Terminator 2: Judgement Day.... Read this
Ben
I noticed some things.
Some guy on the net thinks that when the Terminators were destroyed, John
Connor's name would change (maybe) because Kyle couldnt have told Sarah what
to call him. He also says that John should have disappeared, and Sarah
should be somewhere else. Or if John ended up with a different father his
features should have changed.
But it doesnt work that way. If it did, everything would return to 1984,
just before Sarah left her home when Kyle started to follow her, and history
would take its course. This did not happen. Sarah and John, and Dyson's wife
& son, Dr. Silverman, the staff at the mental institute, the police and more
people still know of what happened in 1984 and in 1994. They have photos and
surveillance camera footage.
The terminator evidence was not destroyed. Remember when the T-1000 pushed
the Terminator into that wheel thing and his arm got chopped off, the
remains of his arm were left in the machine, thus, Cyberdyne Systems would
have recovered it and continued work on the CPU.
Wouldn't Cyberdyne have a million backups? Not just Dyson's and the ones at
the company.
Think about it...
- Ben
Marc Howland
mention...
>
>Well I was watchin T2 last night, since I love the Terminator movies.
>I noticed some things.
> Think about it...
> - Ben
It's a movie, Ben.
Paul Day
Reality is a bonus on top of making $140million for the movie makers.
PD
Ben
>It's a movie, Ben.
REALLY? REALLY? ARE YOU SURE?
duh i knew that, but seeing its was a bazillion dollar film, james cameron
should have patched up these inconsistencies!
- so hahahaha
- Ben
"I'll be back" Arnold Schwarzenegger, The Terminator, 1984
Jeffery Elkington
Ben wrote:
>
> >It's a movie, Ben.
>
> REALLY? REALLY? ARE YOU SURE?
> duh i knew that, but seeing its was a bazillion dollar film, james cameron
> should have patched up these inconsistencies!
Why, the inconsistencies are only noticeable after you have seen the
film and by that time you have already paid for the ticket. You can put
special effects in trailers and ads. Why spend money on script writers
when spending then on special effects will get a better return.
> - so hahahaha
> - Ben
> "I'll be back" Arnold Schwarzenegger, The Terminator, 1984
When he first said that, I did not know he was talking about repeats
:-)
--
Jeffery Elkington
Standing in the Sunlight Howling at the Moon.
http://www.iinet.net.au/~westjim
ordos
ok i have some other thing to consider
how did skynet and the war come about? from the chip left behind in
terminator 1.. ok,but if they never sent arnie back in time then
skynet would never have been born/created
soo how can skynet send back something back in time if that thing is
the cause of it creation. if that makes any sense
hmm time travel is impossible anyway
oh and i think that the hand left behind in the machine,was there as
insurance in case they ever decide to do a number 3
_Gareth_
>The terminator evidence was not destroyed. Remember when the T-1000 pushed
>the Terminator into that wheel thing and his arm got chopped off, the
>remains of his arm were left in the machine, thus, Cyberdyne Systems would
>have recovered it and continued work on the CPU.
As you probably noticed in the film, the CPU was in the terminators
head. Not in his arm. Cyberdyne could have recovered the arm, and
learned how to build, well, more hydraulic arms. :)
_Gareth_
Computer Systems Engineering,
University of Adelaide
Judge Mental
Probably the only way to rationalise it is the 'multiple parallel timelines'
approach, where you start a fresh 'branch' whenever you disrupt the 'normal'
flow of events. The rules of cause and effect don't apply, 'cos you're
artificially introducing effects before causes (eg; a bloke that was never born
in timeline B sends back his mate to save his mum in timeline A, so that he is
... but only his intervention gets his mum knocked up).
BTW - there's no CPU in the arm, the Cyberdine one came out of the squashed
head.
Ben wrote:
> Well I was watchin T2 last night, since I love the Terminator movies.
> I noticed some things.
>
> Some guy on the net thinks that when the Terminators were destroyed, John
> Connor's name would change (maybe) because Kyle couldnt have told Sarah what
> <snip>
> The terminator evidence was not destroyed. Remember when the T-1000 pushed
> the Terminator into that wheel thing and his arm got chopped off, the
> remains of his arm were left in the machine, thus, Cyberdyne Systems would
> have recovered it and continued work on the CPU.
>
> Wouldn't Cyberdyne have a million backups? Not just Dyson's and the ones at
> the company.
>
> Think about it...
> - Ben
--
"Judge Mental" - not just a name, a way of life.
Paul Day
> duh i knew that, but seeing its was a bazillion dollar film, james cameron
> should have patched up these inconsistencies!
He could've pumped $5 billion into it and it still would've had
inconcsistencies in it - that's the problem with time-travel paradoxs! :-)
Don't you hate it when that happens?
PD
Jason Cornelius
news:36579f3d...@news.omen.net.au...
>On Sun, 22 Nov 1998 09:46:23 +0800, "Ben" <so...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
<snip>
>hmm time travel is impossible anyway
Says who?
Flying was impossible once too.
Transportation is still considered to this day to be science fiction, yet
scientists recently succesfully transported a photon from one sealed unit to
another.
Anyways.. That nuclear blast scene from the movie is still one of the all
time great effects for me.
Might seem morbid, but I can watch it over and over again :-p
Jason.
Mark Fletcher
possible but only in a very restricted way. Time travel becomes possible
once a time machine is built but only forward from that point in time. To
explain if MIT got all the bugs out of their shiny new TARDIS today the
entire future from that point is accessible for travel in both directions
but travel into the past from today is still impossible. For a good
fictional treatment of this may I suggest Timemaster by Robert L. Forward.
Somewhat unusually it also includes references to all the relevant
scientific papers and a challenge for his detractors to prove him wrong.
Fletch
Jason Cornelius wrote in message <738d8u$qb7$1...@news.iinet.net.au>...
Martin Livings
Cameron made T2 in a hurry, after the incredible flop of "The Abyss". He
needed a money spinner, and the whole production was extremely quick and
nasty, if expensive. Hence some incredibly stupid production mistakes
(like filming the entire sequence of the truck crashing through the
ballistrade from the wrong angle, then having to reverse the entire scene
in post-production), and leaving plot-holes that any half-respectable SF
author could have patched quite easily without affecting the story's
integrity (if that's the right word to use with Cameron's script). James
Cameron is an exceedingly lazy director and writer, best known for his
catchcry "We'll fix it in post-production". T2 was simply a rehash of the
original, re-ordered somewhat but using the exact same scenes (and often
even the exact same dialogue in those scenes..."Come with me if you want
to live"... "Get out..."...), and deserves no more attention than any of
the nasty direct-to-video sciffy-action films that continue to be churned
out (Do you complain about the stupid alien in "Within the Rock"? Or how
the plot of "Tomorrow Man" makes no sense?). Somehow, giving a film a
budget seems to lend it some kind of credibility, but T2 simply doesn't
deserve to be analysed. Just write it off as a dumb-as-shit action movie
and get on with your lives. It's much easier that way, and means there's
less crap in iinet.general to wade through.
yt MJL98 (for a better version of T2, try "Peacemaker" (1990) - it
actually succeeds where T2 fails, in creating a genuine confusion about
who is the good intruder and who is the bad intruder. Stars Robert
Forster, before he regained star status in Tarantino's "Jackie Brown".
