Help -- Dune Miniatures
Ty Beard
I want to create a miniatures game based on the Dune novels. My problem is
that I don't know if anyone makes appropriate troops. In the Dune universe,
military forces use swords, because shields have nullified projectile
weapons and explosives. So you have modern or futuristoc looking troops,
armed with swords. Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
--
Ty Beard, Attorney at Law
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me. But
it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's important"
--Dr. Martin Luther King
Geo
Ty Beard wrote:
>
> I want to create a miniatures game based on the Dune novels. My Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
> armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
There was a game called Space 1889 by GDW (now defunct, I believe) who
also produced Traveller/MegaTraveller. Figs were made for both by
Grenadier. many had blades. In fact traveller had a dune rippoff
scenario book (loosely based) called Waterworld... but I digress.
Old GW/Citadel Imperial Guard figures came with separate arms and
weapons. Maybe someone has some to sell?
Geo
Dredd
> There was a game called Space 1889 by GDW (now defunct, I believe) who
> also produced Traveller/MegaTraveller. Figs were made for both by
> Grenadier. many had blades. In fact traveller had a dune rippoff
> scenario book (loosely based) called Waterworld... but I digress.
>
> Old GW/Citadel Imperial Guard figures came with separate arms and
> weapons. Maybe someone has some to sell?
>
> Geo
Do you know who sell Grenadier Minatures in North America (pref Canada!) , or if they have a web site???
Thanks in advance
Dredd
Jimbo
Dredd wrote in message <3569CDEF...@cord.ubc.ca>...
>
> also produced Traveller/MegaTraveller. Figs were made for both by
>> Grenadier. many had blades. In fact traveller had a dune rippoff
>> scenario book (loosely based) called Waterworld... but I digress.
>>
or if they have a web site???
>
Jimbo
ji...@felixent.f9.co.uk (replace f9 with force9)
http://www.felixent.force9.co.uk
life, don't you just hate life...
Paul M. M. Jacobus
On Mon, 25 May 1998, Geo wrote:
> There was a game called Space 1889 by GDW (now defunct, I believe)
> who also produced Traveller/MegaTraveller. Figs were made for both by
> Grenadier. many had blades. In fact traveller had a dune rippoff
> scenario book (loosely based) called Waterworld... but I digress.
Woof, I just got the mental image of a miniatures game based off of Kevin
Costner's _Waterworld_ movie.
> Old GW/Citadel Imperial Guard figures came with separate arms and
> weapons. Maybe someone has some to sell?
You can buy the sprues seperately from GW, but you may pay a bit for it
(wel;come to GW.) However, there are lots of ways to obtain second-hand
figs, like good ol' Bartertown:
http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~darkwolf/trading.html
JD
Kurt
Ty Beard wrote in message <01bd87cc$e5ade960$1b2519ce@default>...
>I want to create a miniatures game based on the Dune novels. My problem is
>that I don't know if anyone makes appropriate troops. In the Dune universe,
>military forces use swords, because shields have nullified projectile
>weapons and explosives. So you have modern or futuristoc looking troops,
>armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
>
Fremen (from the film - haven't read the book though), you could use those
and hack the weapons up a bit.
Kurt
Geo
Jimbo wrote:
> >
> They went out of business... don't know if the moulds are still around.
I did not know that... not many of the old companies left <snif>.
Geo
David Calderon
Hi Ty
Why don't you use the Necro Van Saar as Fremen and use Space Marines as
Sardukar. Now Ben Gesrit witches would be a challenge.
Ty Beard wrote:
> I want to create a miniatures game based on the Dune novels. My problem is
> that I don't know if anyone makes appropriate troops. In the Dune universe,
> military forces use swords, because shields have nullified projectile
> weapons and explosives. So you have modern or futuristoc looking troops,
> armed with swords. Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
> armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
>
NEil Phillips
On Tue, 26 May 1998 00:24:28 GMT, "Paul M. M. Jacobus"
<vam...@access5.digex.net> saw fit to share the following wisdom:
>> There was a game called Space 1889 by GDW (now defunct, I believe)
>> who also produced Traveller/MegaTraveller. Figs were made for both by
>> Grenadier. many had blades. In fact traveller had a dune rippoff
>> scenario book (loosely based) called Waterworld... but I digress.
>
>Woof, I just got the mental image of a miniatures game based off of Kevin
>Costner's _Waterworld_ movie.
I had this vision whilst watching the movie..
would be pretty damn cool, I rekon.. :)
--
NEil
(phil...@gwbbs.net.au)
a.k.a. N-ster
4..
5..
Niko Mikkanen
David Calderon wrote:
>
> Hi Ty
>
> Why don't you use the Necro Van Saar as Fremen and use Space Marines as
> Sardukar. Now Ben Gesrit witches would be a challenge.
>
Actually, the old Citadel psykers had these outregaous collars, and they
were bald. Of course, they are male, but at least they'd be in the
ballpark for conversions.
And the Mordian Iron Guard (also by the Evil Ones) look like the
Atreides household troops back at their homeplanet. The Atreides troops
in desert outfit might be made of some Warzone mini's
/GNiko
Muad'Dib
"Ty Beard" <tbe...@e-tex.com> wrote:
>I want to create a miniatures game based on the Dune novels. My problem is
>that I don't know if anyone makes appropriate troops. In the Dune universe,
>military forces use swords, because shields have nullified projectile
>weapons and explosives. So you have modern or futuristoc looking troops,
>armed with swords. Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
>armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
>Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
Warhammer 40,000 has a lot of Dune influences, so I think a lot of
models would easily translate. As one of the resident Dune fanatics
on the NG, here's my input:
Van Saar gangers from GW's Necromunda game make good Fremen if you're
into the look David Lynch gave them in the movie. (Their body suits
look a lot like Lynch's stillsuits.) Personally, I don't like Lynch's
stillsuits. Stillsuits are supposed to have hoods, and Fremen
probably wore stillsuits under robes, not by themselves. If you like
the bedouin look, GW's Tallarn Desert Raiders are a good choice.
GW's Mordian Iron Guard (for Warhammer 40,000) figures would make good
Atreides. They have high collars, lots of gold braid--very stiff
looking.
Some of GW's old Imperial Psykers might make decent Mentats--big bald
heads, high collars, etc., very brainy-looking. But you'll have to
find the out-of-print ones--the new Imperial Psykers wouldn't look
right, IMO. (You can order the out-of-print models from the UK.)
I know you don't want powered armor troops, but some of GW's Space
Marines (Warhammer 40,000) in power armor would make good Sardukar.
The old Mark 3 or Mark 5 models would be particularly good, IMO (very
low-tech high-tech, if you know what I mean). But you'd have to order
those from the UK also.
While I think GW's Sisters of Battle (again, Warhammer 40,000) look
too militaristic for Bene Gesserit, they would make good Fish
Speakers. (SOB are GW's futuristic warrior nuns.)
GW's Eldar Harlequins would make great Face Dancers, IMO.
As far as weapons go, GW makes weapon sprues for Necromunda that have
various pistols (could be maula pistols) swords, and knives
(crysknives).
You can get a 450-page catalog from GW for $10, but that comes with a
$10 coupon towards your first order, so it's essentially free. That
might be a good place to start. As far as the out-of-print stuff
goes, you'll have to find someone with the old catalogs to get a look
at those figures.
Good luck!
Muad'Dib
Ty Beard
CartoGrafx <carto...@aol.com> wrote in article
> Why don't you do it at 1/285 scale? Then you could buy strip figures from
regal
> or one of the other companies and mix and match rifles/futuristics with
> swordsmen. Be easier to make those damn worms too! David
An interesting idea. I'd always contemplated a 25mm skirmish-type game, but
a 1/285 game would let you fight the huge battles. Vehicles would be easy
and cheap to get in micro as well.
Maybe I'll do TWO games, a 25mm game and an "Epic Dune" game. (Sigh)
Goodbye, free time...
C.Nichols
raiders if you want desert uniforms - Van Saar's are wearing stillsuits.
Don't forget they used lasguns also. Don't use marines for sardaukar, I'd go
for heavily armoured humans, a la the Harlequin range.
Don't boycott Games Workshop Games
Buy more, More, MORE!!!!
'Later
Corin Nichols
C.Ni...@business.salford.ac.uk
'Love at first sight can be cured by a second glance'
John M. Atkinson
On Wed, 27 May 98 17:31:06 GMT, BMA...@news.salford.ac.uk (C.Nichols)
wrote:
>An for the Harkonnen guard, Landspeeders as basic ornies, Tallarn desert
Landspeeders? Ornithopters fly by flapping wings--at least in the
book.
>raiders if you want desert uniforms - Van Saar's are wearing stillsuits.
I think someone mentioned they preferred the book to the movie. In
the book, Fremen wear robes over the stillsuits--it's mention, oh,
maybe 200 times.
>Don't forget they used lasguns also. Don't use marines for sardaukar, I'd go
Only on Dune the planet itself--rest of universe doesn't like 'em
since they make for nasty ka-boom when they interact with shields.
Speaking of which, what sort of random chart would you use for blast
effect of lasgun/shield interaction--understand it varies from small
artillery shell to size of thermonuclear warhead.
>for heavily armoured humans, a la the Harlequin range.
I'd not use armor at all--regardless of what the degenerate who made
the movie thinks, Saudukar are many times described as being killed
with knives. This kinda rules out power armor. No justification from
the book.
John M. Atkinson
"When you send a man out with a gun, you create a policymaker.
When his ass is on the line, he will do whatever he needs to do.
"And if the implications of that bother you, the time to do
something about it is before you decide to send him out."
---David Drake,
Bill Armintrout
On Tue, 26 May 1998 00:28:03 +0100, "Jimbo" <ji...@felixent.f9.co.uk>
wrote:
>Dredd wrote in message <3569CDEF...@cord.ubc.ca>...
>>Do you know who sell Grenadier Minatures in North America (pref Canada!) ,
>or if they have a web site???
>>
>They went out of business... don't know if the moulds are still around.
