
>> hominem" from time to time, or that I actually call you a
>> cheese-eating surrender monkey?
>
>I don't know. I don't know as much about Japanese men as you do.
Maybe so. But at least I don't think Jerry Lewis is a comedic genius,
you cheese-eating surrender monkey.
Matt McIrvin
Dean Lenort <dean....@att.net> wrote:
> Hmm, if this wasn't UNSENET I'd say something along the lines of "That's an
> interesting point. For some reason I made the decision some time ago that
> the Two Towers referred to Tirith and Morgul. Perhaps it was based on some
> of the things that Faramir says at in the last few pages of "The Forbidden
> Pool" where references are made to "...Minis Ithil, the twin sister of our
> own city." and then "Shall there be two cities of Minas Morgul..." (the
> quick scan I was willing to put into the search only turned up these likely
> choices). And while Isengard does figure much more prominently in the book
> than either of the other towers, it stands apart from them both so much
> that pairing it up with either just doesn't seem to ring true. And with
> that said I think we agree that making the two towers to blatantly be
> Isengard and Barad-dūr, as was done in the movie, is definitely wrong."
You know that one bit at Osgiliath where Samwise says "We're not even
supposed to be here"?
I think that line was written just for you.
Dean Lenort
> You know that one bit at Osgiliath where Samwise says "We're not even
> supposed to be here"?
>
> I think that line was written just for you.
I thought I remember you saying that you hadn't read the books in more than
10 years or so and yet you remember that at in no part of the books does
anyone (well, other than Faramir and Boromir being mentioned as having been
there) even visit Osgiliath? Jinkies!
As for my own level of knowledge, I turned in my "Tolkien Scholar" merit
badge after reading this bit in the paper a couple of days ago that talked
about things I had never even heard of. Things like Odo, the fifth Hobbit
that was in the origninal story but later cut and how Frodo's name had
originally been "Bingo". IANMTU!
Sure, I've read the Silmarillion a few times and will mock people who make
up things like Erendil (bad talysman!) and will know what people are
talking about when they talk about the sad story of Túrin (the Mormegil)
and Níniel (nee Nienor), but I don't even merit the merit badge any more.
--
Dean Lenort dean....@att.net
"Here, have a lutefisk. ><>" - Lupus Yonderboy
Daniel Buettner
> Well you could if you tried, "Jasin Zujovic", if that IS your REAL name!
> This is ARK, baybee, and you are REQUIRED to argue with ANYTHING, even
> if you know that you are TOTALLY WRONG. "Why?" you may ask. Well I'll
> tell you: IT'S A HARD JOB BUT SOMEBODY'S GOT TO DO IT! Now get in there
> and ARGUE, or else I will PLONK you with EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!1!
Do you have ANY IDEA what you are talking about, YOU
MORoN??? I mean SERIOUSLY! It costs hundreds (IF NOT
THOUSANDS) of dollars (AMERICAN ONES! not like your
Austrian Pesos!) to send each UNSENET message all of the way
around the world. QUIT ARGUING ABOUT TH1NGS FOR THE SAKE OF
ARGUING! YUO R WORSE THAN HILTER!@!!!!
--
~
~
~
"Daniel Buettner" line 4 of 4 --100%--
Gregory King
(Wow, Beable's posting all the way from next year! I guess the world
WON"T end at midnight, after all!)
Beable van Polasm <bea...@NOS.PAM.beable.com.THANKS> wrote:
> Jasin Zujovic <jzuj...@inet.hr> writes:
>
> > Dean Lenort wrote:
> > >
> > > But this is UNSENET so instead my reply to your comment has to
> > > instead be "YOU ARE A FAGG0RT AND OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE
> > > BOOKS TO MAEK SUCH AN ID1OTIC CLAME!!1! PL0NK!!! ALSO, THERE'S
> > > ONLY THREE BOOKS, NOT SIX AS YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING!!! DOUBLE
> > > PL0NK!!!"
> >
> > And I really can't argue with that, now, can I?
>
> Well you could if you tried, "Jasin Zujovic", if that IS your REAL name!
> This is ARK, baybee, and you are REQUIRED to argue with ANYTHING, even
> if you know that you are TOTALLY WRONG.
