Serenity!
Karen Lofstrom
Like, totally. I'm going to the first showing of Serenity in Honolulu
tomorrow.
I've read a few online reviews that say some beloved characters die. I
don't know who, and you shouldn't tell me, but, sheesh, I'm WORRIED. I'm
running through the list in my mind, trying to figure out who's expendable
-- and I can't. AAAARRGH!
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to hell. Here is your accordion.
Damien Sullivan
>Alis loaned me her Firefly DVD set and I've become a drooling fan-girl.
>Like, totally. I'm going to the first showing of Serenity in Honolulu
>tomorrow.
>
>I've read a few online reviews that say some beloved characters die. I
>don't know who, and you shouldn't tell me, but, sheesh, I'm WORRIED. I'm
>running through the list in my mind, trying to figure out who's expendable
>-- and I can't. AAAARRGH!
With a castlist of 9, arguably they're all expendable except Malcolm, as the
center, and River, as the hook to bigger plots than being a bunch of smugglers
and small-traders. Everyone else can be done without or replaced (though
having Alliance refugees makes finding replacements an interesting trust and
security problem.)
No one's painlessly expendable, but Joss does pain. Remember Jenny Calendar.
Remember *Doyle*: "Angel" started with *3* main characters and killed one of
them within a dozen episodes.
But welcome to the lost cause. The South^WRim will rise again!
-xx- Damien X-)
Tim McDaniel
Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>I've read a few online reviews that say [possible spoilers trimmed]
I am INFURIATED.
You ... unmitigated ... Words fail me.
*PLONK*
And anyone who tries to avoid spoilers (for something they want to
see) had better kill this thread until they see the movie.
--
"Me, I love the USA; I never miss an episode." -- Paul "Fruitbat" Sleigh
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Karen Lofstrom
> I am INFURIATED.
> You ... unmitigated ... Words fail me.
> *PLONK*
I didn't think that was a spoiler. Doesn't say who. Not necessarily
members of the crew -- it maybe means members of the crew, but there's
other characters ...
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes! We have wind-up sushi! -- garnered by Ranjit
Laurie Mann
"who" and "why" that matters in this particular movie (yes, I know who
as I saw the movie in June).
Paul Dormer
Lofstrom) wrote:
> *From:* lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
> *Date:* Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:47:18 -0000
>
> Alis loaned me her Firefly DVD set and I've become a drooling fan-girl.
> Like, totally. I'm going to the first showing of Serenity in Honolulu
> tomorrow.
>
> I've read a few online reviews that say some beloved characters die. I
> don't know who, and you shouldn't tell me, but, sheesh, I'm WORRIED.
> I'm running through the list in my mind, trying to figure out who's
> expendable -- and I can't. AAAARRGH!
>
Those in the UK who haven't caught the bug yet and can get the Sci Fi
channel might like to know that they are doing a Firefly weekend starting
tomorrow.
Paul Dormer
lau...@dpsinfo.com (Laurie Mann) wrote:
> *From:* "Laurie Mann" <lau...@dpsinfo.com>
> *Date:* 30 Sep 2005 02:59:15 -0700
>
> I think it's really stupid to be upset to be told people die. It's the
> "who" and "why" that matters in this particular movie (yes, I know who
> as I saw the movie in June).
>
>
cf Bleak House, where Dickens doesn't so much telegraph every major
revelation in advance, as put it up on day-glo posters. I mean, it's
obvious that Esther is Lady Dedlock's illegitimate daughter from their
first appearances. When he couldn't work out how to tell you a character
is going to die of spontaneous combustion, he writes about it in his
preface.
Conversely, I've heard of people who were so worried about spoilers for a
new episode of a show that they avoided reading all synopses in listing
magazines, all trailers, the continuity announcer's introduction, and
presumably the episode title if it appears on screen.
Dan Kimmel
"Laurie Mann" <lau...@dpsinfo.com> wrote in message
news:1128074354.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I think it's really stupid to be upset to be told people die. It's the
> "who" and "why" that matters in this particular movie (yes, I know who
> as I saw the movie in June).
I'm very careful in reviewing a film not to give too much away, but I agree.
In my review I noted there are some "shocks" along the way.
People who find that sort of information to be unbearable "spoilers" need to
get a grip, and avoid *any* thread clear marked as discussing the particular
work until they have experienced it themselves.
Zev Sero
> Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>>I've read a few online reviews that say [possible spoilers trimmed]
> I am INFURIATED.
> You ... unmitigated ... Words fail me.
> *PLONK*
"Not everybody survives" is not a spoiler. You had no business
*expecting* everybody to survive.
--
Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go
z...@sero.name well together, but are completely different concepts.
- James Lileks
tstidm
is a great film whether you are a Serenity fan or not. This could be
my generations Star Trek in 20 or 30 years.
James Nicoll
Damien Sullivan <pho...@ofb.net> wrote:
>
>No one's painlessly expendable, but Joss does pain. Remember Jenny Calendar.
>Remember *Doyle*: "Angel" started with *3* main characters and killed one of
>them within a dozen episodes.
Wasn't that less because of Whedon's determination to do with
Doyle what he had not done with Jesse and more because it turned out
the guy playing the self-destructive Irish drunk was in fact a self-
destructive Irish drunk?
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
David G. Bell
<memo.2005093...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>
p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk "Paul Dormer" wrote:
Yes, things got that bad concerning Babylon 5, culminating in some
pretty extreme screaming in the newsgroups over one episode title.
Though the particular instance did have a suggestive title, and there
have been times when continuity announcers have been particularly
stupid.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
trinlay
One of the things I like about Joss/Buffy/Angel & what I caught of
Firefly is that he tells the tale well and doesn't "coddle" the
audience. He'll kill a major character and he'll let it HURT. It
rarely is "Oh they aren't really dead." The only exceptions I can think
of at the momenet are the Buffy resurrection and bringing Angel back
from hell, and neither of those were easy or simple and had plenty of
consequence left to deal with. No ressurections used like a reset
button. That's also one of the things I like about Anime.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Alis loaned me her Firefly DVD set and I've become a drooling fan-girl.
>Like, totally. I'm going to the first showing of Serenity in Honolulu
>tomorrow.
>
>I've read a few online reviews that say some beloved characters die. I
>don't know who, and you shouldn't tell me, but, sheesh, I'm WORRIED. I'm
>running through the list in my mind, trying to figure out who's expendable
>-- and I can't. AAAARRGH!
I wonder if that would change it enough that making a "Serenity" TV
show wouldn't violate Fox's rights.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
Sullivan) wrote:
>No one's painlessly expendable, but Joss does pain. Remember Jenny Calendar.
>Remember *Doyle*: "Angel" started with *3* main characters and killed one of
>them within a dozen episodes.
Bad example. The actor playing Doyle turned out to be an addict.
--
Marilee J. Layman
smg...@yahoo.com
trinlay wrote:
> I'm going to see the movie in a few hours.
Me too, in about an hour. I only just now finished cramming my first
viewing of the entire series plus the DVD extras into three rather long
evenings, and there's a midnight showing, so what the heck - may as
well keep up the excitement.
It's really a shame it got canceled before Whedon really got his story
arc going strong. I'm quite curious to see where the movie takes it.
Susan
Pete McCutchen
Depends on what rights they have, but if Whedon owns the copyright on
the basic property -- which he apparently does, since he was able to
license it to universal for a movie -- there's no reason why he
couldn't have made another TV show. Or just moved to another network,
for that matter.
--
Pete McCutchen
Tim McDaniel
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Depends on what rights they have, but if Whedon owns the copyright on
>the basic property -- which he apparently does, since he was able to
>license it to universal for a movie -- there's no reason why he
>couldn't have made another TV show. Or just moved to another
>network, for that matter.
Joss Whedon does not own the rights to Firefly or Serenity.
Universal negotiated with Fox Television (a separate division from Fox
the movie studio).
I recall reading comments that contracts now say that there can be no
new Firefly TV show for 5 years, but I don't recall the details of how
that might be (Universal got all the rights but with a rider?).
Dan Kimmel
"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dhl6m3$936$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
> In article <os1pj15c0dr3c7a0a...@4ax.com>,
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Depends on what rights they have, but if Whedon owns the copyright on
> >the basic property -- which he apparently does, since he was able to
> >license it to universal for a movie -- there's no reason why he
> >couldn't have made another TV show. Or just moved to another
> >network, for that matter.