>
>Jimbo
Stratelibri in Italy has the moulds, are producing the figures through
a subsidiary, Nemo Miniature. As far as I know, only the 25mm fantasy
and science fiction lines are in production currently.
be...@my-dejanews.com
In article <01bd87cc$e5ade960$1b2519ce@default>,
"Ty Beard" <tbe...@e-tex.com> wrote:
>
> I want to create a miniatures game based on the Dune novels. My problem is
> that I don't know if anyone makes appropriate troops. In the Dune universe,
> military forces use swords, because shields have nullified projectile
> weapons and explosives. So you have modern or futuristoc looking troops,
> armed with swords. Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
> armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
>
> Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
>
> Ty Beard, Attorney at Law
>
> "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me. But
> it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's important"
> --Dr. Martin Luther King
>
Ty
I have a friend who is a gaming distributor.Iknow he has a lot of old out
of production minis. I will be stopping in in the next couple of days and I
will look for you. Another site I might suggest is the Miniatures page at
www.jps.net/minipage/ Give bill a try, there are several manufacturers out
there that might help. Oh, one group that may look good for House Atredies are
the Ameron warriors from Starguard. Check out John McEwan's website at
www.halycon.com/shamrock/ This site is for Reviresco. You might also find
something to use for the Shadukar terror troops here.
You might be able to help me out. I am trying to find any ANY of the OGRE
miniatures. I have a few, no OGRES or much big stuff could you help me?
Good Luck
Tom Bryant
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Robert...@my-dejanews.com
Well, the Fading Suns game by Holistic Design has shields much like Dune.
Agents of Gaming are producing the figures for them. I have only seen a few,
but they look like they could work for Dune "house" figures.
Secondly, Manticore Productions is putting out their Apokalypse game this
summer, based on their hit Waste World RPG. Since that game has a form of
Sandworms too, I imagine that some of the figures might share a Dune-style
image.
Lots of luck.
-Robert E. Allen III
RPGNet Wargames and Miniatures Columist
http://www.rpg.net
pcd
> "Ty Beard" <tbe...@e-tex.com> wrote:
> >
> > I want to create a miniatures game based on the Dune novels. My problem is
> > that I don't know if anyone makes appropriate troops. In the Dune universe,
> > military forces use swords, because shields have nullified projectile
> > weapons and explosives. So you have modern or futuristoc looking troops,
> > armed with swords. Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
> > armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
> >
> > Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
You might want to take a look at the (few) miniatrues from Agents of
Gaming for _Fading Suns_ (Fadings Suns explicitly has a universe
with personal shields that stop projectile weapons).
some pictures are at http://www.agentsofgaming.com/fsunfigs.htm
The Hawkwood Noble looks like a good Atredies.
--
paul duggan
---
Use SIAM instead of MAIS to send me email. Thanks!
Lloyd
>
>> I want to create a miniatures game based on the Dune novels. My problem is
>> that I don't know if anyone makes appropriate troops. In the Dune universe,
>> military forces use swords, because shields have nullified projectile
>> weapons and explosives. So you have modern or futuristoc looking troops,
>> armed with swords. Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
>> armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
>>
>> Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
>>
Is the computer game "historically inaccurate" then. Because they
definiatly do use guns in the Dune 2 game...
see ya,
Ranger
PLAYTEST A NEW WARGAME!!!
You can help playtest a new wargame being released by Enigma Figurines.
You can E-mail for your FREE shareware version of the rules from
gam...@sympatico.ca.
Feel free to tell us what you think, even if you don't like it!
NEil Phillips
On Fri, 29 May 1998 11:28:05 +0100, Lloyd <Ll...@bury-rd.demon.co.uk>
saw fit to share the following wisdom:
>>
>>> I want to create a miniatures game based on the Dune novels. My problem is
>>> that I don't know if anyone makes appropriate troops. In the Dune universe,
>>> military forces use swords, because shields have nullified projectile
>>> weapons and explosives. So you have modern or futuristoc looking troops,
>>> armed with swords. Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
>>> armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
>>>
>>> Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
>>>
>
>Is the computer game "historically inaccurate" then. Because they
>definiatly do use guns in the Dune 2 game...
>
>see ya,
>Ranger
But, the game is set ON DUNE - where teh sheilds aren't used much
'cause they attract worms.. Even I picked that up, and I've never even
read the books! :)
--
NEil
(phil...@gwbbs.net.au)
a.k.a. N-ster...
Dave Calderon
If you haven't then you are missing out on some of the best SciFi literature of our
times. I rate this right up there with Foundation trilogy. I read Dune 5 times. And
I read all five books.
Joe Schulte
Lloyd (Ll...@bury-rd.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >
: >> I want to create a miniatures game based on the Dune novels. My problem is
: >> that I don't know if anyone makes appropriate troops. In the Dune universe,
: >> military forces use swords, because shields have nullified projectile
: >> weapons and explosives. So you have modern or futuristoc looking troops,
: >> armed with swords. Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
: >> armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
: >>
: >> Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
: >>
: Is the computer game "historically inaccurate" then. Because they
: definiatly do use guns in the Dune 2 game...
Who cares? The game was a damned good one, and when Dune 2000 comes out
(soon, I hope) it'll kick ass!
Joe Schulte
Dave Calderon (dcsy...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
: If you haven't then you are missing out on some of the best SciFi literature of our
: times. I rate this right up there with Foundation trilogy. I read Dune 5 times. And
: I read all five books.
Totally over rated.
The first book was okay. The second book wasn't. I stopped there.
Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
just because they're "classics".
The Laughing God
Muad'Dib wrote:
> ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
> >Dave Calderon (dcsy...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
> >: If you haven't then you are missing out on some of the best SciFi literature of our
> >: times. I rate this right up there with Foundation trilogy. I read Dune 5 times. And
> >: I read all five books.
>
> Six.
>
> >Totally over rated.
> >The first book was okay. The second book wasn't. I stopped there.
>
> Obviously you must be a masochist to post this in the middle of a
> discussion among Dune fans.
Now, Now, Be fair. The second book WAS pretty awful, especially compared to the first.
The third was only good compared to the second. The fourth was good, but only compared
to the second two...You get the Idea. Don't get me wrong- Dune was, and is, the
Epitome of SF literature; in the Top Five of Everyone's list. The others in the series
aren't even in the Top 100, last time I reviewed the Lists. Doesn't mean they are 'bad'
(except for ...nah; you KNOW which one I mean). It just means they weren't Great.
< dons asbestos undies for the inevitable tumultuous ripostes >
"Eveybody needs a Laughin' Place"
-attributed to Br'er Rabbit
(also known as 'El-ahrairah'): an obscure Earth Prime Diety
whose Mythic Legends are generally accepted by Imperium Scholars
to be a corrupted form of the true history of Cergorach, the Laughing God
(which see: section 4~Eldar sub-section27a~~Harlequins)
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Battlefield/3430/harle.htm
http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStr
Leo
Lloyd wrote:
> >> weapons and explosives. So you have modern or futuristoc looking troops,
> >> armed with swords. Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
> >> armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
> >>
> >> Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
> >>
>
> Is the computer game "historically inaccurate" then. Because they
> definiatly do use guns in the Dune 2 game...
>
> see ya,
> Ranger
>
I wouldn't use Dune 2 as a basis of understanding the Dune universe. The game was
only very loosely based upon the book. They did have some very funky looking
sardauker in it though - much nicer than the movie. Though you can say most things
were nicer than the movie.
-P, l & m
Leo
Muad'Dib
ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
>Dave Calderon (dcsy...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
>: If you haven't then you are missing out on some of the best SciFi literature of our
>: times. I rate this right up there with Foundation trilogy. I read Dune 5 times. And
>: I read all five books.
Six.
>Totally over rated.
>The first book was okay. The second book wasn't. I stopped there.
Obviously you must be a masochist to post this in the middle of a
discussion among Dune fans.
And it's too bad you stopped with the second book. IMO, you really
need to read the third book before you can start to appreciate the
series.
>Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
>just because they're "classics".
Boy, there's an insightful comment. Too bad it's nonsense.
Muad'Dib
John M. Atkinson
On Fri, 29 May 1998 19:52:54 +0100, The Laughing God <sha...@owt.com>
wrote:
>aren't even in the Top 100, last time I reviewed the Lists. Doesn't mean they are 'bad'
>(except for ...nah; you KNOW which one I mean). It just means they weren't Great.
What, you don't like Sex Nuns in Space?
Kurt
Muad'Dib wrote in message <6knpal$d53$1...@picasso.op.net>...
>ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
>
>
>>Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
>>just because they're "classics".
>
>Boy, there's an insightful comment. Too bad it's nonsense.
>
I get the feeling that Joe meant that far too many abject piles of pathetic
dross are considered "classics". I'm not claiming that Dune is crap (I've
only seen the film so I can't comment) but there are certainly some steaming
piles of shit that are considered masterpieces of our time (Led Zeppelin,
Blade Runner, to dip into a few other areas).
Kurt
C.Nichols
>> >: If you haven't then you are missing out on some of the best SciFi
literature of our
>> >: times. I rate this right up there with Foundation trilogy. I read Dune 5
times. And
>> >: I read all five books.
>>
>> Six.
>>
>> >Totally over rated.
>> >The first book was okay. The second book wasn't. I stopped there.
>>
>> Obviously you must be a masochist to post this in the middle of a
>> discussion among Dune fans.
>
the first.
>The third was only good compared to the second. The fourth was good, but
only compared
>to the second two...You get the Idea. Don't get me wrong- Dune was, and
is, the
>Epitome of SF literature; in the Top Five of Everyone's list. The others in
the series
they are 'bad'
>(except for ...nah; you KNOW which one I mean). It just means they weren't
Great.
>
>
>
>
that FH devised his whole world and made it sufficiently different to almost
everything else. The book had it all, personal adventure, political scheming
and lots of combat - Great. I rate it among my top ten especially if you look
as to when it was written but I read the rest and I thought hmmm, ok books but
not great. The way that he was going didn't really suit me and I would have
preferred the original style to have been continued. Ah well....
Muad'Dib
The Laughing God <sha...@owt.com> wrote:
>Muad'Dib wrote:
>> ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
>> >Dave Calderon (dcsy...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
>> >: If you haven't then you are missing out on some of the best SciFi literature of our
>> >: times. I rate this right up there with Foundation trilogy. I read Dune 5 times. And
>> >: I read all five books.
>>
>> Six.
>>
>> >Totally over rated.
>> >The first book was okay. The second book wasn't. I stopped there.