What a load of HORSE DOODY! I don't have to ARGUE with ANYONE I choose
NOT TO, and I REFUSE to ARGUE with the likes of YOU!
FOU = YOGURT!!!
--
Greg
http://flyingpawn.com
Joseph Michael Bay
>While you could take the high road and continue with reasoned debate while
>the other person continues to post idiocy, that kind of thing isn't really
>appropriate and sets a poor example for others. However, if you insist
>please be sure to use "ad hominem" or its equivalent on occasion as its use
>is _required_ in any discourse of that type.
I believe it's called "ad hominum", although "a dominum" would
also be accpetable.
Jacob W. Haller
> Do you have ANY IDEA what you are talking about, YOU
> MORoN??? I mean SERIOUSLY! It costs hundreds (IF NOT
> THOUSANDS) of dollars (AMERICAN ONES! not like your
> Austrian Pesos!) to send each UNSENET message all of the way
> around the world. QUIT ARGUING ABOUT TH1NGS FOR THE SAKE OF
> ARGUING! YUO R WORSE THAN HILTER!@!!!!
NICE TRY L0ZAR! But binary newsgropuses EXIST, thereby invalidating
your ENTIRE ARGUMENT! Take that, BANDWIDTH-MISER! Just hit 'DELETE'!
Freedom of speech means you can't tell me to shut up!
Why, when everyone speaks of Beable van Polasm, is there a conspiracy of
silence about Daniel Buettner? I for one &c. &c.
Yours in bondage,
jwgh
--
"I still wish I looked like Shania Twain. And sang like somebody else."
- Paula <mmmtoblerone at earthlink.ent> in alt.religion.kibology
9 Dec 2002 <1fmw7bm.1uzgtrw1dvbxm4N%mmmtob...@earthlink.ent>
Ben Wolfson
>Daniel Buettner <buet...@cse.unl.edu> wrote:
>
>> Do you have ANY IDEA what you are talking about, YOU
>> MORoN??? I mean SERIOUSLY! It costs hundreds (IF NOT
>> THOUSANDS) of dollars (AMERICAN ONES! not like your
>> Austrian Pesos!) to send each UNSENET message all of the way
>> around the world. QUIT ARGUING ABOUT TH1NGS FOR THE SAKE OF
>> ARGUING! YUO R WORSE THAN HILTER!@!!!!
>
>NICE TRY L0ZAR! But binary newsgropuses EXIST, thereby invalidating
>your ENTIRE ARGUMENT! Take that, BANDWIDTH-MISER! Just hit 'DELETE'!
>Freedom of speech means you can't tell me to shut up!
But that's totally different. Binary newsgroups are used for the
transmission of data, which is represented as a series of ones and zeroes.
So there are only 2 possible options for each individual element of a
message. In contrast, in non-binary newsgroups, which are used for the
transmission of text messages, the messages are composed of LETTERS and
other CHARACTERS used in writing, of which English has over 150! So you
need EIGHT bits to represent a single letter in a text message, whereas a
BINARY message only needs one, because it can be only "0" or "1". You
might think "ok well but that only means that given a binary and a text
message of equal length, the binary one is 1/8th as big" but you're WRONG,
because we're dealing with exponents here. In fact in order to figure out
how big a binary message is relative to a text message of the same length,
you have to take the eigth ROOT of the size of the text message. So if
your text message is 136543298765721 characters long, the binary message is
only 59 bits long. So really the BINARY newsgroups are much more
space-efficient than the other newsgroups, and besides there are only two
of them anyway so the marginal cost is much less.
--
You're going to set me up as a kind of slovenly attached pig that
Jack Kornfeld can slice down in his violent zen compassion?
-- Larry Block
Matt McIrvin
Dean Lenort <dean....@att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Matt McIrvin <mmci...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> > You know that one bit at Osgiliath where Samwise says "We're not even
> > supposed to be here"?
> >
> > I think that line was written just for you.
>
> I thought I remember you saying that you hadn't read the books in more than
> 10 years or so and yet you remember that at in no part of the books does
> anyone (well, other than Faramir and Boromir being mentioned as having been
> there) even visit Osgiliath? Jinkies!
Naw, I remembered because I had read you saying that.