>
> Joss Whedon does not own the rights to Firefly or Serenity.
> Universal negotiated with Fox Television (a separate division from Fox
> the movie studio).
>
> I recall reading comments that contracts now say that there can be no
> new Firefly TV show for 5 years, but I don't recall the details of how
> that might be (Universal got all the rights but with a rider?).
When I took property law the professor said we should think of property as a
bundle of sticks. You can sell all the sticks, or only some of them.
There's no problem with, say, FOX selling Universal all the rights, with all
but the TV rights transferring immediately.
Dan Kimmel
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:os1pj15c0dr3c7a0a...@4ax.com...
Not privy to the details and the news report I saw may have gotten it wrong,
but I read that Universal had to acquire rights from FOX to make the movie.
Now whether they got everything or just movie rights is another story.
I suspect, though, that if the movie is successful (and the reviews --
including mine -- are positive) Universal will be thinking in terms of
"movie franchise" not TV series. The time is ripe. "Star Wars" is done.
"Star Trek" is moribund. The ongoing franchises these days are superheroes
(Spider-man, Batman, X Men), so a space saga that clicks with the audience
won't have much competition.
Philip Chee
> In article <1128074354.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> lau...@dpsinfo.com (Laurie Mann) wrote:
>> I think it's really stupid to be upset to be told people die. It's the
>> "who" and "why" that matters in this particular movie (yes, I know who
>> as I saw the movie in June).
> Conversely, I've heard of people who were so worried about spoilers for a
> new episode of a show that they avoided reading all synopses in listing
> magazines, all trailers, the continuity announcer's introduction, and
> presumably the episode title if it appears on screen.
Tim McDaniel should avoid watching any anime then, because the Japanese
apparently do not have the concept of spoilers and usually announce the
death of a major character in the episode title.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
Philip Chee
> Tim McDaniel wrote:
>> Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>>>I've read a few online reviews that say [possible spoilers trimmed]
>> I am INFURIATED.
>> You ... unmitigated ... Words fail me.
>> *PLONK*
> "Not everybody survives" is not a spoiler. You had no business
> *expecting* everybody to survive.
And in amine sometimes they kill off the heroine (C***o C*****e) and
sometimes the bad guys win. Bummer.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]This Tag Line no verb.
* TagZilla 0.059
Steve Coltrin
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
> In article <dhih3p$om3$2...@naig.caltech.edu>,
> Damien Sullivan <pho...@ofb.net> wrote:
>>
>>No one's painlessly expendable, but Joss does pain. Remember Jenny Calendar.
>>Remember *Doyle*: "Angel" started with *3* main characters and killed one of
>>them within a dozen episodes.
>
> Wasn't that less because of Whedon's determination to do with
> Doyle what he had not done with Jesse and more because it turned out
> the guy playing the self-destructive Irish drunk was in fact a self-
> destructive Irish drunk?
Except that Glenn Quinn managed to maintain metabolic viability for
at least two more years than Doyle did.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Go fuck yourself, Mr. Cheney
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
Paul Dormer
wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:39 +0100 (BST), Paul Dormer wrote:
> > In article <1128074354.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > lau...@dpsinfo.com (Laurie Mann) wrote:
>
> >> I think it's really stupid to be upset to be told people die. It's
> > the
> >> "who" and "why" that matters in this particular movie (yes, I know
> > who
> >> as I saw the movie in June).
>
> > Conversely, I've heard of people who were so worried about spoilers
> > for a new episode of a show that they avoided reading all synopses in
> > listing magazines, all trailers, the continuity announcer's
> > introduction, and presumably the episode title if it appears on
> > screen.
>
> Tim McDaniel should avoid watching any anime then, because the Japanese
> apparently do not have the concept of spoilers and usually announce the
> death of a major character in the episode title.
I think this worrying about spoilers is probably a recent western
invention. I'm sure Shakespeare never worried about it. He'd pinched all
his plots anyway, so probably everyone knew how they ended anyway. (Then
again, in the eighteenth century, he got some stick for giving King Lear a
tragic ending. Lear's story in Geoffrey of Monmouth ends with him
defeating his sons-in-law, ruling for another three years and Cordelia
succeeding him. Eighteenth century stagings of the play restored this
happy ending.)
And I can see the same opera many times even though I know how it ends.
Indeed, you often have to read the plot before hand to work out what's
going on on stage. And the third act duet between Tosca and Cavaradossi,
where they talk about their future life together is more poignant when you
know they are both dead by the end of the act.
Paul Dormer
trin...@hotmail.com (trinlay) wrote:
>
> I'm going to see the movie in a few hours.
It's opening here this coming week (although there are some previews
apparently).
It's odd. I hadn't been to the cinema all year - the last film I saw was
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. (In contrast, I've been to the
opera three times in the last fortnight.) This week I went to see Howl's
Moving Castle. Definitely plan to see Serenity, and now I see that The
Curse of the Were-Rabbit is opening soon. (Get out the Wensleydale!)
Cally Soukup
> It's odd. I hadn't been to the cinema all year - the last film I saw was
> Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. (In contrast, I've been to the
> opera three times in the last fortnight.) This week I went to see Howl's
> Moving Castle. Definitely plan to see Serenity, and now I see that The
> Curse of the Were-Rabbit is opening soon. (Get out the Wensleydale!)
Is Howls Moving Castle any good? I must confess to mixed feelings; I
did like the book a lot, so I'm nervous about the movie.
--
"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@two14.net
Dan Kimmel
"Paul Dormer" <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2005100...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk...
And DO stay through the entire closing credits for "Curse of the
Were-Rabbit."
I'll say no more. :)
Marilee J. Layman
Fox holds the TV rights for Firefly. Whedon sold the movie rights to
Universal.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Paul Dormer
Soukup) wrote:
> Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote in article
> > <memo.2005100...@pauldormer.compulink.co.uk>:
>
> > It's odd. I hadn't been to the cinema all year - the last film I saw
> > was Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. (In contrast, I've been
> > to the opera three times in the last fortnight.) This week I went to
> > see Howl's Moving Castle. Definitely plan to see Serenity, and now I
> > see that The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is opening soon. (Get out the
> > Wensleydale!)
>
> Is Howls Moving Castle any good? I must confess to mixed feelings; I
> did like the book a lot, so I'm nervous about the movie.
Yeah, I've read the book a couple of times, and am I great fan of DWJ, but
I also enjoyed Spirited Away, so that tempted me.
Anyway, about the first half more or less follows the plot of the book,
then it goes rather strange. (A reviewer over here claimed it's a rule of
anime for the plot to go loopy in the second half of a film.) I think I
might have enjoyed it more if I could remember the plot of the book better
and hadn't kept trying to remember what the plot of the book was.
Also, the setting is sort of 1900, much later than I had imagined the
book, which allows steam trains, air ships and strange flying machines.
Made it look rather Jules Verne-ish.
But, it is good to look at, so yeah, I think it is very good, but not
excellent.
Paul Dormer
Kimmel) wrote:
> And DO stay through the entire closing credits for "Curse of the
> Were-Rabbit."
I usually try and stay to the end of credits, anyway. About half way
through the end credits of Howl's Moving Castle, I thought to myself, why
am I doing this? I can't read Japanese. (Saw a subtitled version. Don't
know if the dubbed version has English credits.)
Robert Sneddon
<phi...@aleytys.pc.my> writes
>On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:39:01 GMT, Zev Sero wrote:
>> "Not everybody survives" is not a spoiler. You had no business
>> *expecting* everybody to survive.
>
>And in amine sometimes they kill off the heroine (C***o C*****e) and
>sometimes the bad guys win. Bummer.
More often, I think, in anime the heroes don't always get everything
they set out to achieve, the bad guys sort-of turn out in the end to be
not all bad and the end of the episode or the series isn't always the
end of the story. The Guy usually gets the Girl though (or all the
Girls, or the other Guy, or some of the Girls and a Guy or two as
well...). About the only constant in anime is the obligatory hot springs
episode.
--
Email me via robert (at) nojay (dot) org (new email address)
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
Karen Lofstrom
TV series. The movie was skewed to a male audience -- bang bang boom boom,
less personal interaction and snappy banter than the series. The theatre's
assessment of the film's potential audience was expressed in the trailers,
which were all for bloody, violent, scary movies.