Good stuff, much better than T2. As for time travel films that don't
screw up quite so badly, check out "Retroactive", a clever little flick,
like "Groundhog Day" done as a hard-edged SF thriller, with our very own
Kylie Travis doing something we thought we'd never see - ACTING!)
Paul Day <bon...@iinet.net.za> wrote:
Paul Day
> hmm time travel is impossible anyway
he, he. Ahh, I can see a big debate coming from that statement! Ordos,
last time I looked time travel definately wasn't impossible - Einstein
proved this in his special theory of relativity back in the early 1900s.
It is possible to go forwards - we just don't quite have the technology to
show this with a reasonable time space (however, we have proved it with
minute atomicly measured time-spaces). Today's Physics, however, does not
allow time travel backwards - but then humans are so un-developed in the
big scale of things it wouldn't surprise me if it was still possible.
PD
Zaccary Charlesworth
>like "Groundhog Day" done as a hard-edged SF thriller, with our
I loved Groundhog Day :)
Zac
Curtis Gibbs
Zaccary Charlesworth wrote:
Ditto, Zac....Groundhog Day had some awsome "life messages" if one
looked past Bill Murray's comedic brilliance.
Curt
Ben
THE ABYSS? A FLOP?? YOU EVIL EVIL PERSON! DIE! :-)
>(and often even the exact same dialogue in those scenes..."Come with me if
you want
>to live"... "Get out..."...),
"Come with me if u want to live" - I presume that in the future, John Connor
told the Terminator to tell Sarah that, as to remind her of Kyle and to
convince her that the Terminator was there to help.
"Get Out" - Skynet would have a set program that it fits into all the
Terminator's CPU. Unless the Terminator learns, it will use its set phrases
to achieve certain things. The T-1000 was programmed to think in order to be
polite, but in a situation like that, there is no time for politeness, so
the T-1000 referred to its set phrases.
:-)
- Ben
Ben
there is alternate realities. UNLESS, we have been sent back and there still
is a future. Still, if we are in the past, the future has not been created,
thus, the people who sent us back, could have destroyed themselves unless we
follow the exact same path.
Geddit?
Well, heres an example.
Race A (humans or not) creates time machine and sends one person back.
(Person A)
Race B (in past) recieves Person A. Race B's future (the one Person A came
from) has not been created yet, thus, Race A is destroyed, as is Person A.
But Race B follows the exact same path that Race A did, and creates a time
machine, which they send a person back in, and the cycle starts once again.
So until Race A or B breaks the cycle and does not develop time travel
(which will never happen) then the human race will keep going to that exact
moment in time and start all over again. So we will never die.
- Ben
Billy Shields
: You can't win when you start talking about time-travel paradox.
: Probably the only way to rationalise it is the 'multiple parallel timelines'
: approach, where you start a fresh 'branch' whenever you disrupt the 'normal'
: flow of events. The rules of cause and effect don't apply, 'cos you're
: artificially introducing effects before causes (eg; a bloke that was never born
: in timeline B sends back his mate to save his mum in timeline A, so that he is
: ... but only his intervention gets his mum knocked up).
: BTW - there's no CPU in the arm, the Cyberdine one came out of the squashed
: head.
Just to be pedantic, quantum theory doesn't rule out the possibilities
of time travel paradox. In fact quantum theory is full of paradox.
Take the classic example of Schrodinger's Cat. Schrodinger theorised
that if his cat was subatomic in size and put in a box it could exist
in two seemingly contradictory states at the same time (in this
example, dead and alive) but as soon as you opened the box to peek
inside you'd kill the cat.
This analogy has two morals:
1. The observer is an integral part of any system which breaks a
fundamental principle of classical science (which relies on the
observer being independant of the system he or she is observing).
A good example of this is where you emit a beam of light at a surface
with two very narrow slits in it. Light diffracts at such a slit.
These two spectrums interact when projected onto a surface to produce
a quantum interference pattern. Heres where it gets interesting: if
you try and determine which slit the photons pass through they choose
to go through one or the other. If you don't, then they seem to go
through both simultaneously (the same photon that is). Even if you
try and record this data onto a computer it changes the outcome.
2. Particles can exist in two seemingly contradictory states. An
example of this is where a subatomic particle is moving along a
surface (imagine it to be like a tabletop). In the macroscopic world
the particle would fall off the edge. In the quantum world, it
behaves in a seemingly random fashion. Half the time it "bounces"
away from this edge. Half the time it falls off. If you don't try
and determine which way it went it acts as it both fell off and
bounced off.
This has given rise to a certain school of though that believes in the
possibility of alternate universes. Opinions are split over whether
there are "other universes" (the multiverse theory) or whether we
exist in one of many diverging timelines. We just exist in one of
those realities. I hate to say it, but think of it like the "Sliding
Doors" plotline (where she makes the train in one reality but not in
another) except its at a subatomic level.
Such a theory doesn't necessarily discount the possibility of time
travel (and thus paradox).
:-)
Billy
Billy Shields
: A study of the theories of relativity show that time travel is in fact
: possible but only in a very restricted way. Time travel becomes possible
I think certain aspects of quantum theory go even further than that
leaving the possibility open of time travel backwards in time.
: once a time machine is built but only forward from that point in time. To
: explain if MIT got all the bugs out of their shiny new TARDIS today the
: entire future from that point is accessible for travel in both directions
: but travel into the past from today is still impossible. For a good
: fictional treatment of this may I suggest Timemaster by Robert L. Forward.
: Somewhat unusually it also includes references to all the relevant
: scientific papers and a challenge for his detractors to prove him wrong.
Theres a big controversy in the physics world between Stephen Hawking
and some other physicist (can't remember his name). Basically,
Hawking contends that the universe is symmetric. Entropy will cause
what we see as the end of the universe to be the beginning for
someone else. Fundamental to this is the principle that "information"
is not lost. If it is it breaks the theory. The one sticking point
with this is black holes. If nothing can escape a black hole then
that would break the theory. Hawking successfully proved that
black holes are "noisy". The smaller they are the "hotter" they are.