>>
>> Obviously you must be a masochist to post this in the middle of a
>> discussion among Dune fans.
>Now, Now, Be fair. The second book WAS pretty awful, especially compared to the first.
>The third was only good compared to the second. The fourth was good, but only compared
>to the second two...You get the Idea. Don't get me wrong- Dune was, and is, the
>Epitome of SF literature; in the Top Five of Everyone's list. The others in the series
>aren't even in the Top 100, last time I reviewed the Lists. Doesn't mean they are 'bad'
>(except for ...nah; you KNOW which one I mean). It just means they weren't Great.
I'm wondering in what way 'Dune Messiah' was awful? It was certainly
as well-written technically and it was as well-plotted as the first
book (and maybe better), so I'm guessing you, like a lot of people,
didn't like the story.
Well, I don't think that's surprising. The first book included such
subjects as revolution, a corrupt empire, an evil tyrant, religion and
a young man realizing his enormous power. Pretty epic stuff, and I
can see why a lot of people are attracted to it.
But the story's incomplete. The second book addresses all the
problems and fallout from the events in the first book. The jihad is
out of control; everyone's trying to assassinate Paul; Paul gets
blinded and has to go into the desert, presumably to his death; Chani
dies in childbirth...pretty depressing stuff, especially when it all
happens to a character you grow to like so much in the first book.
And it's really not until the third book that you realize the extent
of Paul's failure. His son has to do the thing that Paul should have
done in the first place, but was too afraid to do. (Kralizec, the
Typhoon Struggle) Paul ends up as a really tragic figure--a messiah
to the Fremen, but a really flawed and human individual who ultimately
fails.
IMO, the first book is like 'Star Wars'--it's very entertaining, you
can just go along for the ride, and you don't have to spend too much
brain energy reading it. But Herbert is a 'preachy' writer, and his
later books in the series really delve more into his ideas about
things like religion and government (and especially what happens when
you mix the two), and I think that puts some people off. But I also
think that's what makes his stuff literature, and not just
entertainment.
Personally, I really appreciate how well-planned the first trilogy is.
Herbert sets you up with first book, then actually makes his point in
the two later books. It's really all one complete thought.
And as far as the second trilogy goes--well, it's just one incomplete
thought.
Just my two cents.
Muad'Dib
General Failure
Leo wrote:
The Fremen were cool too, and the super tanks for all the three houses. Also, I like
House Ordos.
The movie... well, it's sad that they made a movie like that out of a good book.
Glynn & Kathy Greenwood
In article <356A2B...@bellsouth.net>,
Geo <id...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > They went out of business... don't know if the moulds are still around.
> I did not know that... not many of the old companies left <snif>.
> Geo
the grenadier US miniatures went to stratelibri in italy but i have been
told that it is mainland europe (not england)sales only
the grenadier uk moulds are owned by "faust" studios in wales.
--
Rage agianst the dieing of the light
Elton (uk)
Lloyd
In article <356ea605...@news.camtech.com.au>, NEil Phillips
<phil...@gwbbs.net.au> writes
>On Fri, 29 May 1998 11:28:05 +0100, Lloyd <Ll...@bury-rd.demon.co.uk>
>saw fit to share the following wisdom:
>
>>>
>>>> that I don't know if anyone makes appropriate troops. In the Dune universe,
>>>> military forces use swords, because shields have nullified projectile
>>>> armed with swords. Are there any modern (or late 19th century) figures
>>>> armed with swords? Sci-fi troops would be okay, but no powered armor.
>>>>
>>>> Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
>>>>
>>
>>Is the computer game "historically inaccurate" then. Because they
>>definiatly do use guns in the Dune 2 game...
>>
>>see ya,
>>Ranger
>
>'cause they attract worms.. Even I picked that up, and I've never even
>read the books! :)
neither have I.
Brian Schenck
On Sat, 30 May 1998, Kurt wrote:
> Muad'Dib wrote in message <6knpal$d53$1...@picasso.op.net>...
> >ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
> >
> >>Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
> >>just because they're "classics".
> >
> >Boy, there's an insightful comment. Too bad it's nonsense.
> >
> dross are considered "classics". I'm not claiming that Dune is crap (I've
> only seen the film so I can't comment) but there are certainly some steaming
> piles of shit that are considered masterpieces of our time (Led Zeppelin,
> Blade Runner, to dip into a few other areas).
>
>
> Kurt
>
Well that's all a matter of perception as well. You could argue over who
made the better blues musician, or who was better with the guitar. And
you'll always get a hundred different answers. Besides, it's funny how
it's usually the movie companies who decide what's a classic and what
isn't....
Brian D. Schenck
mail to: shr...@wam.umd.edu
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~shrike
"Soylent Green is people..."
Kurt
Brian Schenck wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 30 May 1998, Kurt wrote:
>
>> >
>> dross are considered "classics". I'm not claiming that Dune is crap
(I've
>> only seen the film so I can't comment) but there are certainly some
steaming
>> piles of shit that are considered masterpieces of our time (Led Zeppelin,
>> Blade Runner, to dip into a few other areas).
>>
>>
>made the better blues musician, or who was better with the guitar. And
>you'll always get a hundred different answers. Besides, it's funny how
>it's usually the movie companies who decide what's a classic and what
>isn't....
>
The best bit is when you know a film is a "classic" even as it is being
released (Titanic anyone?). But I have shithouse taste, any major release
film that gets raved about I will generally detest (hated Jurassic Park,
ID4, recent Bond films). Give me crap anyday :)
Kurt
Master of the Offtopic
Tom Beliech
Kurt wrote:
>
> The best bit is when you know a film is a "classic" even as it is being
> released (Titanic anyone?). But I have shithouse taste, any major release
> film that gets raved about I will generally detest (hated Jurassic Park,
> ID4, recent Bond films). Give me crap anyday :)
>
> Kurt
> Master of the Offtopic
There is no such thing as an instant "classic". Period. No matter how
good it is. Classic status can only be bestowed long "after the fact."
Think of the movies you consider classics - how many of them were
expected to be classics when they were made? Funny thing is that the
definition of "classic" invokes pieces that were made before people were
expecting or intending things to become a classic. Neither Jurassic Park
(the movie, anyway) or Id4 will likely become classics - unless, of
course, the definition of "classic" changes in the next ten to twenty
years to include things that only were good for special effects...
Tom Beliech (Who has become very picky about movies - and games, for
that matter - ever since special effects became more important than a
well-told story)
Taisou
snip!
>> there are certainly some steaming
>> piles of shit that are considered masterpieces of our time (Led Zeppelin,
>> Blade Runner, to dip into a few other areas).
>>
>>
o.k....
Isn't saying Blade Runner was a 'steaming pile of shit' a mortal sin
or something? Come on, not to start a new tangent but think of what
it was, especially for when it was made.
kel
Kurt
Taisou wrote in message <6ksqm9$95v$1...@server3.mich.com>...
>
>o.k....
>Isn't saying Blade Runner was a 'steaming pile of shit' a mortal sin
>or something? Come on, not to start a new tangent but think of what
>it was, especially for when it was made.
>
Philip K. Dick (Total Recall, anyone?). This is a pet hate of mine,
assholes like Verhoeven or Ridley Scott who take a book that someone once
told them about and making a film based roughly on the book's blurb.
Kurt
Eric Jome
In article <356e2a28...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
John M. Atkinson <jatk...@ix.you.know.what.to.remove.netcom.com> wrote:
>Landspeeders? Ornithopters fly by flapping wings--at least in the
>book.
actually, the definition of ornithopter involves flying by wing flapping.
>I think someone mentioned they preferred the book to the movie. In
>the book, Fremen wear robes over the stillsuits--it's mention, oh,
>maybe 200 times.
which is why Tallarans would work just fine. :)
>Only on Dune the planet itself--rest of universe doesn't like 'em
>since they make for nasty ka-boom when they interact with shields.
>Speaking of which, what sort of random chart would you use for blast
>effect of lasgun/shield interaction--understand it varies from small
>artillery shell to size of thermonuclear warhead.
i was under the impression that it was always a thermonuclear blast
when a lasgun and shield interacted. the books explicitly state how
the blast invariably destroyed both shooter and target, thus making
the use of both in the same battle highly unlikely.
actually, any wargame involving shields or lasguns true to the style
of the book will be pretty dull. shields stopped simply every thing
that impacted faster than say... a punch. so, no guns of any type
against troopers with shields. and lasguns could cut through mountains.
so, no point there either.
>I'd not use armor at all--regardless of what the degenerate who made
>the movie thinks, Saudukar are many times described as being killed
>with knives. This kinda rules out power armor. No justification from
>the book.
the elite Imperial troops were more described as hardened fighters from
a world with a hellish native environment. that is why the Fremen, with
similar experience living on a hostile world, can stand up to them.
certainly, both forces would have made the best use of whatever weapons
were available, including lasguns and shields where approriate.
and the movie wasnt that bad. i dont think they are wearing armor in the
movie; it seems to be an environmental suit, perhaps suggesting that they
are some sort of supersoldier which requires some special conditions to
live. the movie did a fair job of adapting the essence of the first book.
how would you film the books verison of the "wierding way" of the Bene
Gesserit? minute muscle and biological control would be hard to see.
so much of the books is based not on themes or tech that would be readily
accessible in a short view format.
and dont forget; Frank Herbert was heavily involved in the film and gave
it a stamp of approval...
eric
Eric Jome
>I get the feeling that Joe meant that far too many abject piles of pathetic
>dross are considered "classics". I'm not claiming that Dune is crap (I've
>only seen the film so I can't comment) but there are certainly some steaming
>piles of shit that are considered masterpieces of our time (Led Zeppelin,
>Blade Runner, to dip into a few other areas).
while almost all rock music is clearly greatly over-rated, esp. Zeppelin
i think you are missing out on the finer points of Blade Runner if you
think it is not a quality film. i dont mean to say that you should like
Blade Runner, but that the film has many "technical" merits that entitle
it to the status it has attained. Led Zeppelin has little more than a
winning record (sales/popularity) to justify its status.
eric
Chris Keil
Hey hey hey... Doncha go knocking Blade Runner as "80's Sci Fi Crud"
especially when it's "bastardization" of that stinkburger of a novel PKD
churned out was lots, lots better... For one thing, the movie made an
effort to have a coherent internal plot, unlike it's novel inspiration...