Would have preferred less gritty cinematography. I don't want to see every
pore on Zoe's face. Some plot points weak on dispassionate consideration,
though that didn't bother me while watching.
I went to the first showing in Honolulu. Theatre was fairly full for a
mid-day showing, and people clapped afterwards. Guy sitting next to me was
laughing and cheering, and he told me before the movie that he was there
by chance, had never watched any Joss Whedon TV shows.
Waiting anxiously for box-office reports. Big box-office, I get more
Captain Tightpants.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Maybe in your linear fascist patriarchal "correct" spelling
scheme, it is, but some of us like to thonk outside the bqx
a little. -- Ray Radlein
Robert Sneddon
<sou...@pobox.com> writes
>Is Howls Moving Castle any good? I must confess to mixed feelings; I
>did like the book a lot, so I'm nervous about the movie.
It's worth seeing. Whether that means its any good or not, well you
decide. It's a Miyazaki movie, very much so, meaning the animation is
superior-grade and even if you find the plot dull and confused the
visuals are good for the eyes.
Possible thematic spoilers for _Howl's Moving Castle_:
My thoughts were that too many scenes in this movie were taken from
Miyazaki's standard filmic toolbox which I've seen many times previously
(major character transforms into a flying creature and suffers for it,
cute small aircraft that people ride on rather than sit in, the heroine
falls a long way, Bad Guy is not all Bad, Good Guy is not all Good at
the end of the movie, grotesque figures etc.) If you've seen other
Miyazaki movies (especially _Spirited Away_) you've seen a lot of the
same things you'll see in this movie. The fire spirit Calcifer seemed to
be a Disney import though...
Story-wise it gets a bit confused here and there; I suspect either I
missed some plot clues or it was cut about a bit although it's already
about two hours long. I'll be going to see it again and maybe the
disjuncts will be more compehensible.
Subtitled versus dubbed: I've seen the subtitled version which seemed
OK in its fidelity to the dialogue, given my very limited grasp of
Japanese. A friend who saw the dubbed version was not impressed by the
Americanisation of the voices with the exception of Lauren Bacall who
apparently voiced the Witch of the Waste with a certain amount of venom.
Johan Larson
"Karen Lofstrom" <lofs...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:11jtocf...@corp.supernews.com...
>I saw the movie, enjoyed it immensely -- but not as much as I enjoyed the
> TV series. The movie was skewed to a male audience -- bang bang boom boom,
> less personal interaction and snappy banter than the series. The theatre's
> assessment of the film's potential audience was expressed in the trailers,
> which were all for bloody, violent, scary movies.
>
> Would have preferred less gritty cinematography. I don't want to see every
> pore on Zoe's face. Some plot points weak on dispassionate consideration,
> though that didn't bother me while watching.
Possible minor spoilers:
Qvq V zvff fbzrguvat, be qvq Zny tvir hc abg bar ohg _gjb_ punaprf gb svavfu
bss gur nffnffnva? Bapr ng gur raq bs gur svtug ba Vanen'f jbeyq, naq n
frpbaq gvzr va gur trarengbe ebbz, jura Zny unq uvz cvaarq oruvaq pbire.
Naq gur inyhnoyr yrffba jr yrnearq? "Chg gjb va gur urnq, lbh xabj gurl'er
qrnq."
Johan Larson
Kip Williams
There's always the hope that at the very end, you'll get a shot of a
couple of Muppets yelling at you to go home.
Kip W
Cally Soukup
Thanks!
Damien Sullivan
>Possible minor spoilers:
>
>Qvq V zvff fbzrguvat, be qvq Zny tvir hc abg bar ohg _gjb_ punaprf gb svavfu
>bss gur nffnffnva? Bapr ng gur raq bs gur svtug ba Vanen'f jbeyq, naq n
>frpbaq gvzr va gur trarengbe ebbz, jura Zny unq uvz cvaarq oruvaq pbire.
V guvax nsgre Vanen'f rkcybfvba gur cyna jnf gb eha njnl dhvpxyl. Gur thl unq
onpxhc, V guvax.
Va gur trarengbe ebbz... rvgure Zny unf gebhoyr xvyyvat crbcyr jub nera'g na
vzzrqvngr guerng (naq oenttvat nobhg ubj gurl jvyy or), be ur jnf ubcvat gur
oebnqpnfg jbhyq npghnyyl punatr uvf zvaq. Nf vg unccraf gung cebonoyl fnirq
gurve yvirf, V org gur gebbcf jbhyq unir xvyyrq gurz ol qrsnhyg vs gurl
pbhyqa'g ernpu gurve obff. Be pncgherq gurz naq ghearq gurz bire gb
uvture-hcf.
-xx- Damien X-)
Karen Lofstrom
> Qvq V zvff fbzrguvat, be qvq Zny tvir hc abg bar ohg _gjb_ punaprf gb svavfu
> bss gur nffnffnva? Bapr ng gur raq bs gur svtug ba Vanen'f jbeyq, naq n
> frpbaq gvzr va gur trarengbe ebbz, jura Zny unq uvz cvaarq oruvaq pbire.
>
> Naq gur inyhnoyr yrffba jr yrnearq? "Chg gjb va gur urnq, lbh xabj gurl'er
> qrnq."
Cannot explain 1). Will have to see the movie again. Oh the humanity! As
for 2), if he had done that, then the ending wouldn't have played out as
it did. It would have been FINIS all.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I may not be the president, I may not be the pope
But as long as I have Gritty Kitty, I shall never mope
Tim McDaniel
In article <dhluju$2oa$0...@pita.alt.net>,
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>Tim McDaniel should avoid watching any anime then, because the
>Japanese apparently do not have the concept of spoilers and usually
>announce the death of a major character in the episode title.
You guess wrongly. I intend to watch _Sunset Blvd._ this evening even
though I know the very end. I'm reading Shakespeare's Wars of the
Roses historical plays because I already know the history, I know how
Shakespeare warped much of it, and I want to see the details of
Shakespeare's warpage.
There's two factors.
- Spoiling is non-consensual.
If you want to find out the plot in advance, certainly!
It's not *spoiling* anything for you.
Sometimes *I* want to find out plot details in advance. That's not
spoiling anything for me. (If, in retrospect, I wished I hadn't
known, then it's my own damned fault and nobody else's.)
Dropping important plot information in front of someone
*when they're not looking for it* and want to avoid it,
that's spoilage.
Dare I risk a flame war by invoking the obvious analogy with
smoking?
- I want them to tell their story
In most cases, I want to experience the entertainment as the
director and writer wanted it to unfold, because I think they know
how best to tell the story. If they choose to start with "September
21, 1945 ... that was the night I died." or narration by a corpse
floating face-down in a swimming pool, then that's the effect they
wanted and I want to experience it. But if they DON'T want to tell
the story in flashback, and if I don't seek out information, please
don't thrust it in me.
Kip Williams
...
> Sometimes *I* want to find out plot details in advance. That's not
> spoiling anything for me. (If, in retrospect, I wished I hadn't
> known, then it's my own damned fault and nobody else's.)
>
> Dropping important plot information in front of someone
> *when they're not looking for it* and want to avoid it,
> that's spoilage.
Hear, hear! (The whole thing, not just the above excerpts.)
Kip W
Doug Wickstrom
<dhluju$2oa$0...@pita.alt.net>
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> caused electrons to dance and
photons to travel coherently in saying:
>On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:39 +0100 (BST), Paul Dormer wrote:
>> In article <1128074354.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> lau...@dpsinfo.com (Laurie Mann) wrote:
>
>>> I think it's really stupid to be upset to be told people die. It's the
>>> "who" and "why" that matters in this particular movie (yes, I know who
>>> as I saw the movie in June).
>
>> Conversely, I've heard of people who were so worried about spoilers for a
>> new episode of a show that they avoided reading all synopses in listing
>> magazines, all trailers, the continuity announcer's introduction, and
>> presumably the episode title if it appears on screen.
>
>Tim McDaniel should avoid watching any anime then, because the Japanese
>apparently do not have the concept of spoilers and usually announce the
>death of a major character in the episode title.
That's not a problem if you can't read the title.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
--Albert Einstein
Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Johan Larson
"Doug Wickstrom" <nims...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:43460a7a.758056875@localhost...