Hawking contends that information can theoretically be reconstructed
from this radiation. Others disagree.
The question is: if the universe is symmetric, how would time
travelling into the second half of the universe's lifespan (where the
flow of time is reversed) work?
Billy
Jeffery Elkington
<massive snip of some pretty cutting edge theories>
Congratulation. This newsgroup has just put more thought in to T2 than
James Cameron.
Zaccary Charlesworth
<snip>
Hmm. :)
Think of it like this. The universe is infinite, with an infinite amount of
possibilities. Each possibility has an outcome, no matter how large or
small. For each outcome, there is a matching timeline. So, for every
possibility(and outcome) there is a resulting reality. All run in paralel to
each other. All exist, yet they don't exist but they are yet to exist.
Furthermore, imagine that the time does not run in a straight line, but in
an circular motion around eachother, expanding inwardsly and outwardsly to
infinite.There is no beginning, or end to this circle, it just goes around
and around. Our existance as we know it is only one of these rings. Let's
assume that there is a space between each ring. If we could somehow enter
this space, we would be able to move backwards and fowards, around the
circle, entering at any point of time, future or past, in that circle. In
that way, a time machine(and time travel) would be possible.
If someone was to go back in time, and change something, we do not destroy
the circle, we simply become part of another, pre-existing line. And so it
would continue.
Zac
Paul Day
> Race A (humans or not) creates time machine and sends one person back.
> (Person A)
BAH BOM.
Nah, they couldn't send someone back. Current Quantumn Physics/Relativity
whatever does not support reverse time-travel. THink of forward time
travel as suspended animation. Like you freeze the time-traveller and then
un-freeze him 50 years later.
It's not quite like that but involves high speed (sub-light but close to
it) travel. The extreme high speed changes the space-time-continuium (now
there's a big word girls and boys, and one I know I just mis-spelt). For
example: Person A stays on earth at a relative speed of close to 0m/s.
Person B jumps in his Space ship and shoots of around the galaxy at close
to the speed of light (3.00 x10^8m/s) and comes back to Earth 10 years
later. But for person A who was travveling at a relative speed of 0m/s 50
years have passed compared to Person B's 10 years.
So who's up for a debate about wether or not an Electron can be considered
as a particle or a waveform? <grin>
PD
Paul Day
> If someone was to go back in time, and change something, we do not destroy
> the circle, we simply become part of another, pre-existing line. And so it
> would continue.
So what you're saying is that time itself is a 2 or 3 dimensional space.
So would that make Space time in _all_ realities (not just ours) now 6 or
7 Dimensional instead of 4? :-)
PD
Zaccary Charlesworth
>Zaccary Charlesworth <sa...@zcs.net.au> wrote:
>So would that make Space time in _all_ realities (not just ours) now 6 or
>7 Dimensional instead of 4? :-)
Basically, yes. There isn't neccesarily 4 dimensions (height, width, depth
and time(or whatever:))
I think more in terms of
'height relative to timecircle '(Ha) 'width releative to timecircle'(Wa)
'Depth relative to timecircle (Da) and time relative to time circle (Ta)
where a is any value from one to infinity
Therefore
Space Time (ST)= Ha * Wa * Da * Ta
ST therefore could be used as a reference point for time travel.
Zac
Paul Day
> 'height relative to timecircle '(Ha) 'width releative to timecircle'(Wa)
> 'Depth relative to timecircle (Da) and time relative to time circle (Ta)
> where a is any value from one to infinity
Don't you think it's a long conlusion to say our phsyical measurements are
directly related to our reality space?
PS
Ben
Travelling at the speed of light?
I have a theory.
Light Speed = 1x SOL (speed of light)
If light could be gripped, then it would pull the object gripping it at
almost 1x SOL or even the actual speed of light.
Just the same as using a towbar on a car, only with light.
Now in order to use this on a space craft, the spacecraft has a mechanism at
the front which fires a beam of light in any direction, and in an
immesurable time, grabs it. The only problems are, straght lines only,
unless you can use a mirror :-Þ
and how do you know where the hell your going? and when to stop?
Also this could cause problems in a space/time continuum. Holes, tears and
other things.....
- Ben
Zaccary Charlesworth
>Zaccary Charlesworth <sa...@zcs.net.au> wrote:
>Don't you think it's a long conlusion to say our phsyical measurements are
>directly related to our reality space?
No. Everything is relative to something. I think it's possible that we are
all related through more than the 3(4) dimensions.
Though i suppose before you were more meaning 5 Dimensions(H,W,D,T and
Relative Location)
Zac
Sandgroper
Ben <so...@iinet.net.au> wrote in article
<737rrd$btl$1...@news.iinet.net.au>...
> Well I was watchin T2 last night, since I love the Terminator movies.
> I noticed some things.
>
> Some guy on the net thinks that when the Terminators were destroyed,
John
> Connor's name would change (maybe) because Kyle couldnt have told Sarah
what
> should be somewhere else. Or if John ended up with a different father
his
> features should have changed.
> But it doesnt work that way. If it did, everything would return to 1984,
> just before Sarah left her home when Kyle started to follow her, and
history
> would take its course. This did not happen. Sarah and John, and Dyson's
wife
> & son, Dr. Silverman, the staff at the mental institute, the police and
more
> people still know of what happened in 1984 and in 1994. They have photos
and
> surveillance camera footage.
>
> The terminator evidence was not destroyed. Remember when the T-1000
pushed
> the Terminator into that wheel thing and his arm got chopped off, the
> remains of his arm were left in the machine, thus, Cyberdyne Systems
would
> have recovered it and continued work on the CPU.
>
> Wouldn't Cyberdyne have a million backups? Not just Dyson's and the ones
at
> the company.
>
little while.
Trying to work out time travel theories will give you a headache.
Some of the things you mentioned relate the "time paradox " theory and is
fairly abstract and deep.
The easiest way to get your brain around the time travel cause and effect
theories in T2 , is that at the end of the movie , the actual world
changing trigger or event that changes history to the world of T1 & T2
reality has not come about yet , and the time frame in which T1 & T2
happens is BEFORE this event.
The trigger or event to change the world to T1 & T2 reality could be the
from many causes , not just the events that are portrayed in T1 & T2 .
Which gives the movie makers lots of ways of coming up with sequels to T1
& T2.
Hope they will bring out a T3 , I really like these movies.
--
Sandgroper
==========
Remove XXNOSPAMXX in reply address
Ben
keep this going ppl, its fun :-Ş
I think we should send all this to James Cameron
- Ben
Paul Day
> Relative Location)
So relative location is now only 1 D? Relative location could itself be 4D
- it could have it's OWN time refernce. <grin>
PD
Paul Day
<sinp>
Light is still a wave-form. A photon of light technically has no rest mass
as I see it... But then it never rests.