Matt McIrvin
tzi...@radix.net (Gypsy) wrote:
> Funny, I don't remember you reading that. My library obviously
> needs updating. Feel free to send me any printed material you
> think I should have. (Might be a good idea to send some shelves,
> too - I prefer solid hardwood with enclosed backs and glass doors
> on the front [to keep out the cat fur].)
>
> E.(finding 3 of a kind to be a good deal)Holmes
Allow me to be the first to welcome you back. This last-minute
addition makes 2002 slightly less unpleasant on the whole.
Now I gotta go downstairs and celebrate that it's over.
Ethical Mirth Gas
> Also, I missed the part where the trees actually came alive to participate
> in the fight, although I realize that explaining that would have been just
> one more relatively minor thing to have to explain, so just sticking to
> Ents was easier but effective.
Probably the biggest disappointment of the movie for me. Sure, the
Ents and the flood of water were wonderful, but think how much better
it would have been to see Isengard attacked by an entire forest. I
went to the movie with visions of a carpet or a flood of trees
swarming down the mountain (slowly? rapidly?) in my head. It was the
one scene in the movie where my mental image was more spectacular than
what Jackson had on the screen.
SMTIRCAHIAGEHLT
Xcott Craver
>
> Probably the biggest disappointment of the movie for me. Sure, the
> Ents and the flood of water were wonderful, but think how much better
> it would have been to see Isengard attacked by an entire forest. I
> went to the movie with visions of a carpet or a flood of trees
> swarming down the mountain (slowly? rapidly?) in my head.
Just get the DVD version, and use one of those electronic
computers I've heard so much about to splice in the moving forest
scene from _Throne of Blood_. After colorizing it.
Easy peasy!
-X
Joseph Michael Bay
I promise I didn't read that before posting that other one.
Joseph Michael Bay
The really cool thing would have been to do it as a nod to
Kurosawa's _Throne of Blood_. Heh? HEH?
definitely what
Ben Allard <bal...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>I don't know what crowd you were in, but I certainly wasn't pleased with
>that scene. I think Maul's duel with Obi Wan and Ol'Wossname in ep I was
>better by far. Here is my synopsis of the Yoda v. Dukoo fight:
[SIGH NO PISCES]
>There. Now nobody has ANY reason to go see that movie.
You'll pay for this, Allard.
rone
--
New from the makers of Li'l Swimmers: Li'l Eaters. Edible underwear
that looks just like Mommy's and Daddy's! - Kibo
Lothar Kondolian
> stra...@email.unc.edu (Ethical Mirth Gas) writes:
>
> >Jeremy Impson <jdim...@acm.org> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.021223...@monster.apt.net>...
>
> >> Also, I missed the part where the trees actually came alive to participate
> >> in the fight, although I realize that explaining that would have been just
> >> one more relatively minor thing to have to explain, so just sticking to
> >> Ents was easier but effective.
>
> >Probably the biggest disappointment of the movie for me. Sure, the
> >Ents and the flood of water were wonderful, but think how much better
> >it would have been to see Isengard attacked by an entire forest. I
> >went to the movie with visions of a carpet or a flood of trees
> >swarming down the mountain (slowly? rapidly?) in my head. It was the
> >one scene in the movie where my mental image was more spectacular than
> >what Jackson had on the screen.
>
> The really cool thing would have been to do it as a nod to
> Kurosawa's _Throne of Blood_. Heh? HEH?
>
Huh?
Ethical Mirth Gas
> now you know how all of us who were fans going right back to Bad Taste
> felt when The Frighteners didn't get released here 'till TWO MONTHS
> after its merkin release. GRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Is it just me, or does it seem obvious to everyone that, in
retrospect, the Death-looking dude in The Frighteners was a rough
draft for the Ringwraiths?
SMTIRCAHIAGELT
Alex Suter
>The only real problem that TTT has is that it is the 2nd act of a three act
>play. It doesn't work quite as well as a stand alone book or stand alone
>movie.
I liked TTT more than I expected. Sure, it's a ripoff of the James
Bond series, but they make no bones about it. Hell, they actually kill
off James Bond right in the opening sequence. They've got Q, they've
got hot chyx, they've got explosions and a menace to the world. It's
Bond all the way down the line, except instead of a British accent and
a penchant for alcoholism, they've got Vin Diesel's patented All Duh
acting style.
All Duh, all the time, which is funny, because in reality he is quite
a clever guy.