>>Tim McDaniel should avoid watching any anime then, because the Japanese
>>apparently do not have the concept of spoilers and usually announce the
>>death of a major character in the episode title.
>
> That's not a problem if you can't read the title.
Huh? The title is plain as day on all the packaging I've seen. "Absolutely
Not For Children". It could hardly be more obvious.
Johan Larson
Joel Polowin
> Is Howls Moving Castle any good? I must confess to mixed feelings; I
> did like the book a lot, so I'm nervous about the movie.
I saw it a couple of months ago. Nice backgrounds and settings,
and the characters that were drawn "realistically" were well-done.
But the movie made rather a hash of the story, and the characters
that were drawn in an exaggerated style weren't to my taste. (For
what it's worth, I'm not a fan of anime, so might not be appreciating
some aspects of style that would be common in such works.)
--
Joel Polowin jpolow...@sympatico.ca but delete "XYZZy" from address
If the Corps is Mother, and the Corps is Father... you *might* be a redneck.
Pete McCutchen
>In article <os1pj15c0dr3c7a0a...@4ax.com>,
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Depends on what rights they have, but if Whedon owns the copyright on
>>the basic property -- which he apparently does, since he was able to
>>license it to universal for a movie -- there's no reason why he
>>couldn't have made another TV show. Or just moved to another
>>network, for that matter.
>
>Joss Whedon does not own the rights to Firefly or Serenity.
>Universal negotiated with Fox Television (a separate division from Fox
>the movie studio).
>
>I recall reading comments that contracts now say that there can be no
>new Firefly TV show for 5 years, but I don't recall the details of how
>that might be (Universal got all the rights but with a rider?).
It depends on how things are structured. _Serenity_ is a derivative
work, and they can clearly license one sort of derivative work, but
not another.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>I suspect, though, that if the movie is successful (and the reviews --
>including mine -- are positive) Universal will be thinking in terms of
>"movie franchise" not TV series. The time is ripe. "Star Wars" is done.
>"Star Trek" is moribund. The ongoing franchises these days are superheroes
>(Spider-man, Batman, X Men), so a space saga that clicks with the audience
>won't have much competition.
I liked the film, and it was certainly better than the last _Star
Wars_ or last few _Trek_ outings. I certainly wouldn't object to a
few more good, reasonably intelligent space adventure films, something
that's pretty rare. However, that said, I'm not sure that he'll be
able to maintain this quality through a whole series of films.
But I do hope he gets the chance.
--
Pete McCutchen
Doug Wickstrom
<433F10...@sympatico.ca>
Joel Polowin <jpolow...@sympatico.ca> caused electrons to
dance and photons to travel coherently in saying:
>Cally Soukup wrote:
r/e/d/leatherneck
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Benjamin Franklin
Daniel R. Reitman
<johan0larson8comcast0net> wrote:
>Possible minor spoilers:
>Qvq V zvff fbzrguvat, be qvq Zny tvir hc abg bar ohg _gjb_ punaprf gb svavfu
>bss gur nffnffnva? Bapr ng gur raq bs gur svtug ba Vanen'f jbeyq, naq n
>frpbaq gvzr va gur trarengbe ebbz, jura Zny unq uvz cvaarq oruvaq pbire.
>Naq gur inyhnoyr yrffba jr yrnearq? "Chg gjb va gur urnq, lbh xabj gurl'er
>qrnq."
More spoilage in response, ROT13'd:
Sebz n Qblyvfg fgnaqcbvag, V guvax gung jnf gur ernfba sbe gur thl jub
gevrq gb rfpncr gur erniref jvgu gurz.
Dan, ad nauseam
Philip Chee
> I usually try and stay to the end of credits, anyway. About half way
> through the end credits of Howl's Moving Castle, I thought to myself, why
> am I doing this? I can't read Japanese. (Saw a subtitled version. Don't
> know if the dubbed version has English credits.)
You could have brought a kanji dictionary along.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
Philip Chee
> In article <dhlutr$3tu$0...@pita.alt.net>, Philip Chee
> <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> writes
>>And in amine sometimes they kill off the heroine (C***o C*****e) and
>>sometimes the bad guys win. Bummer.
> More often, I think, in anime the heroes don't always get everything
> they set out to achieve, the bad guys sort-of turn out in the end to be
> not all bad and the end of the episode or the series isn't always the
> end of the story. The Guy usually gets the Girl though (or all the
> Girls, or the other Guy, or some of the Girls and a Guy or two as
Admit it, you've been watching too much Girls Bravo/Final Approach/
HaniHani/DearS/Tenchi Muyo/
> well...). About the only constant in anime is the obligatory hot springs
> episode.
Or the bathhouse episode (Midori no Hibi comes to mind).
Phil
--
-==-
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]To be human without passion is to be dead.
* TagZilla 0.059
Philip Chee
> "Doug Wickstrom" <nims...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:43460a7a.758056875@localhost...
>> That's not a problem if you can't read the title.
> Huh? The title is plain as day on all the packaging I've seen. "Absolutely
> Not For Children". It could hardly be more obvious.
Apparently "Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi" translates to "Spirited Away"' on
the other hand, "Hani Hani" appears to mean "The moon is in the east, the
sun is in the west". I'm sure that the Japanese are having some sort of
subtle joke on us, but darned if I can figure it out.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]One swallow does not make a summer. Aristotle
* TagZilla 0.059
Dan Kimmel
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:30lrj15ttume3qqh0...@4ax.com...
It all depends on how you define series. With movies, more than one counts
for me. I like Whedon's work a lot -- the man can *write* -- and if he does
a couple of sequels and then moves on to something else, that's fine with
me.
Dan Kimmel
"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dhmvho$dap$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
> Dropping important plot information in front of someone
> *when they're not looking for it* and want to avoid it,
> that's spoilage.
>
> Dare I risk a flame war by invoking the obvious analogy with
> smoking?
Entering a thread *labelled* with the name of a new movie is putting you on
notice that if you want to remain pure before seeing the film you ought not
read it.
>
> - I want them to tell their story
>
> In most cases, I want to experience the entertainment as the
> director and writer wanted it to unfold, because I think they know
> how best to tell the story. If they choose to start with "September
> 21, 1945 ... that was the night I died." or narration by a corpse
> floating face-down in a swimming pool, then that's the effect they
> wanted and I want to experience it. But if they DON'T want to tell
> the story in flashback, and if I don't seek out information, please
> don't thrust it in me.
Then please don't read threads labelled with the name of a movie you have
yet to see. The onus here is on *you.*
Joel Polowin
> Then please don't read threads labelled with the name of a movie you have
> yet to see. The onus here is on *you.*
The "N" key in my news reader takes me to the next unread message.
Sometimes this takes me to a new thread without my intending to do
so. Similarly, when I open a newsgroup, the reader may show me the
first unread message in that group.
I regard *some* attempt to avoid showing spoilers on a newly-released
work to be a simple courtesy to others. Trivial to do, significant
benefits. Why not do it?
On Saturday, I was at a friend's house, and as soon as I arrived,
another guest asked me if I'd seen _Serenity_ yet. I told her that I
hadn't; that I'd be seeing it on Sunday when the Ottawa SF Society
did a group outing.
She burbled, "Kaylee's got a big secret. I've *got* to tell you her
secret!"
"Please *don't* --"
"She's completely made of chocolate!"
Long pause. "Heh. Only in your dreams, Michelle."
Joel Rosenberg
Mean guy that I am, many years ago, I happened by a friend reading the
first Pern book.
[spoilers follow: possible for Serenity, the Pern books, and "The
Usual Suspects"]
I casually asked, "Hey, did you get to the part where Lessa kills
F'lar?" (For those who haven't read the book, that doesn't happen,
and the likelihood of it happening isn't a plot point in the book.)
I don't think he ever forgave me.
That said, while I don't particularly mind knowing in advance
whatever the big surprise may be in Serenity, knowing such things in
advance really can interfere with folks' enjoyment of movies. I'm
really, really glad I saw "The Usual Suspects" without knowing the big
surprise, as the effect of it was pretty remarkable -- I think I
figured it out *exactly* when the moviemakers wanted me to figure it
out.
Paul Dormer
wrote:
> Apparently "Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi" translates to "Spirited
> Away"' on
> the other hand, "Hani Hani" appears to mean "The moon is in the east,
> the
> sun is in the west". I'm sure that the Japanese are having some sort of
> subtle joke on us, but darned if I can figure it out.