We cannot go at the speed of light. As we get closer to it the force you
need to accelerate the next bit closer gets exponentially higher and
higher. We get "heaveier" the faster we go is a very crappy explanantion.
SO, the speed of light is an uncrossable barrier for real massive objects.
Light goes at the speed of light, so what's beyond the speed of light
then? The "stuff" that can't slow down below the speed of light?
PD
Zaccary Charlesworth
>If light could be gripped, then it would pull the object gripping it at
>almost 1x SOL or even the actual speed of light.
>Just the same as using a towbar on a car, only with light.
What propels light ? Grabbing it would cause a drag, and slowdown. Not to
mention the almighty acceleration(from start to lightspeed in 0.0001
seconds). The G-force would destroy upi and the ship, not to mention give
you nasty rope burns. Intertia Kills. :)
>the front which fires a beam of light in any direction, and in an
How do you know a single beam(or beams) of light could sustain such a huge
mass ?
Zac
Sandgroper
Paul Day <bon...@iinet.net.za> wrote in article
<7393pl$2hs$1...@opera.iinet.net.au>...
> Ben <so...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > Race A (humans or not) creates time machine and sends one person back.
>
< snipped a bit >
> It's not quite like that but involves high speed (sub-light but close to
> it) travel. The extreme high speed changes the space-time-continuium
(now
> there's a big word girls and boys, and one I know I just mis-spelt). For
> example: Person A stays on earth at a relative speed of close to 0m/s.
> Person B jumps in his Space ship and shoots of around the galaxy at
close
> to the speed of light (3.00 x10^8m/s) and comes back to Earth 10 years
> later. But for person A who was travveling at a relative speed of 0m/s
50
> years have passed compared to Person B's 10 years.
>
> So who's up for a debate about wether or not an Electron can be
considered
> as a particle or a waveform? <grin>
>
Yes , you are talking about time dilation and a body at rest and one
travelling.
It has been calculated that the astronauts who went to the moon lost 52
millionths of a second as compared to someone on earth. ( which means time
goes more slowly if you are traveling as compared to a person at 0m/s on
planet Earth )
Sandgroper
Just ask Dr Who and his 5 Dimensional time machine , he has more rooms in
his police phone box than you could poke a stick at.
:-)
Billy Shields
: Well, ignoring the time paradox (which I have thought hard about and failed
: to resolve), I was wondering if anyone noticed a couple of extra scenes in
: the version shown last night compared to previous ones?
: Namely: the scene where John and Sarah remove the CPU from Arnie's head
: then argue over whether or not to smash it.
Its the director's cut they showed. I saw it on laserdisc last year.
I think that (unlike many director's cuts) it improves upon the
original.
Billy
Zaccary Charlesworth
>Zaccary Charlesworth <sa...@zcs.net.au> wrote:
>So relative location is now only 1 D? Relative location could itself be 4D
>- it could have it's OWN time refernce. <grin>
True - and it would have to. Like I said, infinite possibilites and
combinations.
Zac
Sue Smith
to resolve), I was wondering if anyone noticed a couple of extra scenes in
the version shown last night compared to previous ones?
Namely: the scene where John and Sarah remove the CPU from Arnie's head
then argue over whether or not to smash it.
And.. the bit where they are at the petrol station and John tries to get
Arnie to smile. That was actually hilarious and I wonder why they left it
out of the original release version. Perhaps because it made Arnie look a
little silly?
Sue Smith
Paul Day
> True - and it would have to. Like I said, infinite possibilites and
> combinations.
So really we're talking an infinite number of dimensions then. :-) So much
for four...
PD
Jason Cornelius
news:738f1o$mn2$1...@news.iinet.net.au...
>Just my 2c...
<snip and scathing review>
Fell better now? :)
Firstly, I don't care if the Abyss was a flop. I thought it was an excellent
movie.
Secondly...
I have a dream.
I dream that one day, people might - just might - stop trying to over
analise hollywood flicks, and try to enjoy them for what they are;
Movies... Nothing more, nothing less.
Some are technically, scientifically, and morally perfect, and at the same
time boring beyond beleif.
Others break all rules of scientific, film-making, and moral protocols, yet
are extremely entertaining.
Occasionally you'll get a mix of the two. But it won't happen often, because
film makers are film makers. Not scientists.
Jason.
Zaccary Charlesworth
>Secondly...
> I have a dream.
<snip>
As a someone said to a budding someone "A JFK you are not'.
Or something like that. Go ask Sorrrreeee Man :P
Zac
Jeffery Elkington
<snip>
> Secondly...
> I have a dream.
> I dream that one day, people might - just might - stop trying to over
> analise hollywood flicks, and try to enjoy them for what they are;
> Movies... Nothing more, nothing less.
> Some are technically, scientifically, and morally perfect, and at the same
> time boring beyond beleif.
> Others break all rules of scientific, film-making, and moral protocols, yet
> are extremely entertaining.
> Occasionally you'll get a mix of the two. But it won't happen often, because
> film makers are film makers. Not scientists.
>
> Jason.
Making movies is both an art and a science. If you list your top 5
movies I think you will find most of them are quite realistic in both a
technical way and (more importantly) in the way people act.
The fact that T2 messed up the technical side of things can be
overlooked, the behaviour of the characters can not.
p.s
My top 5 movies are
1. Fargo
2. L.A confidential
3. Aliens
4. Star wars
5. Drunken master 2
Jason Cornelius
news:36584AE6...@iinet.net.au...
>
> Making movies is both an art and a science.
By whose definition?
That's just a cliche invented by a director with a large ego, and
perpetuated by university media graduates..
>If you list your top 5
>movies I think you will find most of them are quite realistic in both a
>technical way and (more importantly) in the way people act.
My point is, some movies are merely made so people can go along for a ride.
They aren't interested in being poignant or perfect. They want to entertain
the masses and not necessarily require a large amount of grey matter to
understand.
Geez.. There's different types of movies out there. Is Toy Story a bad movie
because toys don't really act that way?
> The fact that T2 messed up the technical side of things can be
>overlooked, the behaviour of the characters can not.
It amazes me how we are now bagging the technical details of a movie that
was considered one of the most cutting edge in special effects when it was
released.
So what if it fell short in some areas. The bottom line is that most that
watch it enjoy it.
*That's* what making movies is about.
Jason.
Mic Cullen
have written:
[snips]
>analise hollywood flicks
^^^^^^^^^
Now *that's* a Freudian typo, if ever I saw one...