The movie featured characters one could enoy, as opposed to listening to
some whining "bounty hunter" and his bitchy wife... Blade Runner also
avoided all the godawful PKD "Space Tech" stuff...
"I'll just get into my good space mood and then hunt some space bad guys
with my neato torpedo space gun in my space car."
And the robot toads were lame. As was the hazy plot. Do androids dream of
Electric sheep sucked the root, guys. Ridly Scott did the only thing one
could do with that book, which was to ignore most of it.
Kurt wrote in message <35723...@139.134.5.33>...
Travis Baumann
Kurt wrote:
>
> Taisou wrote in message <6ksqm9$95v$1...@server3.mich.com>...
> >
> >o.k....
> >Isn't saying Blade Runner was a 'steaming pile of shit' a mortal sin
> >or something? Come on, not to start a new tangent but think of what
> >it was, especially for when it was made.
> >
> It was 80's scifi crud, the usual thing you get when someone bastardizes
> Philip K. Dick (Total Recall, anyone?). This is a pet hate of mine,
> assholes like Verhoeven or Ridley Scott who take a book that someone once
> told them about and making a film based roughly on the book's blurb.
>
> Kurt
i have the orignal script by Hampton Francher for Blade Runner before
they did rewrites and brought in additional personnel and it is
substantially what you see on the screen.....(including the narration
which alot of rumors say were added later....they weren't, they were in
the original script but Ridley didn't like it...). I also wouldn't
really know how well you could translate some of dicks works....lots of
internal speed-freak stuff that screws with your head....and I thought
Total Recall was absolutely hilarious (come on since when do you take
Verhoeven or Arnold seriously?),,,
Now I personally find the orignal release of Blade Runner better up
until they tacked on the shining ending that's all happy...that's shitty
but scenes like where he's eating noodles and forces the clerk to
translate what the other cop says and then says (all good cops know the
lingo but I dont feel like giving him the satisfaction line) and that
gives alot of insight into his character which I enjoyed more than
watching him play on the piano and have implanted memories of
unicorns....albeit you never really get the impression that he is a
replicant as well in the studio version and it is a nice twist to think
of him as a skinjob.....
in the original script the ending has Rachel and Decker go off into the
woods and he hands her his gun and she blows her own brains out....that
would have been a neat if not fucked up ending....
I LOVE the look of the city and the Tyrell corp and Leon is great but
there are some really slow parts and the Vengellis sound track just
sucks...should be something like Skinny Puppy but then again it came out
two years before they debuted....oh well....
I do consider it a great film from an effects/visual standpoint with
some interesting points about humanity but it comes off a little slow
for today's sci-fi marketplace....still that and Dune are two of my
sci-fi favorties...the atmospheres are completely submersible for myself
anyway....
--
Travis Baumann
Dave Calderon
Boy has this thread gone off the beaten path from the subject....But you make a
good point as crappy as Dune, Bladerunner, Total Recall and Starship Trooper
came out as compared to their book, I love them all. I can't see taking
Hollywood seriouly when it comes to interpeting good SciFi literature. I alway
take them with a grain (puound?) of salt. I'm just happy that someone over
there even thought about doing some of these books. So I'll give them a little
credit.
Chris Weigt
Travis Baumann wrote:
>
> I LOVE the look of the city and the Tyrell corp and Leon is great but
> there are some really slow parts and the Vengellis sound track just
> sucks...should be something like Skinny Puppy but then again it came out
> two years before they debuted....oh well....
far better then any industrial band would. All IMHO of course, but when
you sau Vangelis sucks you're just askin' fer trouble!
Chris
Chris Weigt
Eric Jome wrote:
>
> while almost all rock music is clearly greatly over-rated, esp. Zeppelin
inspired many a young musician - who have you inspired? Tall poppy
syndrome, that's all it is.
Flame away, I care not...
Chris
John M. Atkinson
On 1 Jun 1998 10:28:47 -0500, ej...@earth.execpc.com (Eric Jome)
wrote:
>actually, any wargame involving shields or lasguns true to the style
>of the book will be pretty dull. shields stopped simply every thing
>that impacted faster than say... a punch. so, no guns of any type
>against troopers with shields. and lasguns could cut through mountains.
>so, no point there either.
It would largely be a hand-to-hand set of rules.
>how would you film the books verison of the "wierding way" of the Bene
>Gesserit? minute muscle and biological control would be hard to see.
>so much of the books is based not on themes or tech that would be readily
>accessible in a short view format.
I wouldn't try.
>and dont forget; Frank Herbert was heavily involved in the film and gave
>it a stamp of approval...
Read, "He endorsed the royalty checks."
Ty Beard
As the "father" of this thread, I'd like to make a plea that we all stop
posting this thread to rec.games.miniatures.historical. Some of the
netizens there have (rightly) objected that this thread has nothing to do
with historical miniatures. One even called us "gangly-looking!" Of course,
at certain times in my life this would've been a compliment, but I digress.
It's the right thing to do.
--
Ty Beard, Attorney at Law
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me. But
it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's important"
--Dr. Martin Luther King
Joe Schulte
: >The first book was okay. The second book wasn't. I stopped there.
: Obviously you must be a masochist to post this in the middle of a
: discussion among Dune fans.
: And it's too bad you stopped with the second book. IMO, you really
: need to read the third book before you can start to appreciate the
: series.
After reading the second, I had no desire to read the third. Simple as
that.
: >Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
: >just because they're "classics".
: Boy, there's an insightful comment. Too bad it's nonsense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. Ever read, as an example since I'm
pretty sure most of us have a seventh grade education and that's when I
had to read it, "The Old Man and the Sea"?
It's a "classic". Thousands and thousands of elemetary and high school
kids have to read it every year. What's so great about it? Why is it a
"classic" and "Bob and the Fish" isn't? Are there archetypes in it? Sure.
Symbolism? Sure.
Am I supposed to care? Apparently. I don't though. It was a book about a
man killing a marlin.
Unless Hemingway was precognitive and as predicting the performance of the
Marlins in 1998 I really fail to see what's so great about it.
Joe Schulte
Muad'Dib (xop...@op.net) wrote:
: The Laughing God <sha...@owt.com> wrote:
: >Muad'Dib wrote:
: >> ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
: >> >Dave Calderon (dcsy...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
: >> >: If you haven't then you are missing out on some of the best SciFi literature of our
: >> >: times. I rate this right up there with Foundation trilogy. I read Dune 5 times. And
: >> >: I read all five books.
: >>
: >> Six.
: >>
: >> >Totally over rated.
: >> >The first book was okay. The second book wasn't. I stopped there.
: >>
: >> Obviously you must be a masochist to post this in the middle of a
: >> discussion among Dune fans.
: >Now, Now, Be fair. The second book WAS pretty awful, especially compared to the first.
: >The third was only good compared to the second. The fourth was good, but only compared
: >to the second two...You get the Idea. Don't get me wrong- Dune was, and is, the
: >Epitome of SF literature; in the Top Five of Everyone's list. The others in the series
: >aren't even in the Top 100, last time I reviewed the Lists. Doesn't mean they are 'bad'
: >(except for ...nah; you KNOW which one I mean). It just means they weren't Great.
: I'm wondering in what way 'Dune Messiah' was awful? It was certainly
: as well-written technically and it was as well-plotted as the first
: book (and maybe better), so I'm guessing you, like a lot of people,
: didn't like the story.
: Well, I don't think that's surprising. The first book included such
: subjects as revolution, a corrupt empire, an evil tyrant, religion and
: a young man realizing his enormous power. Pretty epic stuff, and I
: can see why a lot of people are attracted to it.
: But the story's incomplete. The second book addresses all the
: problems and fallout from the events in the first book. The jihad is
: out of control; everyone's trying to assassinate Paul; Paul gets
: blinded and has to go into the desert, presumably to his death; Chani
: dies in childbirth...pretty depressing stuff, especially when it all
: happens to a character you grow to like so much in the first book.
Like? I didn't "like" Paul at all. First of all, I (probably along with
lots of people) have a hard time sympathising with Superman. Besides that,
he goes from exceptional in a personal way (Taking after Leto in actually
caring about his people) to the exact opposite. In the end of the first
book he is more worried about getting the equimpent covered than saving
his people.
Joe Schulte
Brian Schenck (shr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: On Sat, 30 May 1998, Kurt wrote:
: > Muad'Dib wrote in message <6knpal$d53$1...@picasso.op.net>...
: > >ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
: > >
: > >>Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
: > >>just because they're "classics".
: > >
: > >Boy, there's an insightful comment. Too bad it's nonsense.
: > >
: > dross are considered "classics". I'm not claiming that Dune is crap (I've
: > only seen the film so I can't comment) but there are certainly some steaming
: > piles of shit that are considered masterpieces of our time (Led Zeppelin,
: > Blade Runner, to dip into a few other areas).
: >
: >
: > Kurt
: >
: Well that's all a matter of perception as well. You could argue over who
: made the better blues musician, or who was better with the guitar. And
: you'll always get a hundred different answers. Besides, it's funny how
: it's usually the movie companies who decide what's a classic and what
: isn't....
Funny, in my experience it's English/Literature teachers that determine
what's a classic. From middle school on to high school.
Personally, I'd just love to have a writer of something like "Lord of the
Flies" come out and say, "There's no symbolism in the god damned book!
Simon was just looking at the fucking pig's head because he was fascinated
by it, not because he was having a battle of wills with Satan! You people
over-analyze *everything*! STOP IT!".
But that'd kill his book sales, since 99% of the sales for the "classics"
would drop off if they weren't required reading in school.
Joe Schulte
Chris Weigt (sci-...@jcu.edu.au) wrote:
: Eric Jome wrote:
: >
: > while almost all rock music is clearly greatly over-rated, esp. Zeppelin
: Oh, _clearly_ *laugh* And what, pray _do_ tell, have you ever done? Zep
: inspired many a young musician - who have you inspired? Tall poppy
: syndrome, that's all it is.
That's right, kids! And remember, you can't criticize a Citadel miniature
unless you could sculpt a better one! Remember, too, that you can't
complain about a bug in a computer game unless you could write a better
one!