The Germans seem to be a great nation for re-titling works when
translating them into their own language. I was in a books shop in
Germany once and saw a book called (retranslated back to English)
Chocolate for Breakfast. It turned out to be Bridget Jones' Diary. I'm
also told that Dune in Germany became The Desert Planet. And, which I
could get German TV on my satellite receiver, I saw they were showing
Airplane II under the title An Unbelievable Journey in a Crazy Spaceship.
Paul Dormer
Rosenberg) wrote:
> Mean guy that I am, many years ago, I happened by a friend reading the
> first Pern book.
>
> [spoilers follow: possible for Serenity, the Pern books, and "The
> Usual Suspects"]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I casually asked, "Hey, did you get to the part where Lessa kills
> F'lar?" (For those who haven't read the book, that doesn't happen,
> and the likelihood of it happening isn't a plot point in the book.)
>
> I don't think he ever forgave me.
Glasgow fan Bob "Fake" Shaw is reported to have told someone in his office
who was going to see Alien that the best bit is when the cat explodes.
>
> That said, while I don't particularly mind knowing in advance
> whatever the big surprise may be in Serenity, knowing such things in
> advance really can interfere with folks' enjoyment of movies. I'm
> really, really glad I saw "The Usual Suspects" without knowing the big
> surprise, as the effect of it was pretty remarkable -- I think I
> figured it out *exactly* when the moviemakers wanted me to figure it
> out.
I worked out the ending about half way through. Something about the Pete
Postlethwaite character gave the game away.
Dorothy J Heydt
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>- Spoiling is non-consensual.
>
> If you want to find out the plot in advance, certainly!
> It's not *spoiling* anything for you.
But non-spoiling is also non-consensual to the extent that people
are so careful about not spoiling for spoilerphobes, that no one
posts any information and spoilerphiles like me, who *want* to
know how it comes out, who in many cases will not see the film
unless they know how it comes out, can't find out how it comes
out because no one will say.
>
> Sometimes *I* want to find out plot details in advance. That's not
> spoiling anything for me. (If, in retrospect, I wished I hadn't
> known, then it's my own damned fault and nobody else's.)
Where do you find them? Is there some URL absolutely chock-full
of spoilers so that if I want to perform the equivalent of
reading the last half-dozen pages, I can?
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>
>I casually asked, "Hey, did you get to the part where Lessa kills
>F'lar?" (For those who haven't read the book, that doesn't happen,
>and the likelihood of it happening isn't a plot point in the book.)
No, darn it, because that whole series would've been better if she
had fed that arrogant, self-centered young pup to his own dragon
somewhere between Ruatha and Benden.
Aaron Denney
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
>> Then please don't read threads labelled with the name of a movie you have
>> yet to see. The onus here is on *you.*
>
> The "N" key in my news reader takes me to the next unread message.
> Sometimes this takes me to a new thread without my intending to do
> so. Similarly, when I open a newsgroup, the reader may show me the
> first unread message in that group.
You might consider a better newsreader. I'm a fan of slrn.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Michael J. Lowrey
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 20:12:36 +0100, Robert Sneddon wrote:
> > well...). About the only constant in anime is the obligatory hot springs
> > episode.
>
> Or the bathhouse episode (Midori no Hibi comes to mind).
Are shower scenes no longer mandatory?
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
not really an otaku
Joel Rosenberg
Well, I did always think F'nor was cooler.
Johan Larson
"Michael J. Lowrey" <ora...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:021020051048495146%ora...@execpc.com...
> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 20:12:36 +0100, Robert Sneddon wrote:
>> > well...). About the only constant in anime is the obligatory hot
>> > springs
>> > episode.
>>
>> Or the bathhouse episode (Midori no Hibi comes to mind).
>
> Are shower scenes no longer mandatory?
And does the term "fanservice" predate anime fandom?
Johan Larson
Dorothy J Heydt
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> In article <m364sgr...@tran.ellegon.com>,
>> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >I casually asked, "Hey, did you get to the part where Lessa kills
>> >F'lar?" (For those who haven't read the book, that doesn't happen,
>> >and the likelihood of it happening isn't a plot point in the book.)
>>
>> No, darn it, because that whole series would've been better if she
>> had fed that arrogant, self-centered young pup to his own dragon
>> somewhere between Ruatha and Benden.
>
Cooler, but dumber.
In fact, I can't think of *any*one in that world I would've cared
to know.
Nancy Lebovitz
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <dhmvho$dap$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us>,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>- Spoiling is non-consensual.
>>
>> If you want to find out the plot in advance, certainly!
>> It's not *spoiling* anything for you.
>
>But non-spoiling is also non-consensual to the extent that people
>are so careful about not spoiling for spoilerphobes, that no one
>posts any information and spoilerphiles like me, who *want* to
>know how it comes out, who in many cases will not see the film
>unless they know how it comes out, can't find out how it comes
>out because no one will say.
You could start a "Please spoil Serenity for me" thread.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
Dorothy J Heydt
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <Inqoq...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <dhmvho$dap$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us>,
>>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>- Spoiling is non-consensual.
>>>
>>> If you want to find out the plot in advance, certainly!
>>> It's not *spoiling* anything for you.
>>
>>But non-spoiling is also non-consensual to the extent that people
>>are so careful about not spoiling for spoilerphobes, that no one
>>posts any information and spoilerphiles like me, who *want* to
>>know how it comes out, who in many cases will not see the film
>>unless they know how it comes out, can't find out how it comes
>>out because no one will say.
>
>You could start a "Please spoil Serenity for me" thread.
Hm. Yes, that would do, on a case-by-case basis, though I won't
start one for Serenity because I have not yet decided whether
I'll see it. Reasons, which I strongly suspect apply only to me
and to nobody else:
(a) I never saw the series;
(b) everybody else has raved about it, which makes me dubious,
having encountered so many other things that everybody else raved
about and I didn't like;
(c) I recently learned that the guy who did it is chiefly known
for doing Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in which I have less than
no interest. See (b).
David Friedman
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> > Sometimes *I* want to find out plot details in advance. That's not
> > spoiling anything for me. (If, in retrospect, I wished I hadn't
> > known, then it's my own damned fault and nobody else's.)
>
> Where do you find them? Is there some URL absolutely chock-full
> of spoilers so that if I want to perform the equivalent of
> reading the last half-dozen pages, I can?
>
> Dorothy J. Heydt
"The back of the cover will tell you the plot."
--
Remove NOPSAM to email
www.daviddfriedman.com
Kip Williams
> (b) everybody else has raved about it, which makes me dubious,
> having encountered so many other things that everybody else raved
> about and I didn't like;
>
> (c) I recently learned that the guy who did it is chiefly known
> for doing Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in which I have less than
> no interest. See (b).
I never got into Buffy in a big way, mostly because I didn't think I had
the time. But every time I saw an episode, I thought "here's something I
could probably get into in a big way." Even without a knowledge of the
grand architecture of the interweaving plots and all, I always enjoyed
whatever I saw. It seemed to deserve its good rep.
Kip W
avoiding new entanglements
Daniel Silevitch
The Mastersmith (Fandarel, I think) wasn't too bad. I think I would have
liked Masterharper Robinton. The Holders and the dragonriders, though,
ranged from 'eh' down to 'ugh'.
-dms
trinlay
new Firefly TV show for 5 years, but I don't recall the details of how
That's odd, the rumor I've been hearing is that if the movie does well
enough it may get the tv series revived... perhaps after a trilogy of
movies?
Dorothy J Heydt
Daniel Silevitch <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:22:28 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>
>> to know.
>
>The Mastersmith (Fandarel, I think) wasn't too bad. I think I would have
>liked Masterharper Robinton. The Holders and the dragonriders, though,
>ranged from 'eh' down to 'ugh'.
Robinton is the least godawful, but he is taken from life and he
is so busy being somebody McCaffrey venerates more than Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost all rolled into One, that he never has any
time to do any decent music-making. You can have him, garlanded
with radishes.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>I saw the movie, enjoyed it immensely -- but not as much as I enjoyed the
>TV series. The movie was skewed to a male audience -- bang bang boom boom,
>less personal interaction and snappy banter than the series. The theatre's
>assessment of the film's potential audience was expressed in the trailers,
>which were all for bloody, violent, scary movies.