Have a good one,
Mic. (Return address will work as is...)
Your bedroom isn't cluttered, it's just "passage restrictive."
Michael O'Reilly
> Just to be pedantic, quantum theory doesn't rule out the possibilities
> of time travel paradox. In fact quantum theory is full of paradox.
No; Quantum theory may be full of many 'counter-intuitive' things, but
it isn't full of paradox. Just because thing don't behave in the same
way they do in a macroscopic world doesn't mean they're paradoxical.
Michael.
Anthony Shipley
>Theres a big controversy in the physics world between Stephen Hawking
>and some other physicist (can't remember his name). Basically,
>Hawking contends that the universe is symmetric. Entropy will cause
>what we see as the end of the universe to be the beginning for
>someone else. Fundamental to this is the principle that "information"
>is not lost. If it is it breaks the theory. The one sticking point
>with this is black holes. If nothing can escape a black hole then
>that would break the theory. Hawking successfully proved that
>black holes are "noisy". The smaller they are the "hotter" they are.
>Hawking contends that information can theoretically be reconstructed
>from this radiation. Others disagree.
I seem to recall Rip Thorne - in Black Holes and Time Warps - saying that
energy does escape from black holes. Somebody with a better memory than me
could expand on this.
anthony shipley
xpct th nxpctd
Alison
analyse fairytales? Do we bag The frog prince because we all know that
a frog can't turn into a prince or Rupunzel because there is no way her
head could have supported the weight of that hair let alone a prince or
a witch?
The thing your all missing is that these stories are simple stories
where anything the writers want to happen can and does. Just perhaps in
the world/dimension/imagination where T2's live time travel occurs
exactly as it does in the movie and just cause sumthing gets changed it
doesn't mean that anyone forgets it.
In this particular case I think you are all forgetting that time travel
isn't even possible and therefore noone can correctly predict what may
or may not happen.
Alison.
Jason Cornelius
news:36590C55...@student.cowan.edu.au...
<snip>
>The thing your all missing is that these stories are simple stories
>where anything the writers want to happen can and does.
At last!! Someone that understands the concept of *entertainment*
Jason.. Who'll never enjoy Hitch Hikers Guide again cos the concept of the
Vogons destroying Earth purely to make way for a hyperspace bypass is
completely ridiculous. And the universe run by mice? Puhleeezz ... Too
many scientific flaws in that plot for my liking.
John Blahusiak
> I have a dream.
> I dream that one day, people might - just might - stop trying to over
> analise hollywood flicks, and try to enjoy them for what they are;
> Movies... Nothing more, nothing less.
Most hollywood mainstream films are so inordinately bad that the
only way I can justify their admission price is by enjoying them
through thinking about them critically. Saying that movies are
nothing less or more than their projection ignores the fact that
movies are cultural narratives, or propoganda. I think part of
the problem is that every marketed hollywood film has already been
over analised. Generally by the production staff and directors.
Rgds,
John.
Remove the 'ay' and the 'ee' to e-mail me.
John Blahusiak
> How can any movie not based on fact be wrong in any way???
Hah. That would be like saying that the technical precision of something like
Saving Private Ryan is irrelevant to its quality. Or that murder suspense
thrillers aren't made or broken on the basis of the glaring plot hole.
> Do we analyse fairytales?
I do :)
> The thing your all missing is that these stories are simple stories
> where anything the writers want to happen can and does.
Excepting of course that the writers are making a movie for an audience,
who unlike you might expect some plausible explanation for making
things happen. It's like saying that the end of one of the Rambo movies,
where he slaughters the russian infantry division, an armoured brigade,
and an airship or two, while on horesback, shouldn't go down as one
of the most gracefully apalling examples of american filmaking in history,
on the basis that it happened because the writers a) had a political
agenda, or b) it could have happened in an alternate universe where
men are immortal and women non-existent.
John Blahusiak
> "Jason Cornelius" <ko...@iinet.net.au>, far, far away from here, appears to
> have written:
> [snips]
>>analise hollywood flicks
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Now *that's* a Freudian typo, if ever I saw one...
[snips]
> Your bedroom isn't cluttered, it's just "passage restrictive."
Followed by a Freudian signature :)
Ben
shorter. You dont need to see the smile bit, or the CPU being altered, or
the bit where T-1000 is melting into the steel factory floor because you
will still "get" the movie without seeing these things. As you would have
noticed, T2 was considerably longer. Channel 10 must hold some freakin
rights to that movie because theyre the only ones who show it. Oh well, they
made a big hype about having T2 SE in their hands a while back....
Personally, I loved the smile bit
- Ben
Sue Smith wrote in message <7396lj$836$1...@news.iinet.net.au>...
Jason Cornelius
news:73b87t$2sj$2...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
>Alison <aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> wrote:
>> How can any movie not based on fact be wrong in any way???
>
>Hah. That would be like saying that the technical precision of something
like
>Saving Private Ryan is irrelevant to its quality. Or that murder suspense
>thrillers aren't made or broken on the basis of the glaring plot hole.
You're comparing a movie that is meant to be a depiction of a true event, to
a movie that is unadulterated science fiction.
There's never meant to be anything serious about T2. It's a fairytale. A
story. That's all. No amount of analysis will change that.
Private Ryan on the other hand is a completely different story.
Let's put it another way.
I'm a graphic designer. In my spare time I also do some abstract artwork.
Quite good too.
And you know what really amuses me about showing that work to others?
Hearing all the wonderful stories behind why I did it, and what each peice
represents.
You have these higher-than-thou would be critics trying to find something in
my work that simply isn't there.
Ultimately I throw together some stuff in a random order, rearrange them and
model them until they look pretty, then print it out.
There's no meaning behind it. There's no agenda. It just looks good, and
makes people feel good when they look at it.
Analyse it and look for errors in perspective if you want, but in the long
run it doesn't change the fact that I did it for no other reason than to
stir some kind of emotion.
There is, and never will be a plot behind any of my work.
On the other hand, there are artists that try to represent real scenes.
Lanscape artists... Portrait artists..
Learn to tell the difference between the two.
Jason.
Billy Shields
Ok, you got me there. Counter-intuitive is a much better description.
Billy
:)
Alison
> Excepting of course that the writers are making a movie for an
> audience,
> who unlike you might expect some plausible explanation for making
> things happen. It's like saying that the end of one of the Rambo
> movies,
> where he slaughters the russian infantry division, an armoured
> brigade,
> and an airship or two, while on horesback, shouldn't go down as one
> of the most gracefully apalling examples of american filmaking in
> history,
> on the basis that it happened because the writers a) had a political
> agenda, or b) it could have happened in an alternate universe where
> men are immortal and women non-existent.