And remember not to respond to Chris's post unless you can write a better
one!
Joe Schulte
John M. Atkinson (jatk...@ix.you.know.what.to.remove.netcom.com) wrote:
: On 1 Jun 1998 10:28:47 -0500, ej...@earth.execpc.com (Eric Jome)
: wrote:
: >actually, any wargame involving shields or lasguns true to the style
: >of the book will be pretty dull. shields stopped simply every thing
: >that impacted faster than say... a punch. so, no guns of any type
: >against troopers with shields. and lasguns could cut through mountains.
: >so, no point there either.
: It would largely be a hand-to-hand set of rules.
: >how would you film the books verison of the "wierding way" of the Bene
: >Gesserit? minute muscle and biological control would be hard to see.
: >so much of the books is based not on themes or tech that would be readily
: >accessible in a short view format.
: I wouldn't try.
: >and dont forget; Frank Herbert was heavily involved in the film and gave
: >it a stamp of approval...
: Read, "He endorsed the royalty checks."
So, apparently he didn't mind. And I'm willing to bet that, if he cared
(and maybe he didn't) he could have gotten creative control over the movie
pretty easily.
Joe Schulte
Tom Beliech (bad...@southeast.net) wrote:
: Kurt wrote:
: >
: > The best bit is when you know a film is a "classic" even as it is being
: > released (Titanic anyone?). But I have shithouse taste, any major release
: > film that gets raved about I will generally detest (hated Jurassic Park,
: > ID4, recent Bond films). Give me crap anyday :)
: >
: > Kurt
: > Master of the Offtopic
: There is no such thing as an instant "classic". Period. No matter how
: good it is. Classic status can only be bestowed long "after the fact."
And why is that, Tom? Why does an author have to be long dead (generally)
for something to be a classic? Does the book suddenly get better once he
drops off? Does the writing improve?
Noah Dowd - Nihilist
Joe Schulte wrote:
>
> Muad'Dib (xop...@op.net) wrote:
> : ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
>
> : >Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
> : >just because they're "classics".
>
> : Boy, there's an insightful comment. Too bad it's nonsense.
>
> pretty sure most of us have a seventh grade education and that's when I
> had to read it, "The Old Man and the Sea"?
>
> It's a "classic". Thousands and thousands of elemetary and high school
> kids have to read it every year. What's so great about it? Why is it a
> "classic" and "Bob and the Fish" isn't? Are there archetypes in it? Sure.
> Symbolism? Sure.
>
> Am I supposed to care? Apparently. I don't though. It was a book about a
> man killing a marlin.
Sure, at face value it is. But at face value there is nothing that
is "classic." Face value has no emotion or passion attached to it.
The Old Man and the Sea was considerably more than a story about a
man and a fish, just as LoTR was considerably more than a story about
some short little people and a magic ring, and Frankenstein was
considerably more than a monster story, and Moby Dick was considerably
more than... I think you get the point.
> Unless Hemingway was precognitive and as predicting the performance of the
> Marlins in 1998 I really fail to see what's so great about it.
What makes the book a "classic" in my opinion is Hemingway's ability to
turn a simple story about an old man and a fish into a compelling
drama of life, death, and the struggle of the spirit. It's not what's
at the surface, but what lies beneath.
-Noah
--
E-mail: no...@anet-dfw.com
Should crematoriums give discounts for burn victims?
The Laughing God
Joe Schulte wrote:
No; it is because 'Classic' has the component of ' of enduring value'.
"Instant Classics" generally hit all of the "In" and topical points, but once
those things are passe' , ...blehh.
Muad'Dib
ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
>: I wouldn't try.
Hah! You really have a naive view of Hollywood! Once an author sells
their rights to a book, they normally have NO creative input unless
the studio or director makes an effort to do so. And they almost
never do. The fact is, Hollywood knows how to make movies that sell,
which may mean changing a great deal in what was a best-selling BOOK.
You should talk to Anne Rice or Bernard Malmud about creative control
sometime. Rice is more popular (i.e. leverage) than Herbert ever was,
and "Interview with the Vampire" totally got away from her.
(IIRC, Malmud wouldn't leave his house for weeks after he saw how the
ending to "The Natural" was changed.
Lynch did actually sit down with Herbert to write the
screenplay--that's pretty damn generous for Hollywood, and that's all
he was ever going to get.
I used to have something Herbert wrote about the movie, but I can't
find it, or I'd quote it. IIRC, it was very gracious (he was happy
someone gave it a go) and non-judgmental, but he somewhat distanced
himself from the film. If I find it, I'll post it.
Muad'Dib
ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
>Brian Schenck (shr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: On Sat, 30 May 1998, Kurt wrote:
>: > Muad'Dib wrote in message <6knpal$d53$1...@picasso.op.net>...
>: > >ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
>: > >
>: > >>Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
>: > >>just because they're "classics".
>: > >
>: > >Boy, there's an insightful comment. Too bad it's nonsense.
>: > >
>: > dross are considered "classics". I'm not claiming that Dune is crap (I've
>: > only seen the film so I can't comment) but there are certainly some steaming
>: > piles of shit that are considered masterpieces of our time (Led Zeppelin,
>: > Blade Runner, to dip into a few other areas).
>: >
>: Well that's all a matter of perception as well. You could argue over who
>: made the better blues musician, or who was better with the guitar. And
>: you'll always get a hundred different answers. Besides, it's funny how
>: it's usually the movie companies who decide what's a classic and what
>: isn't....
>Funny, in my experience it's English/Literature teachers that determine
>what's a classic. From middle school on to high school.
>Personally, I'd just love to have a writer of something like "Lord of the
>Flies" come out and say, "There's no symbolism in the god damned book!
>Simon was just looking at the fing pig's head because he was fascinated
>by it, not because he was having a battle of wills with Satan! You people
>over-analyze *everything*! STOP IT!".
>But that'd kill his book sales, since 99% of the sales for the "classics"
>would drop off if they weren't required reading in school.
You're addressing two separate issues--make up your mind about what
you're talking about. One issue is the "classic" status of various
works, and their status as required reading. The other is the
analysis/criticism of said books.
For instance, (changing art forms for a moment) many people over the
years have sat in a museum looking at one of Monet's paintings for
half an hour at a time, getting *something* out of it that influences
or affects them. And that's why it's a classic, not because an art
historian's deconstruction of the thing says it is. Remember, the
critics HATED Monet's stuff, until it became evident just how
influential it was.
And that's why this line
>Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
>just because they're "classics"
doesn't make any sense. Classics ARE something considered great and
worthwhile by many people--that's the definition! Some things are
considered 'great' and 'worthwhile' because many people have found
them 'great' and 'worthwhile'!
Muad'Dib
Lloyd
>
>: >Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
>: >just because they're "classics".
>
>: Boy, there's an insightful comment. Too bad it's nonsense.
>
>pretty sure most of us have a seventh grade education and that's when I
>had to read it, "The Old Man and the Sea"?
>
>It's a "classic". Thousands and thousands of elemetary and high school
>kids have to read it every year. What's so great about it? Why is it a
>"classic" and "Bob and the Fish" isn't? Are there archetypes in it? Sure.
>Symbolism? Sure.
>
>Am I supposed to care? Apparently. I don't though. It was a book about a
>man killing a marlin.
>
>Marlins in 1998 I really fail to see what's so great about it.
>
I agree, IMO you should have to read Star Wars at GCSE level and
Shakespear should be consigned to the "worthless, meaningless drivil"
shelves. Whats more, you have to claim you liked "Julius Ceaser" in the
examn! And teachers wounder why Lord of the Flies fails to interest
us...
Chris Weigt
Chris
Joe Schulte
****Notice, folks, that I took RGMHistorical out of the followup - please
do the same****
The Laughing God (sha...@owt.com) wrote:
: Joe Schulte wrote:
The language used in Romeo and Juliet is no longer used. It's quite
archaic. Why is it considered a "classic" while any other "starcrossed
lovers" story which hits the exact same points isn't?
Joe Schulte
Noah Dowd - Nihilist (no...@bnr.ca) wrote:
: Joe Schulte wrote:
: > Unless Hemingway was precognitive and as predicting the performance of the
: > Marlins in 1998 I really fail to see what's so great about it.
: What makes the book a "classic" in my opinion is Hemingway's ability to
: turn a simple story about an old man and a fish into a compelling
: drama of life, death, and the struggle of the spirit. It's not what's
: at the surface, but what lies beneath.
Ever see the movie, or read the book, of "Alive"? Same thing - life,
death, and the struggle of the spirit.
Are teachers cramming that one down school childrens' throats?
Joe Schulte
Muad'Dib (xop...@op.net) wrote:
: ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
: >Brian Schenck (shr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: >: On Sat, 30 May 1998, Kurt wrote:
: >: > Muad'Dib wrote in message <6knpal$d53$1...@picasso.op.net>...
: >: > >ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) wrote:
: >: > >
: >: > >>Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
: >: > >>just because they're "classics".
: >: > >
: >: > >Boy, there's an insightful comment. Too bad it's nonsense.
: >: > >
: >: > dross are considered "classics". I'm not claiming that Dune is crap (I've
: >: > only seen the film so I can't comment) but there are certainly some steaming
: >: > piles of shit that are considered masterpieces of our time (Led Zeppelin,
: >: > Blade Runner, to dip into a few other areas).
: >: >
:
: >: Well that's all a matter of perception as well. You could argue over who
: >: made the better blues musician, or who was better with the guitar. And
: >: you'll always get a hundred different answers. Besides, it's funny how
: >: it's usually the movie companies who decide what's a classic and what
: >: isn't....
: >Funny, in my experience it's English/Literature teachers that determine
: >what's a classic. From middle school on to high school.
: >Personally, I'd just love to have a writer of something like "Lord of the
: >Flies" come out and say, "There's no symbolism in the god damned book!
: >Simon was just looking at the fing pig's head because he was fascinated
: >by it, not because he was having a battle of wills with Satan! You people
: >over-analyze *everything*! STOP IT!".
: >But that'd kill his book sales, since 99% of the sales for the "classics"
: >would drop off if they weren't required reading in school.
: You're addressing two separate issues--make up your mind about what
: you're talking about. One issue is the "classic" status of various
: works, and their status as required reading. The other is the
: analysis/criticism of said books.