Ten of our SF book discussion group, with four supplementary family
members, saw it last night at the 7:25pm showing. The theatre was
full except for the first two rows of seats.
We didn't think it skewed male, there was a lot of snappy banter (the
audience laughed frequently), and only one of our trailers was yucky:
Doom, which looked like it might be good until that Rock person showed
up. Then you know it's going to be all fighting, no thinking.
The other two trailers were The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
(with no wardrobe!) and Zorro.
>Waiting anxiously for box-office reports. Big box-office, I get more
>Captain Tightpants.
LOL
--
Marilee J. Layman
Marilee J. Layman
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 1 Oct 2005 00:26:27 -0500, tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
>>In article <os1pj15c0dr3c7a0a...@4ax.com>,
>>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>Depends on what rights they have, but if Whedon owns the copyright on
>>>the basic property -- which he apparently does, since he was able to
>>>license it to universal for a movie -- there's no reason why he
>>>couldn't have made another TV show. Or just moved to another
>>>network, for that matter.
>>
>>Joss Whedon does not own the rights to Firefly or Serenity.
>>Universal negotiated with Fox Television (a separate division from Fox
>>the movie studio).
>>
>>I recall reading comments that contracts now say that there can be no
>>new Firefly TV show for 5 years, but I don't recall the details of how
>>that might be (Universal got all the rights but with a rider?).
>
>It depends on how things are structured. _Serenity_ is a derivative
>work, and they can clearly license one sort of derivative work, but
>not another.
I thought that might be why they didn't use the theme song. It's the
*last* music on the credits, in minor key, no voice.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Nancy Lebovitz
Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>The other two trailers were The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
>(with no wardrobe!) and Zorro.
The trailer I saw had a wardrobe, but iirc they butchered the beginning
of the book. On the other hand, Narnia looks very good indeed.
David G. Bell
jo...@ellegon.com "Joel Rosenberg" wrote:
I always wondered about G'kar's dragon, myself.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
Daniel Silevitch
> On Sunday, in article <m3d5mne...@tran.ellegon.com>
> jo...@ellegon.com "Joel Rosenberg" wrote:
>
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>> > In article <m364sgr...@tran.ellegon.com>,
>> > Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >I casually asked, "Hey, did you get to the part where Lessa kills
>> > >F'lar?" (For those who haven't read the book, that doesn't happen,
>> > >and the likelihood of it happening isn't a plot point in the book.)
>> >
>> > No, darn it, because that whole series would've been better if she
>> > had fed that arrogant, self-centered young pup to his own dragon
>> > somewhere between Ruatha and Benden.
>> >
>> > Dorothy J. Heydt
>> > Albany, California
>> > djh...@kithrup.com
>>
>> Well, I did always think F'nor was cooler.
>
> I always wondered about G'kar's dragon, myself.
Na'toth was a bit prickly, but I think calling her a dragon goes a bit
far. Her name ends in the proper way, though.
-dms
Kip Williams
> I thought that might be why they didn't use the theme song. It's the
> *last* music on the credits, in minor key, no voice.
That's easily fixed. Just dub in Bill "Louge Lizard" Murray.
"Se-REN-i-ty!
It's a crazy, nutty, koo-koo kind of..."
Okay, I don't know how it goes. But he could do it!
Kip W
confident
Doug Wickstrom
<dhol9h$t1l$0...@pita.alt.net>
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> caused electrons to dance and
photons to travel coherently in saying:
>On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 19:46 +0100 (BST), Paul Dormer wrote:
>
>> I usually try and stay to the end of credits, anyway. About half way
>> through the end credits of Howl's Moving Castle, I thought to myself, why
>> am I doing this? I can't read Japanese. (Saw a subtitled version. Don't
>> know if the dubbed version has English credits.)
>
>You could have brought a kanji dictionary along.
Having used the things for years, and having some small
competence at their use, I would expect to be able to look up
perhaps three instances of unfamiliar characters while the
credits ran, to the detriment of actually reading the familiar
ones.
However, they are mostly names and positions, and many of the
positions are actually English words represented in kana, and
most family names, at least, use very common and familiar
characters. It's the given names that get tricky, and then not
too much, as they are restricted to the Common Use Kanji plus a
few for traditional names that can't be represented with the
Common Use Kanji.
Being totally turned off by anime, however, I doubt I would ever
find myself in the circumstance of reading the credits for such.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
Gentlemen do not wear flippers with a sombrero.
Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Joel Polowin
> (b) everybody else has raved about it, which makes me dubious,
> having encountered so many other things that everybody else raved
> about and I didn't like;
>
> (c) I recently learned that the guy who did it is chiefly known
> for doing Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in which I have less than
> no interest. See (b).
I have the same (b) and (c) reactions as you. But the series was
highly recommended to me by people whose tastes generally coincide
with mine and are aware of the things that really bug me about
a lot of media SF.
I just got back from seeing the movie. I enjoyed it, though it was
somewhat more violent than I'm comfortable with as entertainment.
Even apart from the violence, it was a very emotionally-intense movie.
I'd consider seeing it again, and I don't do that with many movies.
There were a couple of mysteries from the TV series that will now
probably never be resolved, and one or two "facts" from the TV series
that were just a bit too pat got ripped open. I think that
it isn't *necessary* to see the series before seeing the movie, but
it would be preferable; good familiarity with the characters and
their relationships would significantly increase the emotional impact
of seeing what they go through in the movie.
Joel Polowin
> In article <a6e0k1118d1857i16...@4ax.com>,
> Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>The other two trailers were The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
>>(with no wardrobe!) and Zorro.
>
> The trailer I saw had a wardrobe, but iirc they butchered the beginning
> of the book. On the other hand, Narnia looks very good indeed.
The trailer I saw had the wardrobe, but the only clear difference I
noticed from the book (insofar as I could tell from the snippets in
the trailer) was the brilliant light shining out from the wardrobe.
I hope they haven't added a lot of showy flashy magic to the story.
It also appears from the movie posters that the White Witch in the
movie uses polar bears rather than reindeer to pull her sledge.
Nancy Lebovitz
Joel Polowin <jpolow...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
>> In article <a6e0k1118d1857i16...@4ax.com>,
>> Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The other two trailers were The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
>>>(with no wardrobe!) and Zorro.
>>
>> The trailer I saw had a wardrobe, but iirc they butchered the beginning
>> of the book. On the other hand, Narnia looks very good indeed.
>
>The trailer I saw had the wardrobe, but the only clear difference I
>noticed from the book (insofar as I could tell from the snippets in
>the trailer) was the brilliant light shining out from the wardrobe.
>I hope they haven't added a lot of showy flashy magic to the story.
>
>It also appears from the movie posters that the White Witch in the
>movie uses polar bears rather than reindeer to pull her sledge.
It's been a while since I've read the book, but iirc the Professor in
the book is friendly. The trailer has the children being told by a woman
(a servant?) about how the Professor is very unused to children and they
shouldn't shout, slide down the banister, touch any of the statues....
It's all very forbidding.
Martin Easterbrook
<p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>
> Glasgow fan Bob "Fake" Shaw is reported to have told someone in his
> office
> who was going to see Alien that the best bit is when the cat explodes.
>
>
It wasn't someone in his office. On the phone he told one of the 20 of
us who were going to see it together in London.
Hence 20 people being reduced to quivering wrecks as everyone else
started filing out.
Martin E
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Doug Wickstrom
<opsx1mwawe02i842@holly>
"Martin Easterbrook" <uad...@dircon.co.uk> caused electrons to
dance and photons to travel coherently in saying:
>On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:12 +0100 (BST), Paul Dormer
><p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>
>> Glasgow fan Bob "Fake" Shaw is reported to have told someone in his
>> office
>> who was going to see Alien that the best bit is when the cat explodes.
>>
>>
>
>It wasn't someone in his office. On the phone he told one of the 20 of
>us who were going to see it together in London.
>
>Hence 20 people being reduced to quivering wrecks as everyone else
>started filing out.
Possible spoiler for "Alien" below:
Because the cat _didn't_ explode?
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese." --Charles de Gaulle
Kip Williams
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:12 +0100 (BST), Paul Dormer
> <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Glasgow fan Bob "Fake" Shaw is reported to have told someone in his
>> office
>> who was going to see Alien that the best bit is when the cat explodes.