It's obvious that I'm wasting my time trying to explain the concept of
an imagination to people who obviously don't have one. I think being
around computers so much has made you all so technically minded that you
can't see past them and discover that there are whole other worlds out
there and they are simply hiding in peoples minds just waiting to be
discovered and explored.
Alison "off in the land of the pixies" Weir.
Michael Malone
> You're comparing a movie that is meant to be a depiction of a true event, to
> a movie that is unadulterated science fiction.
> There's never meant to be anything serious about T2. It's a fairytale.
Part of the enjoyment of good science fiction is internal consistency.
It is perfectly ok for the assumptions to be unprovable, incorrect, or
outlandish, as long as the conclusions drawn from then on are consistent.
This can be taken a little too far. For instance, trekker's fanaticism
for continuity. I remember reading about a con where Frank Miller was
a guest. A fan asked "Is Dark Knight really Batman's future?". Frank
answered "Of course not. Its a comic book".
MM
Steve O'Neil
wrote:
>Just my 2c...
I actually enjoyed the movie but not for its storyline. Nice special
effects aside, I always thought the liquid terminator was kinda
stupid.
Stephen O'Neil
Mic Cullen
appears to have written:
[snips]
>>>analise hollywood flicks
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>> Now *that's* a Freudian typo, if ever I saw one...
>> Your bedroom isn't cluttered, it's just "passage restrictive."
>Followed by a Freudian signature :)
So who's surprised? :-)
Half the fun of this thing is wondering what it's gonna do to each post :-)
Have a good one,
Mic. (Return address will work as is...)
Don't force it - get a larger hammer.
John Blahusiak
> It's obvious that I'm wasting my time trying to explain the concept of
> an imagination to people who obviously don't have one. I think being
> around computers so much has made you all so technically minded that you
> can't see past them and discover that there are whole other worlds out
> there and they are simply hiding in peoples minds just waiting to be
> discovered and explored.
What. The. Fuck. Are. You. On?
John Blahusiak
> You're comparing a movie that is meant to be a depiction of a true event, to
> a movie that is unadulterated science fiction.
So your position is that it is okay to admire one piece of popular
culture on the basis of its representative accuracy, yet another,
because of its genre, can be as lemony as you would like simply
because it's a fantasy? And again, a Hitchcock film might not be
a depiction of a true event, yet because of the thought that went
into it, it may not have the technical flaws or plot problems that
separate the great suspense thriller from the bomb. Why can't
one group of people, ie science fiction followers, expect the same
standards of their story tellers as thriller followers?
Your argument is great if you're the kind of person who likes sitting
down like a vegetable and watching the pretty pictures, but forgive
me if I'll leave you to it.
> There's never meant to be anything serious about T2. It's a fairytale. A
> story. That's all. No amount of analysis will change that.
It's not a fairytale. This is ridiculous. It's popular culture, you
might get away with trying to argue that it is myth .. but I can't
believe you would consider that there is no social meaning represented
on screen in a science fiction film.
> And you know what really amuses me about showing that work to others?
> Hearing all the wonderful stories behind why I did it, and what each peice
> represents.
> You have these higher-than-thou would be critics trying to find something in
> my work that simply isn't there.
> Ultimately I throw together some stuff in a random order, rearrange
them and
> model them until they look pretty, then print it out.
> There's no meaning behind it. There's no agenda. It just looks good, and
> makes people feel good when they look at it.
> Analyse it and look for errors in perspective if you want, but in the long
> run it doesn't change the fact that I did it for no other reason than to
> stir some kind of emotion.
> There is, and never will be a plot behind any of my work.
You're confusing three levels of 'interpretation' for want of a better
word. Author intention is one level, so is representation.. the third
might be called audience perception. The fault in your story above
might be that the people who look at your work have tried to explicitly
claim that these are your intentions in creating the work. This is
always tricky, and dangerous, since if it's proven wrong later, it
tends to make you look silly. The fault might also be that people
who have interpreted your work have decoded it according to how they
know the world. In this case, finding meaning in something that
you have intended to be physically meaningless is more harmless.
And is in fact worthwhile. For a lot of people, the aesthetics
of a piece are less important to the critical ideas they can bring
to it, or that the author might have tried to convey.
> On the other hand, there are artists that try to represent real scenes.
> Lanscape artists... Portrait artists..
> Learn to tell the difference between the two.
If an abstract artist makes what I know to be "errors" in abstract
art, it is either a) an attempt to convey something different, or
b) a fault of the artist. If a portrait artist makes what I know
to be "errors" in portrait art, I will similarly read these as
a) an attempt to convey something different, or b) a fault of
the artist. I really don't care too much whether the representation
is intended to mirror reality, or if it does mirror reality. The
point I try to make is that simply trying to deny that the technical
accuracy of a piece ignores the fact that for some people, this is
also an important pleasure of the text.
Alison
> What. The. Fuck. Are. You. On?
Obviously I'm on nothing compared to you since I can still string a
sentance together.
Alison :P
Judge Mental
Grimwood.
The story is of a bloke who does a "Groundhog Day", but between the ages
of 18 and 42.
It won the World Fantasy Award in 1988, and (despite the unimaginative
title and cheesy cover) is a very powerful tale.
I picked it up a couple of years ago in one of those Angus and Robertson
"5 for $10" pulp paperback things.
One of the best books I've ever read.
Curtis Gibbs wrote:
> Zaccary Charlesworth wrote:
>
> > Martin Livings wrote in message <738f1o$mn2$1...@news.iinet.net.au>...
> > >like "Groundhog Day" done as a hard-edged SF thriller, with our
> >
> > I loved Groundhog Day :)
> >
> > Zac
>
> Ditto, Zac....Groundhog Day had some awsome "life messages" if one
> looked past Bill Murray's comedic brilliance.
>
> Curt
--
"Judge Mental" - not just a name, a way of life.
John Blahusiak
> Obviously I'm on nothing compared to you since I can still string a
> sentance together.
Still can't spell though.
Alison
> Alison <aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Obviously I'm on nothing compared to you since I can still string a
> > sentance together.
>
> Still can't spell though.
Well you just let yourself down. People only attack spelling when they
can't think of anything else to type.
John Blahusiak
> Well you just let yourself down. People only attack spelling when they
> can't think of anything else to type.
I was thinking the same of you. Except in your case, the order of
attack was everyone, then my grammar. If you honestly don't believe
that people can't have the ability to imagine and think critically
you have problems. And whilst I go out of my way to avoid computers
these days, I'd think that it's possible for technically oriented
people to imagine too. Or, I'd like to hope so anyway.