No, actually they're elements of the same thing. A teacher doesn't say,
"Read this book, it's neat and you'll get something out of it." They say,
"Read pages 1-70 we'll be discussing it on tuesday". On Tuesday they go
ahead and pick apart every little potential meaning of every little
potential symbol that is contained in that part. Someone mentioning that
their foot hurts (who later loses it in a bear trap) becomes brilliant
foreshadowing.
It almost seems that "classic" is determined by how many supposed nuances
a bored english major can find while picking apart the book.
: And that's why this line
: >Far too many things in this world are considered 'great' and 'worthwhile'
: >just because they're "classics"
: doesn't make any sense. Classics ARE something considered great and
: worthwhile by many people--that's the definition! Some things are
: considered 'great' and 'worthwhile' because many people have found
: them 'great' and 'worthwhile'!
Ah, so Titanic was a classic. So is, apparently Starship Troopers. I can
guarantee that many, many more people have gone spent two hours looking at
either of the above. They even paid money to do it. I'm willing to bet
that Monet's paintings have not managed to get 200,000,000 or so people to
stare at them for three hours (as well as spending $6+ each) as they did
with Titanic.
Apparently a reel of Titanic should be hanging next to the great painters'
works in the Louve.
Noah Dowd - Nihilist
Joe Schulte wrote:
>
> Noah Dowd - Nihilist (no...@bnr.ca) wrote:
> : Joe Schulte wrote:
>
> : > Unless Hemingway was precognitive and as predicting the performance of the
> : > Marlins in 1998 I really fail to see what's so great about it.
>
> : What makes the book a "classic" in my opinion is Hemingway's ability to
> : turn a simple story about an old man and a fish into a compelling
> : drama of life, death, and the struggle of the spirit. It's not what's
> : at the surface, but what lies beneath.
>
> Ever see the movie, or read the book, of "Alive"? Same thing - life,
> death, and the struggle of the spirit.
I saw the movie, and I agree that it was a powerful movie with a lot
of merit. Echoing another poster's sentiments, however, "Alive" has
not had the test of time that the "Old Man and the Sea" has. If people
are still talking about "Alive" in 20 or more years, then it should be
considered a classic as well. (IMO)
At any rate, classic is a somewhat subjective term. For example, I
think that "Easy Rider" is a classic film, and I know a lot of people
that would agree, but I know some good old southern boys who would
think it's a piece of shit.
> Are teachers cramming that one down school childrens' throats?
Maybe they should be. In 20 years, maybe they will be...
Eric Jome
In article <6l3lvr$a...@newsops.execpc.com>,
Joe Schulte <ki...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>Ah, so Titanic was a classic. So is, apparently Starship Troopers. I can
>guarantee that many, many more people have gone spent two hours looking at
>either of the above. They even paid money to do it. I'm willing to bet
>that Monet's paintings have not managed to get 200,000,000 or so people to
>stare at them for three hours (as well as spending $6+ each) as they did
>with Titanic.
actually, i would think far more people have appreciated Monets works
than probably will ever appreciate Titanic. think of every copy of
every painting by Monet sold in every store or poster shop hanging
on all the walls around the world. who has more exposure now?
also, the time comparison is not fair. it requires 3 hours of time to
view Titanic because of the medium. it does not require as much time
to view a Monet painting.
lastly, a classic is something that transcends culture and time to remain
meaningful and interesting to all people. basically, i agree with you
that the establishment does a bad job of picking things that truly
deserve to be classics. most of your average american high school english
"classics" are there because they have momentum in that category... they
won the respect of the wise and sagely at one point and earned the title
they have. now, they continue to have the title to the exclusion of new
material that might come up and have equal or greater merit.
and, if you cant see why the Old Man and the Sea is a classic, you are
missing the point of what it means to really _be_ a classic. popularity
alone just dont cut it...
eric
Joe Schulte
: > : Joe Schulte wrote:
: >
: > : > Unless Hemingway was precognitive and as predicting the performance of the
: > : > Marlins in 1998 I really fail to see what's so great about it.
: >
: > : What makes the book a "classic" in my opinion is Hemingway's ability to
: > : turn a simple story about an old man and a fish into a compelling
: > : drama of life, death, and the struggle of the spirit. It's not what's
: > : at the surface, but what lies beneath.
: >
: > Ever see the movie, or read the book, of "Alive"? Same thing - life,
: > death, and the struggle of the spirit.
: I saw the movie, and I agree that it was a powerful movie with a lot
: of merit. Echoing another poster's sentiments, however, "Alive" has
: not had the test of time that the "Old Man and the Sea" has. If people
: are still talking about "Alive" in 20 or more years, then it should be
: considered a classic as well. (IMO)
And really, who still talks about "Old Man and the Sea"? On the whole,
people who don't have a choice about reading it.
Joe Schulte
Eric Jome (ej...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: In article <6l3lvr$a...@newsops.execpc.com>,
: Joe Schulte <ki...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
: >Ah, so Titanic was a classic. So is, apparently Starship Troopers. I can
: >guarantee that many, many more people have gone spent two hours looking at
: >either of the above. They even paid money to do it. I'm willing to bet
: >that Monet's paintings have not managed to get 200,000,000 or so people to
: >stare at them for three hours (as well as spending $6+ each) as they did
: >with Titanic.
: actually, i would think far more people have appreciated Monets works
: than probably will ever appreciate Titanic. think of every copy of
: every painting by Monet sold in every store or poster shop hanging
: on all the walls around the world. who has more exposure now?
: also, the time comparison is not fair. it requires 3 hours of time to
: view Titanic because of the medium. it does not require as much time
: to view a Monet painting.
Ah, but it takes 3 hours to "appreciate all the spendor that is Titanic",
doesn't it?
Besides, I think I can guarantee you that 200 million people have NOT
looked at a Monet painting. Even fewer have actually spent time actually
*looking* at them.
: lastly, a classic is something that transcends culture and time to remain
: meaningful and interesting to all people. basically, i agree with you
: that the establishment does a bad job of picking things that truly
: deserve to be classics. most of your average american high school english
: "classics" are there because they have momentum in that category... they
: won the respect of the wise and sagely at one point and earned the title
: they have. now, they continue to have the title to the exclusion of new
: material that might come up and have equal or greater merit.
: and, if you cant see why the Old Man and the Sea is a classic, you are
: missing the point of what it means to really _be_ a classic. popularity
: alone just dont cut it...
Yes, I guess I *am* missing what it means to really _be_ a classic -
because nobody has done anything in the way of what I'd consider an
explanation.
Michael Falcon-Gates
In article <6l3l8n$9...@newsops.execpc.com>, ki...@earth.execpc.com says...
>
>: No; it is because 'Classic' has the component of ' of enduring
value'.
>: "Instant Classics" generally hit all of the "In" and topical points,
but once
>: those things are passe' , ...blehh.
>
>The language used in Romeo and Juliet is no longer used. It's quite
>archaic. Why is it considered a "classic" while any other "starcrossed
>lovers" story which hits the exact same points isn't?
For one thing, _Romeo and Juliet_ is BETTER than most of the other
"starcrossed lovers" stories I've seen/read.
For another, most of the other ones adapt bits from _Romeo and Juliet_ --
or even use its plot almost unchanged, as in _West Side Story_.
-m
--
Not Microsoft's literary classics, etc.
David G. Bell
In article <6l4beo$g...@news.microsoft.com>
a-mi...@microsoft.com "Michael Falcon-Gates" writes:
Anyone who watches a good performance of one of Shakespeare's plays, or
who takes the trouble to read them, or who looks up Shakespeare in a
dictionary of quotations, will understand just how good a writer he was,
and how much his words echo through the centuries.
And Shakespeare should really be read aloud. We didn't get taught at
school about how to read iambic pentameters, we just sat there, reading
out the assigned parts, letting the rhythym of the words roll off our
tongues.
And I was lucky enough to do the same with Chaucer.
If you want suggestions for classic films, I'd be looking far more
widely than to just Hollywood. Consider Akira Kurosawa, and the
influence he has had, and how many of his films are inspired by
Shakespeare.
Of course, there are people who think that Conrad ripped off Apocalypse
Now.
--
Cheap Food \
Safe Food > Pick any two of three.
Healthy Food /
Paul M. M. Jacobus
On 3 Jun 1998, Joe Schulte wrote:
> The language used in Romeo and Juliet is no longer used. It's quite
> archaic.
No it's not. I can pick it up, read it out loud, and except for a couple
words here and there, understand every bit of it.
> Why is it considered a "classic" while any other "starcrossed lovers"
> story which hits the exact same points isn't?
Because all those other ones are based off R&J, or reference it. And, even
though it was written Back When, it's still problems we face today.
JD
The Laughing God
Joe Schulte wrote:
> Are teachers cramming that one down school childrens' throats?
"You can Lead a Horse to Water, bwannah, but you Cannah make him THINK"
The Laughing God
Muad'Dib wrote:
> I used to have something Herbert wrote about the movie, but I can't
> find it, or I'd quote it. IIRC, it was very gracious (he was happy
> someone gave it a go) and non-judgmental, but he somewhat distanced
> himself from the film. If I find it, I'll post it.
I seem to recall that it had something to do with his cancer, and Milking that
Puppy to benefit his Kids while he still had the chance. Guy had his priorities
straight: I respect that...
The Laughing God
The Laughing God wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
>
> I agree, IMO you should have to read Star Wars at GCSE level and
>
> > Shakespear should be consigned to the "worthless, meaningless drivil"
> > shelves. Whats more, you have to claim you liked "Julius Ceaser" in the
> > examn! And teachers wounder why Lord of the Flies fails to interest
> > us...
Well; I'd go along w/ the Star Wars thing IF!! the curriculum was based on
analyzing ALL the sources Lucas copped his story-line from. (Obi-Wan as
Prospero, anyone?)
As far as the Lord of the Flies thing; they make you read it in Jr. High
School FOR A REASON!!
If you don't 'get' what that reason is, may I invite you to put on your paint
and chant : "Kill the Beast, Drink His Blood..."