>
> It wasn't someone in his office. On the phone he told one of the 20 of
> us who were going to see it together in London.
>
> Hence 20 people being reduced to quivering wrecks as everyone else
> started filing out.
I disliked the movie so much, I was sorely tempted to depart muttering
"...never thought it would be the cat..." But that would have punished
the wrong people, and anyway I didn't think of it in time.
Kip W
Dorothy J Heydt
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>It's been a while since I've read the book, but iirc the Professor in
>the book is friendly. The trailer has the children being told by a woman
>(a servant?) about how the Professor is very unused to children and they
>shouldn't shout, slide down the banister, touch any of the statues....
>It's all very forbidding.
Well, that's not too inaccurate as far as it goes. The Professor
in the book is elderly and academic and they are told by the
housekeeper not to bug him. BUT considering he is Professor
Digory Kirke, who as a kid their age entered Narnia on the first
day of its existence, he probably doesn't bite all that hard.
N.B. Lewis didn't know that when he was writing the first volume,
but the people making the film have no excuse for not knowing it.
The bit about the Professor being unapproachable serves chiefly
to urge the kids to play something that can be played quietly ...
hence, the game of hide-and-seek.
Joel Polowin
> I just got back from seeing the movie. I enjoyed it, though it was
> somewhat more violent than I'm comfortable with as entertainment.
Just to be clear, I should note that that's a very low bar.
Damien Sullivan
>Joel Polowin wrote:
>> I just got back from seeing the movie. I enjoyed it, though it was
>> somewhat more violent than I'm comfortable with as entertainment.
>
>Just to be clear, I should note that that's a very low bar.
My ride reacted badly to the violence as well, but she said she's very
sensitive. It's more violent than the series. I don't think it's
particularly gory, and I am sensitive to gore-porn (gorn?). But there's a lot
of people getting beat up and opportunity for gore shots if the camera wanted.
There's not much gratuitous violence, I think.
-xx- Damien X-)
Joel Polowin
> It's been a while since I've read the book, but iirc the Professor in
> the book is friendly. The trailer has the children being told by a woman
> (a servant?) about how the Professor is very unused to children and they
> shouldn't shout, slide down the banister, touch any of the statues....
> It's all very forbidding.
The book makes it clear that the Professor is "an old dear" and
reasonably approachable, but that "the Macready" is something of a
martinet. "Mrs Macready was not fond of children, and did not like
to be interrupted when she was telling visitors all the things she
knew. She had said to Susan and Peter almost on the first morning
(along with a good many other instructions), 'And please remember
you're to keep out of the way whenever I'm taking a party over
the house.'"
Dan Kimmel
"Joel Polowin" <jpolow...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:433FF59E...@sympatico.ca...
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
> > Then please don't read threads labelled with the name of a movie you
have
> > yet to see. The onus here is on *you.*
>
> The "N" key in my news reader takes me to the next unread message.
> Sometimes this takes me to a new thread without my intending to do
> so. Similarly, when I open a newsgroup, the reader may show me the
> first unread message in that group.
Get a news reader that lets you select threads.
>
> I regard *some* attempt to avoid showing spoilers on a newly-released
> work to be a simple courtesy to others. Trivial to do, significant
> benefits. Why not do it?
I don't deliberately post spoilers but the ones who want spoiler space and
all sorts of bells and whistles? I find it significantly annoying to do,
even more annoying to wade through, and no benefit whatsoever. So I refuse
to do it.
Tim McDaniel
>But non-spoiling is also non-consensual to the extent that people
>are so careful about not spoiling for spoilerphobes, that no one
>posts any information and spoilerphiles like me
First: how does the Internet bridge from your universe to mine?
The only time I've recently seen people be careful about non-spoilage
is for the rough-draft previews of Serenity over the last 5 months.
(Which is one reason why I didn't expect the slightest hint of
spoilerage for this movie.)
Second: spoiler-free space oppresses you? Oh, please. The mapping to
smoking is even more obvious here.
>Where do you find [spoiler details]? Is there some URL absolutely
>chock-full of spoilers so that if I want to perform the equivalent of
>reading the last half-dozen pages, I can?
Internet Movie Data Base at <http://www.imdb.com/> has enough plot-,
character-, and style-related info in the reviews that I was able to
suss out _Sunset Blvd._ well enough. There's a link to a plot
summary, but it's only one paragraph per movie (per reviewer), so that
may not be enough for you (not like, for example, the TV episode
recaps at tv.com or televisionwithoutpity.com).
But reading the last N pages gives you a feel for style, mannerisms,
and characters too, which a plot synopsis does not. Movie trailers
are variable in how well they reflect the movie, but I think
_Serenity_'s does pretty well in that regard: some snappy dialog, some
fighty-fighty, some CGI. IMDB's pages on _Serenity_ have a lot of
links to trailers (click "trailers").
--
"Me, I love the USA; I never miss an episode." -- Paul "Fruitbat" Sleigh
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <Inqoq...@kithrup.com>,
>>But non-spoiling is also non-consensual to the extent that people
>>are so careful about not spoiling for spoilerphobes, that no one
>>posts any information and spoilerphiles like me
>
>First: how does the Internet bridge from your universe to mine?
>The only time I've recently seen people be careful about non-spoilage
>is for the rough-draft previews of Serenity over the last 5 months.
>(Which is one reason why I didn't expect the slightest hint of
>spoilerage for this movie.)
To this very moment, you've all been so careful, I know nothing
whatever about Serenity except it's a spinoff from Firefly, about
which I know almost as little. (Something about the losers of a
civil war? Or is that something else?)
>
>Second: spoiler-free space oppresses you? Oh, please. The mapping to
>smoking is even more obvious here.
Oh, it doesn't oppress me, just inconveniences me on those
vanishingly rare occasions when I actually contemplate seeing a
movie, and wonder what it's like, and can't find out.
>
>>Where do you find [spoiler details]? Is there some URL absolutely
>>chock-full of spoilers so that if I want to perform the equivalent of
>>reading the last half-dozen pages, I can?
>
>Internet Movie Data Base at <http://www.imdb.com/> has enough plot-,
>character-, and style-related info in the reviews that I was able to
>suss out _Sunset Blvd._ well enough. There's a link to a plot
>summary, but it's only one paragraph per movie (per reviewer), so that
>may not be enough for you (not like, for example, the TV episode
>recaps at tv.com or televisionwithoutpity.com).
Yes, I tend to look films up in IMDB when I'm curious about
them. But, as you say, they do a brief summing up and they don't
reveal the ending either. So unless I want to know things that
are on record, like who was in it or who directed, I don't get
very far.
>But reading the last N pages gives you a feel for style, mannerisms,
>and characters too, which a plot synopsis does not. Movie trailers
>are variable in how well they reflect the movie, but I think
>_Serenity_'s does pretty well in that regard: some snappy dialog, some
>fighty-fighty, some CGI. IMDB's pages on _Serenity_ have a lot of
>links to trailers (click "trailers").
Trailers, for me at least, serve only the function of giving me a
clue that there's enough sex/violence/whatever in the film that I
don't want to see it. This is useful in its way.* But if I've
gotten past that hurdle I really do want to know what is going
on, what the hidden secrets are, and how it ends.
*The comments about Serenity here have served a similar function.
I've seen three or four comments already about violence in it,
ranging from "it was a little too much for me" to "it was okay
with me, but my exceptionally sensitive friend found it too
much." So it's probably too much for me also.
Kip Williams
>>>Where do you find [spoiler details]? Is there some URL absolutely
>>>chock-full of spoilers so that if I want to perform the equivalent of
>>>reading the last half-dozen pages, I can?
http://www.themoviespoiler.com/
Just what it sounds like. Spoiler Central, as it were.
Kip W
Dorothy J Heydt
Jack Foy
> whatever about Serenity except it's a spinoff from Firefly, about
> which I know almost as little. (Something about the losers of a
> civil war? Or is that something else?)
(Back story for "Firefly" and "Serenity"; hopefully spoiler-free, but
I've inserted a page break below just in case.)
"Serenity" is a sequel of sorts to the story arc of the TV series
"Firefly". The setting and characters are basically the same as the
series.