Martin Livings
:> > Obviously I'm on nothing compared to you since I can still string a
:> > sentance together.
:>
:> Still can't spell though.
: Well you just let yourself down. People only attack spelling when they
: can't think of anything else to type.
Isn't that the same level of desperation as attacking sentance (sic)
structure? ;)
yt MJL98
Jason Cornelius
news:73g80l$7ot$1...@news.iinet.net.au...
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Martin Livings
: And whilst I go out of my way to avoid computers
: these days, I'd think that it's possible for technically oriented
: people to imagine too. Or, I'd like to hope so anyway.
I'd like to echo this sentiment. Yes, I work in this industry. So why
are people so surprised when they find out I'm also a published fiction
author? It's the same sort of generalisation as saying that women are too
emotional to vote, and just as ridiculous.
To prove a point - Alison, I thought that T2 was badly written, both in
terms of the scientific logic and the character development. Does that
mean I lack imagination? Please visit this web page, then tell me that to
my face. B-)
http://lonewolf.iinet.net.au/decayed/
yt MJL98 (tired of being typecast as the square-eyed computer geek...
actually, my glasses are round, so nyeah!)
Alison
writer :) and yes I have seen your page before :)
Alison
> I'd like to echo this sentiment. Yes, I work in this industry. So
> why
> are people so surprised when they find out I'm also a published
> fiction
> author? It's the same sort of generalisation as saying that women are
> too
> emotional to vote, and just as ridiculous.
so that is your comment on the back of "BattleAxe" by Sara Douglass
isn't it? I was wondering about that.
Anyway, I didn't once comment on T2, the only comments I have put into
this thread is that it's stupid to be so critical of fiction when all it
is, is someones imagination put down on paper ( or film) ....... of
course not everyone is going to like it but the whole idea is to sit and
enjoy and not think about whether or not things were technically
correct. I did happen to enjoy Terminator 2 I also enjoy Top Gun and I
know for a fact that it's full of technical errors but that not the
point is it.
Alison :)
Jason Cornelius
>
>To prove a point - Alison, I thought that T2 was badly written, both in
>terms of the scientific logic and the character development. Does that
>mean I lack imagination? Please visit this web page, then tell me that to
>my face. B-)
Alison's main point, along with my own, is that it really doesn't matter if
there are flaws in the technical details of a movie, *as long as it's
enjoyable*.
Why is this so hard to understand?
We have to realise that a large proprtion of the public is not quite as
versed in the sciences etc, that we are in this group, therefore the whole
point is irrelevent.
Hollywood is in the entertainment industry. It's there to entertain.
Sometimes you have to leave the brain at the door, and just ENJOY!
So you didn't enjoy it. That doesn't make it a bad movie.
Jason.
Armchair critics are just people with low self esteem trying to make
themselves sound more intelligent and more important than those that earn
millions.
Jason Cornelius
>I forgot to add that yes I did know that you were a published fiction
>writer :) and yes I have seen your page before :)
And yes I do find his work boring as all hell.
Doesn't live up to my expectations about what good fiction writing is all
about. :P
<G, D & R>
Jason.
Billy Shields
: John Blahusiak <jay...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
: : And whilst I go out of my way to avoid computers
: : these days, I'd think that it's possible for technically oriented
: : people to imagine too. Or, I'd like to hope so anyway.
: I'd like to echo this sentiment. Yes, I work in this industry. So why
: are people so surprised when they find out I'm also a published fiction
: author? It's the same sort of generalisation as saying that women are too
They shouldn't be--its not that unusual. Many sci-fi writers can be
characterised as "geeky" in the same way as many in the computing
industry. Theres a non-trivial crossover too.
: emotional to vote, and just as ridiculous.
: To prove a point - Alison, I thought that T2 was badly written, both in
: terms of the scientific logic and the character development. Does that
: mean I lack imagination? Please visit this web page, then tell me that to
: my face. B-)
Who says every movie has to be judged by the same litmus test? I
enjoyed Schindler's List for the story it told and the technical
excellence of the direction. I enjoyed The Fugitive because of the
way that suspense and atmosphere was carried coherently through the
movie. I enjoyed When Harry Met Sally for the wit of the script and
the comedic genius of Billy Crystal. I enjoyed the movies based on
the Elmore Leonard books (Out of Sight, Get Shorty, Jackie Brown)
for the rich characterisation.
And I enjoyed Terminator 2 because it was great entertainment. Not
because the logic of the physics was problematic. Not because there
were no Oscar level acting performances. Not because some boo-boos
were fixed in post-production (who realy cares if a truck goes off
a bridge one way and drives off another?). But because its some good
entertainment.
Its truly exasperating to deal with people who are so single-minded
that they can't seem to deal with the concept of liking different
things for different reasons.
Billy
Jason Cornelius
news:73gk25$hh4$1...@news.iinet.net.au...
>
>Its truly exasperating to deal with people who are so single-minded
>that they can't seem to deal with the concept of liking different
>things for different reasons.
Oh Billy... Marry me!
Jason.
Martin Livings
like different things for different reasons. I enjoyed "Armageddon"
despite the fact that its only brain cell died of loneliness eight minutes
into the film. I enjoyed the original "Terminator". But I hated the
sequel, for the reasons I explained. Billy seems to have misunderstood
the point of my comments about the rushed nature of the film - I wasn't
criticising it on that basis, but saying that this situation was possibly
what lead to the film being very unsatisfactory as a final product. If
anyuthing, I was actually defending the film as an object, by pointing out
its flaws as a process. B-)
One thing to remember is that film criticism, like film preference, is a
very personal thing. What annoys me is when I raise objections to
particular facets of a film, citing exact scenes and facts, and instead of
actually defending them by raising counter-objections, people just say
"oh, you don't know how to have a good time" or "you have no imagination
you little computer geek". In other words, they react to criticism of an
object by responding with personal abuse on the critic, rather than
defending the film itself. It actually reminds me of the way Christians
react to atheists in arguments. <GDR>
yt MJL98 (finished shit-stirring for the time being... this is as
pointless as the religion debate, really, as all parties are convinced of
their righteousness)
: Oh Billy... Marry me!
: Who says every movie has to be judged by the same litmus test? I
: enjoyed Schindler's List for the story it told and the technical
: excellence of the direction. I enjoyed The Fugitive because of the
: way that suspense and atmosphere was carried coherently through the
: movie. I enjoyed When Harry Met Sally for the wit of the script and
: the comedic genius of Billy Crystal. I enjoyed the movies based on
: the Elmore Leonard books (Out of Sight, Get Shorty, Jackie Brown)
: for the rich characterisation.