"You can Lead a Horse to Watah, Bwannah, but you Cannah make him THINK"
- Attributed to a Retiring Jr High Literature Instructor
Joe Schulte
Paul M. M. Jacobus (vam...@access4.digex.net) wrote:
: On 3 Jun 1998, Joe Schulte wrote:
: > The language used in Romeo and Juliet is no longer used. It's quite
: > archaic.
: No it's not. I can pick it up, read it out loud, and except for a couple
: words here and there, understand every bit of it.
Really? I have never heard anyone speaking that way - UNLESS they are
quoting something from that era.
: > Why is it considered a "classic" while any other "starcrossed lovers"
: > story which hits the exact same points isn't?
: Because all those other ones are based off R&J, or reference it. And, even
: though it was written Back When, it's still problems we face today.
So...it was the very first ever to use a plot like that? I find that
extremely hard to believe.
NEil Phillips
On 3 Jun 1998 09:18:33 -0500, ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) saw
fit to share the following wisdom:
>: You're addressing two separate issues--make up your mind about what
>: you're talking about. One issue is the "classic" status of various
>: works, and their status as required reading. The other is the
>: analysis/criticism of said books.
>
>No, actually they're elements of the same thing. A teacher doesn't say,
>"Read this book, it's neat and you'll get something out of it." They say,
>"Read pages 1-70 we'll be discussing it on tuesday". On Tuesday they go
>ahead and pick apart every little potential meaning of every little
>potential symbol that is contained in that part. Someone mentioning that
>their foot hurts (who later loses it in a bear trap) becomes brilliant
>foreshadowing.
It sounds to ME like you just have a crap Eniglish teacher..
tehre are crap teachers, tehre are good teachers. Last year we had a
REALLY crap teacher, this semester we had a reasonable teacher (texts
we did were "the chocolate war", "The power of one" and "The
delinquents")
teacher I have next semester is, fom what I have heard, a good teacher
- I'm looking forward to it.
It's teh same thing with any subject, BTW..
>Ah, so Titanic was a classic. So is, apparently Starship Troopers. I can
>guarantee that many, many more people have gone spent two hours looking at
>either of the above. They even paid money to do it. I'm willing to bet
>that Monet's paintings have not managed to get 200,000,000 or so people to
>stare at them for three hours (as well as spending $6+ each) as they did
>with Titanic.
>
>Apparently a reel of Titanic should be hanging next to the great painters'
>works in the Louve.
What's your point? I think you missed the point the original author
was making - how many people look at the movie and are INSPIRED by it?
BTW, I liked the movie. I also liked Starship Troopers. So bust out my
teeth with a splintered club..
Doesn't mean I thinkthey are classics. ST isn't, Titanic might be.
--
NEil
(phil...@gwbbs.net.au)
a.k.a. N-ster...
NEil Phillips
On 3 Jun 1998 09:06:13 -0500, ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) saw
fit to share the following wisdom:
>The language used in Romeo and Juliet is no longer used. It's quite
>archaic. Why is it considered a "classic" while any other "starcrossed
>lovers" story which hits the exact same points isn't?
the language use din it is indeed quite Archaic, but lots of things
had archaic language. The language wasn't archaic when it was written,
but the story has endured untill today. It is a true classic.
If you can't agree that R&J is a classic, tehre is no hope for this
discussion. You don't have to LIKE it, but accept it..
Otherwise NOTHING can possibly be a classic.
NEil Phillips
On 3 Jun 1998 14:46:59 -0500, ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) saw
fit to share the following wisdom:
>
>doesn't it?
I've seen Titanic twice. I know of one person who has seen it 100
times! WIth a film, oyu have to re-watch it to start getting stuff out
of it, really.. Unfortunately I fell asleep the second time through
Titanic..
Perhaps I just liked it so much becuase I had heard absolutely 0 hype
WHATSOEVER before seeing titanic; I went in with a completely open
mind and I liked it.
>Besides, I think I can guarantee you that 200 million people have NOT
>looked at a Monet painting. Even fewer have actually spent time actually
>*looking* at them.
How many people have really appreciated titanic? how many saw it
multiple times? OK, alot. but not as many as have appreciated Monet's
work.
what are you arguing? that Titanic should be a calssic? that Monet
shouldn't? What is your point?
>: and, if you cant see why the Old Man and the Sea is a classic, you are
>: missing the point of what it means to really _be_ a classic. popularity
>: alone just dont cut it...
>
>Yes, I guess I *am* missing what it means to really _be_ a classic -
>because nobody has done anything in the way of what I'd consider an
>explanation.
well, could you tell us what YOU consider to be a classic?
just one movie/book/whatever, that YOU think is a classic.
Eric Jome
In article <6l497k$3...@newsops.execpc.com>,
Joe Schulte <ki...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>Besides, I think I can guarantee you that 200 million people have NOT
>looked at a Monet painting. Even fewer have actually spent time actually
>*looking* at them.
you are wrong on this. i cant believe you cant see it. how long has
any masterwork by Monet been around? how long has Titanic been around?
if you agreee that a copy of a Monet original is effectively the same
painting because it is the same content, then how many more millions
and millions of copies of Money work are floating around on posters
and calendars and wall art viewed by millions of people every day?
how many people will ever seen Titanic more than 2 or 3 times?
face it... literally millions of people are exposed daily to Monet.
and that has been the norm for over 50 years. in the next 50 years,
you will not be able to say the same thing about Titanic.
eric
Joe Schulte
NEil Phillips (phil...@gwbbs.net.au) wrote:
: On 3 Jun 1998 09:06:13 -0500, ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) saw
: fit to share the following wisdom:
: >The language used in Romeo and Juliet is no longer used. It's quite
: >archaic. Why is it considered a "classic" while any other "starcrossed
: >lovers" story which hits the exact same points isn't?
: the language use din it is indeed quite Archaic, but lots of things
: had archaic language. The language wasn't archaic when it was written,
: but the story has endured untill today. It is a true classic.
: If you can't agree that R&J is a classic, tehre is no hope for this
: discussion. You don't have to LIKE it, but accept it..
: Otherwise NOTHING can possibly be a classic.
I'm not saying it's not a classic, I'm asking why it's a classic.
Jpattern
Joe asked, "*Why* is it a classic?"
To me, a classic is something to which I can return over and over, learning
something new (about myself, about the human condition) everytime.
(I agree that there is a difference between what I consider classic, and what
schools especially have often told me was classic. That's a subject for a whole
'nother set of posts of the "dead white European male" variety.)
In my life I've been a child, teen, college student, husband, father, and so
on. A true classic appeals to each of those, and can teach each something new
with each encounter. Part of this is what I bring to the work each time (new
experiences, new knowledge), but the greater part is what the crator invested
in the work, whether through skill (usually) or serendipitous accident
(infrequently).
For me, "Romeo & Juliet" meets that criterion. Yes, the language is archaic,
but the story is truly timeless.
The first time I read it, I though it was a cool love story, but jeez why did
they have to die at the end?
The next time I appreciated more how the end flowed almost inevitably from what
had gone before.
I first identified with Romeo, of course, but now I like to think I find more
of myself in Mercutio.
One of my college professors was also a Jesuit priest. He loved Shakespeare,
but had great difficulties with "Romeo & Juliet" because they both commit
suicide at the end, which he honestly believed was a mortal sin. That opened up
another level of the play to me.
"Romeo & Juliet" is considered a classic by society at large because I suspect
that most people who experience it also learn something new each time, as I
have. That doesn't mean everyone does, and for them it's not a classic. But
*most* people do. And, yes, many teachers probably only teach it because they
themselves were told it was a classic (and because they believe the love story
will appeal to hormonally driven teens), not because they honestly believe it
is a classic.
(Going in another direction, the western film "High Noon" has long been
considered a classic, but even after repeated viewings it still leaves me cold.
I can appreciate the story, and the acting, and the cinematography, and I've
read several critical analyses of the film, but to me it's still no classic. I
won't say you're wrong if *you* think it's a classic, it's just not one to
*me*. And, truthfully, *most* fans of westerns consider it a classic, so maybe
there's just something I'm missing.)
Well, I suspect this post has been more about me than about the classics, and I
haven't even mentioned Dune or Monet or Titanic. For the record, I suspect that
all three will still be thrilling audiences 50 years from now, and revealing
new delights with repeated exposures. Maybe not to me or to you, but to some
people, and to them they'll be classics, no matter what anyone else says.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Jeff Moore
jpat...@aol.com
The Laughing God
Joe Schulte wrote:
: If you can't agree that R&J is a classic, tehre is no hope for this
> : discussion. You don't have to LIKE it, but accept it..
>
> : Otherwise NOTHING can possibly be a classic.
>
> I'm not saying it's not a classic, I'm asking why it's a classic.
Because it is the FIRST 'modern' (tragic) western civ type love-story we
have, codified. Like Rogue Trader is a 'classic'; people gripe "the new
edition is better", but longbeards retort "mebbe, but the new edition
wouldn't even EXIST if not for RT.."
Like that-
Joe Schulte
NEil Phillips (phil...@gwbbs.net.au) wrote:
: >Yes, I guess I *am* missing what it means to really _be_ a classic -
: >because nobody has done anything in the way of what I'd consider an
: >explanation.
: well, could you tell us what YOU consider to be a classic?
: just one movie/book/whatever, that YOU think is a classic.
I have lots of movie/book/whatevers that I like. I don't go around calling
them classics, however, and demand that people see them - if they haven't
seen/read/whatevered them, their opinion "just doesn't count".
Eric Jome
In article <6l6g1e$4...@newsops.execpc.com>,
Joe Schulte <ki...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>I'm not saying it's not a classic, I'm asking why it's a classic.
so, the question is, why is Romeo & Juliet a classic? well, it displays
several traits that are commonly identified in works of importance and
meaning. first, it is a compelling, moving story. it speaks in a very
effective way about profound aspects of humanity, such as love and family.
second, it is artfully (even masterfully) written and conceived. the
writing style and mechanisms used by Shakespeare are of superior
creativity and quality. third and lastly, it transcends boundaries of
age and culture to be successful for people the world over; learned people
everywhere are able to recognize its quality and average people can easily
appreciate it.
undoubtedly, you are now saying, but "what about play/movie/book X?"...
tell you what, Joe. you want to learn why the things i say above are
true? start reading plays... read all Shakespeare and a few scores of
other authors. then read every hack thing you can. talk to people
about it. in the end, you will see why it is a classic; it is better
than almost everything else.
you have a classic problem (pun intended); you cant deal with someone
telling you what to do or think. you dont want to believe something is
a classic because you dont want to accept that people with more training
and experience in literature know more about it than you.
eric
Paul M. M. Jacobus
On 4 Jun 1998, Joe Schulte wrote:
> : > The language used in Romeo and Juliet is no longer used. It's quite
> : > archaic.