The back-story is told in the first five minutes of the film: Earth has
been laid waste and abandoned by humanity; the resulting settlers have
terraformed numerous worlds; some of those worlds got the wealthy and
powerful from Earth, and formed a government called the Alliance; other
colonies didn't recognize the Alliance government; they fought a war;
the Alliance won. Several main characters from "Firefly" fought for the
Independents in the war.
(Small details like the vastness of space and limitations due to physics
are gleefully ignored; it's a space opera, and my WSOD wasn't
threatened. The movie discards one of my favorite touches of realism
from the series, though: the lack of sound in space. How
disappointing.)
There are hints that the Alliance grew out of the union of the
governments of the United States and the People's Republic of China.
There are pretty heavy fascist and military-industrial overtones, and
in the series we learn that the Alliance tolerates human slavery.
Some people claim that there's an American Civil War tone to the show,
and that makes some sense, given that it borrows the cultural context
of the post-Civil War American West. But I think it's less about how
the South is ginna rise agin and more about how the powerless react on
the margins of a powerful society.
The focus of the movie and the series is on how a particular group of
individuals try to get by and behave honorably.
> *The comments about Serenity here have served a similar function.
> I've seen three or four comments already about violence in it,
> ranging from "it was a little too much for me" to "it was okay
> with me, but my exceptionally sensitive friend found it too
> much." So it's probably too much for me also.
It's a very emotionally intense movie. Much of the nasty stuff happens
just off-camera, but if you're sensitive to violence it's probably not
something you'll enjoy.
--
Jack Foy <use...@foys.net>
Doug Wickstrom
<31s613-...@foys.net>
Jack Foy <use...@foys.net> caused electrons to dance and photons
to travel coherently in saying:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> To this very moment, you've all been so careful, I know nothing
>> whatever about Serenity except it's a spinoff from Firefly, about
>> which I know almost as little. (Something about the losers of a
>> civil war? Or is that something else?)
>
>(Back story for "Firefly" and "Serenity"; hopefully spoiler-free, but
>I've inserted a page break below just in case.)
You mean this?
>
As has been noted before, "page breaks" don't necessarily do as
intended.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"[R]ooting for truffles with our fangs in the air...." Julie Stampnitzky
David Goldfarb
Carnography. (Wish I could remember who coined the word.)
--
David Goldfarb |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "Boom. Sooner or later. Boom!"
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Grail"
Paul Dormer
Wickstrom) wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 20:55:01 +0800, in message
> <dhol9h$t1l$0...@pita.alt.net>
> Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> caused electrons to dance and
> photons to travel coherently in saying:
>
> >On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 19:46 +0100 (BST), Paul Dormer wrote:
> >
> >> I usually try and stay to the end of credits, anyway. About half
> > way >through the end credits of Howl's Moving Castle, I thought to
> > myself, why >am I doing this? I can't read Japanese. (Saw a
> > subtitled version. Don't >know if the dubbed version has English
> > credits.)
> >
> >You could have brought a kanji dictionary along.
>
> Having used the things for years, and having some small
> competence at their use, I would expect to be able to look up
> perhaps three instances of unfamiliar characters while the
> credits ran, to the detriment of actually reading the familiar
> ones.
Well, in my case there would have been the added problem that I'm
extremely long sighted and can't read anything a metre from my face in
good lighting conditions. In the lighting conditions of a cinema whilst
the end credits are playing, I can't read anything held in my hand, even
with my glasses on, and with my glasses on, I probably couldn't read
anything on the screen.
Martin Easterbrook
wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:12:37 GMT, in message
> <opsx1mwawe02i842@holly>
> "Martin Easterbrook" <uad...@dircon.co.uk> caused electrons to
> dance and photons to travel coherently in saying:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:12 +0100 (BST), Paul Dormer
>> <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Glasgow fan Bob "Fake" Shaw is reported to have told someone in his
>>> office
>>> who was going to see Alien that the best bit is when the cat explodes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It wasn't someone in his office. On the phone he told one of the 20 of
>> us who were going to see it together in London.
>>
>> Hence 20 people being reduced to quivering wrecks as everyone else
>> started filing out.
>
> Possible spoiler for "Alien" below:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Because the cat _didn't_ explode?
>
Yup !
That cat was totally inert. Although the first draft of the script
apparently had the camera panning over to an alien egg in the corner
of the shuttle as Ridley goes into hibernation.
Martin Easterbrook
some quotes;
"Whedon was inspired to create "Firefly" after reading Michael Shaara's
Civil War book "The Killer Angels" about the Battle of Gettysburg."
and
"''Mal's politics are very reactionary and 'Big government is bad' and
'Don't interfere with my life,''' Whedon explains. ''And sometimes he's
wrong -- because sometimes the Alliance is America, this beautiful shining
light of democracy. But sometimes the Alliance is America in Vietnam: we
have a lot of petty politics, we are way out of our league and we have no
right to control these people. And yet! Sometimes the Alliance is America
in Nazi Germany. And Mal can't see that, because he was a Vietnamese.''"
If you haven't seen or read any of Whedon's work then one of the things
you it helps to know is that Whedon's heroes or villains are rarely black
or
white. The darkest villain may be the person who saves you and the greatest
of heroes is always open to temptation. At the end of one of the TV series
our heroes are left wondering if they were actually fighting on the wrong
side.
Pete McCutchen
<daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
>"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:30lrj15ttume3qqh0...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 06:58:05 -0400, "Dan Kimmel"
>> <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I suspect, though, that if the movie is successful (and the reviews --
>> >including mine -- are positive) Universal will be thinking in terms of
>> >"movie franchise" not TV series. The time is ripe. "Star Wars" is done.
>> >"Star Trek" is moribund. The ongoing franchises these days are
>superheroes
>> >(Spider-man, Batman, X Men), so a space saga that clicks with the
>audience
>> >won't have much competition.
>>
>> I liked the film, and it was certainly better than the last _Star
>> Wars_ or last few _Trek_ outings. I certainly wouldn't object to a
>> few more good, reasonably intelligent space adventure films, something
>> that's pretty rare. However, that said, I'm not sure that he'll be
>> able to maintain this quality through a whole series of films.
>>
>> But I do hope he gets the chance.
>
>It all depends on how you define series. With movies, more than one counts
>for me. I like Whedon's work a lot -- the man can *write* -- and if he does
>a couple of sequels and then moves on to something else, that's fine with
>me.
>
Sure. But I think an attempt to turn it into a "franchise" would
result in gradually, or not so gradually, eliminating the
characteristics which make it worthwhile and different.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>In article <dhmvho$dap$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us>,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>- Spoiling is non-consensual.
>>
>> If you want to find out the plot in advance, certainly!
>> It's not *spoiling* anything for you.
>
>But non-spoiling is also non-consensual to the extent that people
>are so careful about not spoiling for spoilerphobes, that no one
>posts any information and spoilerphiles like me, who *want* to
>know how it comes out, who in many cases will not see the film
>unless they know how it comes out, can't find out how it comes
>out because no one will say.
>>
>> Sometimes *I* want to find out plot details in advance. That's not
>> spoiling anything for me. (If, in retrospect, I wished I hadn't
>> known, then it's my own damned fault and nobody else's.)
>
>Where do you find them? Is there some URL absolutely chock-full
>of spoilers so that if I want to perform the equivalent of
>reading the last half-dozen pages, I can?
Well, I'll spoil it for you, if you want.
BIG SPOILER FOR SERENITY AHEAD! DON'T READ ANY MORE IF YOU DON'T WANT
TO BE SPOILED! I WILL LEAVE SPACE, AND BELOW THAT SPACE WILL BE
SPOILERS. BIG ONES!
OK, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED. SPOILERS ARE COMING UP.
The "final reveal" is that River, the telepathic fighting machine,
knows about a planet upon which the Evil Central Government tried an
experimental gas to keep the population docile and law-abiding. The
twist is that people stopped going to work, eating, or doing anything
else that required effort. They just decided to lie down and die.
Except for the .1% whose aggression centers were stimulated. This
turned them into cannibalistic raiders who rape and eat people alive
(not shown on-screeen.)
The good guys win by broadcasting the message about the origin of the
Reavers to the galaxy at large. Two of the good guys (the Preacher
and Walsh, the pilot) are killed in the process. River turns into
Xena at one point, and Kaylee and the Doctor end up getting together.
That's about it.
--
Pete McCutchen