: And I enjoyed Terminator 2 because it was great entertainment. Not
: because the logic of the physics was problematic. Not because there
: were no Oscar level acting performances. Not because some boo-boos
: were fixed in post-production (who realy cares if a truck goes off
: a bridge one way and drives off another?). But because its some good
: entertainment.
: Its truly exasperating to deal with people who are so single-minded
: that they can't seem to deal with the concept of liking different
: things for different reasons.
: Billy
Sue Smith
Jason Cornelius wrote in message <73gcn8$qp3$1...@news.iinet.net.au>...
>Alison's main point, along with my own, is that it really doesn't matter if
>there are flaws in the technical details of a movie, *as long as it's
>enjoyable*.
I dunno about that. Some of you may know I am a medical scientist. This
means that whenever there is anything vaguely medical or scientific shown in
movies I *unconsiously* analyse it for it's technical correctness. It's
what I am trained to do. Some of the mistakes aren't that glaring, or
significant. But when it's a clanger, it reeeeaaaally offends me. I can
never understand why the writers (or directors) can't make a five-minute
phone call to someone who might know to check they've got it right.
The biggest one that pissed me off recently (there have been heaps) was on
the x-files this year. Can't remember if it was the movie or not, but it
showed Scully doing a Southern Blot technique (to identify antibodies),
which is a technique which, if you rush it, can be done in 18 hours. She
did it in less than 4!!!!! Almost put me off the show completely (almost,
but not quite). I know it was done because of the script requirements, I
just mention this to demonstrate that errors like that can completely
destroy your enjoyment of a movie/tv show. Especially with things that are
easy to check (scientific facts) as opposed to scientific theory (time
travel). They should take a little time to do it right.
>Why is this so hard to understand?
>We have to realise that a large proprtion of the public is not quite as
>versed in the sciences etc, that we are in this group, therefore the whole
>point is irrelevent.
Why is it necessary to insult our intelligence to entertain us?
>Hollywood is in the entertainment industry. It's there to entertain.
>Sometimes you have to leave the brain at the door, and just ENJOY!
A bit simplistic, when the a lot of the impact of these sorts of movies (T2,
x-files, 12 monkeys, even Truman) is in the way it makes you think and
analyse it after you leave the cinema. Maybe I think too much, but these
movies left me pondering for hours about what happened and the points raised
by the film. And I'm sure that was part of the intention of the script.
Otherwise why didn't they explain the time paradox, if they didn't want you
to think about it. The people who make movies are incredibly intelligent.
They are not your dumb. They would have thought about what they were trying
to put across. You don't spend 10 weeks (or whatever) making a movie
without considering what it is saying. If they think they can gloss over
scientific facts and get away with it, they must view the public with a
healthy dose of scorn. Not pointing out these errors when you see them is
simply letting them get away with it.
I know it's just entertainment, but who doesn't occasionally see a movie
that stays with them for weeks? It's these movies I'm talking about, not
the fluff pieces.
Enough said. If you don't already think I'm nuts, you all will now (don't
you dare say anything, Ken!) :))
Sue S
Alison
> yt MJL98 (finished shit-stirring for the time being... this is as
> pointless as the religion debate, really, as all parties are convinced
> of
> their righteousness)
And this is the other way that people in this group bow out of a thread
when they know they are beaten.
:)
Alison
> A bit simplistic, when the a lot of the impact of these sorts of
> movies (T2,
> x-files, 12 monkeys, even Truman) is in the way it makes you think and
>
> analyse it after you leave the cinema. Maybe I think too much, but
> these
> movies left me pondering for hours about what happened and the points
> raised
> by the film. And I'm sure that was part of the intention of the
> script.
You've got it in one Sue, these movies are made to make you ponder about
the issues they are trying to get across but the part of the point we
are trying to get across is that it doesn't matter if it really takes
18hrs to do the test and scully did in 4, it's the reasons why she was
doing it!!!!! But then as Jason pointed out in an earlier post the
writers of a movie/script/book whatever aren't always trying to get
across a point sometimes they just do it cause they wanted to or thought
it would be fun. A good example of this (using another x-files eg) is
that black and white frankenstein episode..... to my knowledge they did
it cause they wanted to, not becuase they wanted to make us ponder about
issues that the story of Frankenstein is supposed to make us ponder.
Alison.
snafu
<aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> is alleged to have written:
Smiley or no, how can anyone be "beaten" on a matter of opinion?
snafu
Jason Cornelius
news:365d687c...@news.iinet.net.au...
>
>Smiley or no, how can anyone be "beaten" on a matter of opinion?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!
ENOUGH!
Jason, who has spoken.
Jason Cornelius
>
>it would be fun. A good example of this (using another x-files eg) is
>that black and white frankenstein episode..... to my knowledge they did
>it cause they wanted to,
And it turned out to be one of the most entertaining episodes in years.
Jason.
snafu
<ko...@iinet.net.au> is alleged to have written:
>snafu <sna...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>news:365d687c...@news.iinet.net.au...
>>
>>Smiley or no, how can anyone be "beaten" on a matter of opinion?
>
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!
>
>ENOUGH!
No no no ... you misunderstood ... I asked "how" someone could be
beaten, not how they would show it :)
snafu
Mr. Karmic
> I dunno about that. Some of you may know I am a medical scientist.
> This means that whenever there is anything vaguely medical or
> scientific shown in movies I *unconsiously* analyse it for it's
> technical correctness.
I know what you mean - a few years ago when I was in the Army we used to
hire out the military-based movies and have a good ol' laugh about the
absolutely *rediculous* things that were in them.
Kyle McDonald
John Blahusiak
> Anyway, I didn't once comment on T2, the only comments I have put into
> this thread is that it's stupid to be so critical of fiction when all it
> is, is someones imagination put down on paper ( or film) ....... of
This is the main area where I think you're completely incorrect. Fine to
say that fiction is a result of individual creativity, but horribly
reductivist to say that fiction is solely an imaginative work.
Billy Shields
: Alison <aw...@student.cowan.edu.au> wrote in message
My favourite episode of the X-Files is the one where the Navy guys
are dressing up as aliens to scre the townspeople and a real alien
comes down and visits them. Its funny as hell (complete with the
usual cliches of the Men in Black, etc).
Apparently it was the highest rated episode of the season (in the
US at least) too.
Billy
Martin Livings
: My favourite episode of the X-Files is the one where the Navy guys
: are dressing up as aliens to scre the townspeople and a real alien
: comes down and visits them. Its funny as hell (complete with the
: usual cliches of the Men in Black, etc).
Complete with (now Governor) Jesse "The Body" Ventura as one of the
ubiquitous MiBs. B-)
yt MJL98 ("It was probably the planet Venus...")