>
> : No it's not. I can pick it up, read it out loud, and except for a
> : couple words here and there, understand every bit of it.
>
> Really? I have never heard anyone speaking that way - UNLESS they are
> quoting something from that era.
That's not what I said. Take a passage, and read it out loud. If you can't
understand what they're saying, you need to go back to reading
comprehension classes.
> : > Why is it considered a "classic" while any other "starcrossed lovers"
> : > story which hits the exact same points isn't?
>
> : Because all those other ones are based off R&J, or reference it. And, even
> : though it was written Back When, it's still problems we face today.
>
> So...it was the very first ever to use a plot like that? I find that
> extremely hard to believe.
No, it's just the most-widely referenced, since it's an existing document
from back when. I'm sure Shakespeare had his influences too, but his is
the one that influenced everything afterwards.
JD
Keith M. Lucas
In article <6l670l$m...@newsops.execpc.com>,
>
>: > The language used in Romeo and Juliet is no longer used. It's quite
>: > archaic.
>
>: No it's not. I can pick it up, read it out loud, and except for a couple
>: words here and there, understand every bit of it.
>
>Really? I have never heard anyone speaking that way - UNLESS they are
>quoting something from that era.
You have to read the stuff a couple of times and get the rhythm of
it. Admittedly it's an aquired skill but it is possible -- for example
a lot of the dialog employs tricks like repeating stuff, once in long
words for the people in the boxes and once in simpler terms for the
labourers standing in front of the stage. Plus Shakespeare used words
that are no longer in common usage, but that doesn't mean they're not
worth knowing. {And using. Preferably to cause thinkos in other people
while arguing with them. Vocabularistic warfare is fun extreme.}
>: > Why is it considered a "classic" while any other "starcrossed lovers"
>: > story which hits the exact same points isn't?
>
>: Because all those other ones are based off R&J, or reference it. And, even
>: though it was written Back When, it's still problems we face today.
>
>So...it was the very first ever to use a plot like that? I find that
>extremely hard to believe.
Shakespear did write some dogs. He was a jobbing playwright, he
churned material out at terrifying rates.. most of it never made the
opening nights never mind the 20th century, but the stuff that did has
been remembered and still produced 600 years later. Which is a bit of
a hint that people liked it. On the other hand, Greek tradegies for
example, although still performed today in places as they were yonks
ago, just aren't as popular.
I'd recommend watching the recent remake version of R&J, which is
actually rather good although if you're going to watch Shakespeare on
a big screen, buy lots of popcorn, find a really good cinema and watch
Brannagh's version of "Hamlet". Which rocks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sillywizATexcessionDOTdemonDOTcoDOTuk"It's not a personality..it's a bulldozer"
--------------------- The Official Irony Generator for the 1998 World Cup -----
NEil Phillips
On 5 Jun 1998 09:12:52 -0500, ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) saw
fit to share the following wisdom:
>NEil Phillips (phil...@gwbbs.net.au) wrote:
therefore, you think that absolutely nothing is a classic?
umm.. let's see, I'll pull out this collins dictionary I leave sitting
next to my computer..
Classic (adj)
1. of the highest class, esp.; in art or literature.
2. serving as a standard model of it's kind; definitive.
3. (relates to science)
4. (relates to music)
5. of lasting interest or signifigance.
6. continuously in fasion becuase of its simple and basic style.
7. an author, artist or work of art of the highest exellence.
8. a creation of work considered as definitive.
9. (relates to horse racing)
> *Usage.* The adjectives *classic* and *classical* can often be
treated as synonyms, but there are two contexts in which they should
be carefully distinguished. *classic* is applied to that which is of
the first rank, esp. in art or literature, as in: "Lewis Carroll's
classic works for children." *classical* is used to refer to Greek and
Roman culture.
OK, after wasting about 10 minutes doing that..
I think it can be said that Romeo and Juliet is most certainley a
classic, fitting definitions (all strictley IMHO) 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8.
Titanic is not yet a classic, but could prove to be in about 10 years
time.
oh well, read the definition of calssic again, and tell me something
you consider to be a classic..
Kurt
Keith M. Lucas wrote in message ...
>
>I'd recommend watching the recent remake version of R&J, which is
>actually rather good although if you're going to watch Shakespeare on
>a big screen, buy lots of popcorn, find a really good cinema and watch
>Brannagh's version of "Hamlet". Which rocks.
>
people who can do Shakespeare well (Henry V was excellent), but IMHO the
recent R&J was awful. Watching it gave me the feeling that these teenagers
really had no idea what the lines they were speaking meant. If it wasn't
for Di Craprio I don't think it would have had anywhere near as much
interest (you need a hook for the girlies).
For Shakespeare, I'd really recommend Richard III, with Ian McKellen and
Nigel Hawthorne.
Kurt
David G. Bell
Kenneth Branagh does Shakespeare well -- 'Much Ado About Nothing' is
worth watching too -- and the Richard III you recommend suggests some
interesting semi-historical gaming scenarios.
It's also interesting to compare the Branagh and Olivier versions of
Henry V.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Joe Schulte
Eric Jome (ej...@earth.execpc.com) wrote:
: you have a classic problem (pun intended); you cant deal with someone
: telling you what to do or think. you dont want to believe something is
: a classic because you dont want to accept that people with more training
: and experience in literature know more about it than you.
First of all, Eric, I hate puns and next time I see you I'll have to smack
you. :)
I accept that people know more about literature than I do. No doubt about
that.
Anyways, have you ever heard someone say something to the effect of "If
you haven't read Asimov's "Robots" series your opinion on SF reading just
doesn't count."?
I think that, deep down, *that* is what really gets to me.
And why is that? Because it's a classic, of course!
Joe Schulte
Keith M. Lucas (sill...@excession.demon.co._delete_this_.uk) wrote:
: In article <6l670l$m...@newsops.execpc.com>,
: Joe Schulte <ki...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
: >Paul M. M. Jacobus (vam...@access4.digex.net) wrote:
: >
: >
: >: On 3 Jun 1998, Joe Schulte wrote:
: >
: >: > The language used in Romeo and Juliet is no longer used. It's quite
: >: > archaic.
: >
: >: No it's not. I can pick it up, read it out loud, and except for a couple
: >: words here and there, understand every bit of it.
: >
: >Really? I have never heard anyone speaking that way - UNLESS they are
: >quoting something from that era.
: You have to read the stuff a couple of times and get the rhythm of
: it. Admittedly it's an aquired skill but it is possible -- for example
: a lot of the dialog employs tricks like repeating stuff, once in long
: words for the people in the boxes and once in simpler terms for the
: labourers standing in front of the stage. Plus Shakespeare used words
: that are no longer in common usage, but that doesn't mean they're not
: worth knowing. {And using. Preferably to cause thinkos in other people
: while arguing with them. Vocabularistic warfare is fun extreme.}
You still haven't proven that the language isn't archaic - and you can't
prove that, because it IS archaic.
The Laughin' God
Joe Schulte wrote:
> Anyways, have you ever heard someone say something to the effect of "If
> you haven't read Asimov's "Robots" series your opinion on SF reading just
> doesn't count."?
>
> I think that, deep down, *that* is what really gets to me.
>
> And why is that? Because it's a classic, of course!
Well, now, That's a Harlequin of a different color!! What you are
saying (if I read you right) is NOT that you have a problem with the Label
"Classic" per se (whether an epithet or a compliment),
rather:
You have a Problem with Elitist Poseur Asses who hit you over the head
with dismissive and paternalistic literary pats on the head that amount to :
"There There dear, you'll know more when you're older".
Heck, Joe, I thought you were out to lunch on this whole tangental
diatribe; Now all I can say is: "You GO, girl!!!"
Eric Jome
In article <6lgomm$g...@newsops.execpc.com>,
Joe Schulte <ki...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>Anyways, have you ever heard someone say something to the effect of "If
>you haven't read Asimov's "Robots" series your opinion on SF reading just
>doesn't count."?
>
>I think that, deep down, *that* is what really gets to me.
>
>And why is that? Because it's a classic, of course!
ladies and gentlemen, mark you calendars as a day in history has finally
arrived... Joe and i agree on something. :)
i believe that Romeo & Juliet is a classic. and for all the same reasons,
so are the Asimov Robots books (and Foundation). thats what i think is
wrong with the category of "classic" things in the information age.
the established hierarchy of "smart" people will only accept certain
genres, subjects, or authors as classics. try getting your average
English professor to take you seriously in a discussion about fantasy
adventure literature as classics... best of luck. but everything from
Tolkien to Moorcock to Zelazny (sp?) definitely fit the bill. and
the same for Herbert.
so i can really sympathize with what Joe is saying; there is a lot
of meaningful, quality stuff out there that doesnt get the respect
it deserves.
eric
Steve Witty
>
>Anyways, have you ever heard someone say something to the effect of "If
>you haven't read Asimov's "Robots" series your opinion on SF reading just
>doesn't count."?
>
>I think that, deep down, *that* is what really gets to me.
>
>And why is that? Because it's a classic, of course!
>
Look I hate to spoil the party, but what the hell has this got to do
with wargaming? As much as you colonists have the right to pick my
language apart thats what! <rofl>
Seriously, can we stop this thread its daft and out of place here.
--
Steve Witty
HOGMEISTER
http://www.witty.demon.co.uk/
NEil Phillips
On 8 Jun 1998 08:25:56 -0500, ki...@earth.execpc.com (Joe Schulte) saw
fit to share the following wisdom:
>You still haven't proven that the language isn't archaic - and you can't
>prove that, because it IS archaic.
you are arguing against yourself here. the point is, R&J has endured,
despite english evolving around it. The language wasn't archaic when
it was written, you know? it's tghat whole classic thing agian, you
know? what's he gonna do, go through a time warp to the present day
and pick up the current lingo to use in a play? err..