476

(34 replies, posted in Episodes)

So... we're all just going to pretend that there's no typo in this topic title?

477

(135 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Link works for me on laptop and phone.

It's really astounding. The opening at least is shot-for-shot, line-for-line identical. This isn't something you can pass off as accidental after having read the original several years ago.

It's quite a good film, tho; the acting and cinematography (Matthew Irving) are terrific, and the music is good, if a bit obtrusive. If anything, it's the source material that's weak. A film critic is fed up with art-house directors and the critics who like them? Meh.

478

(47 replies, posted in Episodes)

Inception is essentially a heist movie. Heist movies don't generally have much of a villain. It's the difficulty of the job that is the source of the conflict. I'd say a closer analog than The Sting is Ocean's 11 but closer still is The Brinks Job and maybe even The Taking of Pelham 123.

However, to underscore Trey's point, Nolan often disguises character dramas as genre films, and that's what Inception REALLY is. Cobb is his own worst enemy, as is Leonard in Memento, Borden in The Prestige, and Batman in the first and third Batmen. And as good as Nolan films tend to be, that's often his undoing. Bogart could play Rick Blaine as a troubled man (or his characters in Key Largo, To Have and Have Not, The Maltese Falcon, and plenty of others), but they still keep it together and square off against the real threat.

Nolan keeps pulling a bait-and-switch that I think is wearing rather thin, especially with TDKR: "Hey, I've got a great story to tell you about a troubled guy who has to stop a crazy lunatic. It's got amazing visuals and effects... and the real crazy lunatic is HIMSELF! GOTCHA!" There are probably more scenes of Nolan heroes' friends trying to get him to come to his senses and stop his crazy behavior than there are of Nolan villains doing crazy things.

479

(45 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Marcus wrote:

Black Adder the Third - "Duel and Duality"

Edmund: I want to be remembered when I'm dead. I want books written about me, I want songs sung about me. And then hundreds of years from now I want episodes from my life to be played out weekly at half past nine by some great heroic actor of the age.

Baldrick: Yeah. And I could be played by some tiny tit in a beard.

...both of whom have knighthoods now! *

480

(18 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I tried watching Speed Racer with my nephew, who was 9 at the time, and we gave up around 20 minutes in, when Speed was being pressured by the sponsor guy. Too loud, too confusing.

481

(34 replies, posted in Episodes)

This event was the gift that keeps on giving. MICHAEL.

*coughs*
*takes cold medicine*

482

(34 replies, posted in Episodes)

http://www.zarban.com/pics/WAYDM-malariathon.jpg

Super shout-out to Eddie, too, who cooked amazing meals on the fly. His pork tenderloin is to die for!

Awesome to meet him and Brian, Kyle, Spork, Paul, Seth, and others. It was an amazing crew! And double thanks to Cloe who had her new apartment invaded by strangers (and strangests) at the last minute when the AT&T Internet let us down.

EDIT: let the record show that I left them unconscious but alive.

/hopping the red-eye to the east coast

What a terrific event with a terrific group of people. I feel lucky to have participated.

Congratulations to everyone who helped and in particular to Teague, Holden, and Mike for building the ship for us to sail on. It wasn't just a crazy amount of work. It was crazy complicated, too. But aside from the Internet's and YouTube's idiosyncrasies, it went off without a hitch!

485

(5 replies, posted in Creations)

I don't know how to define pornography, but I know what I like.

486

(431 replies, posted in Off Topic)

screwballscramble wrote:

I stumbled across this site as I was searching for a 'back to the future' commentary and Zarban's site led me here

Whoo hoo! Shout out to me!

*does hand jive*
*moonwalks out of room*

487

(670 replies, posted in Creations)

I love Birds Rights Activist on Twitter (https://twitter.com/ProBirdRights). I tweeted that I wanted to hear it as a podcast and then decided to make it myself. I recorded a bunch of tweets, tweaked it, and dropped some sound effects in. It's 8-and-a-half minutes of me being silly with someone else's genius.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1718583604/birdrights.jpg

http://www.zarban.com/pics/BirdsRightsA … odcast.mp3

Doctor Submarine wrote:

Well, first of all, two times in seven years hardly destroys that aspect of his personality. And again, the fact that he has disagreements with Harry only makes him a more complex character. It's certainly better than having him be 100% loyal all the time.

Yes. If I were going to change Ron, I probably wouldn't make him much more loyal. That's a role others assigned to him because they can't think of any other value he adds.

I've said I'd prefer him to be the Ron Weasley we met in Sorcerer's Stone: knowledgeable about the wizarding world and clever and courageous enough to beat the chess challenge. We lose that with Prisoner of Azkaban.

Let me be clear:

I like Ron just fine, but the books and movies would be better if he was more capable and had more to contribute.

I like Hermione just fine, but the books and movies would be better if Harry did more of the spellcasting (and she wasn't so much of a scold).

Withkittens wrote:

I'm with Zarban on this. In terms of loyalty, I'd postulate that Neville was much more loyal than Ron.

I love the moment in Goblet of Fire when Harry tries to hang out with Neville because Ron has left him and he's just bored with Neville's nerdery. It says so much about Harry and Ron's relationship.

I don't hold Ron to any standard. I'm just clarifying the definition of "loyal".

I say he's a kind of lifeless character who is mainly there to make Harry look less stupid (he and Harry cheat off Hermione, and he got the worst grades of the three of them). But others claim that Ron's role is loyal friend despite the fact that he leaves Harry flat at two of the most important times of his life.

I agree that Ron's behavior is realistic and forgivable, and it makes him more interesting. But you can't look at the times he abandoned Harry and claim that his primary trait is loyalty. The best you can say about Ron is that Harry likes him and that's enough.

And I'll refer you to Harry's own views on excusing 17-year-olds for being immature regarding his father's behavior and Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald.

Darth Praxus wrote:
Zarban wrote:

Ron Weasley: loyal till end... except in 4 and 7.

But he always came back. Han Solo did no better.

Han Solo was specifically presented as a mercenary without loyalty. His return hailed the completion of his change into a loyal friend.

Ron's return serves mostly to point out that Hermione is, in addition to being smarter and more capable, also more loyal than he is.

I denigrate Ron largely because I believe Rowling denigrated him. She subconsciously wanted Ron to be weak, insecure, capricious, poor, and dumb so that he was not a threat to Hermione's independence in any way. She constructed the "perfect" marriage partner for her avatar to make up for her own abusive marriage.

Doctor Submarine wrote:

Ron is loyal, but he's not without his flaws. It makes him a FAR more interesting character.

Perhaps.

Spork wrote:

How meaningful would Ron's loyalty be if it was never tested?

Testing is great. Failing that test twice demonstrates that his loyalty is not unwavering. How many times does a husband need to cheat on his wife before it's considered infidelity?

Darth Praxus wrote:

When you lay them out like that, they're pretty much balanced; it skews toward Hermione, but Ron does his bit. (Also, he comes up with and executes the plan of getting into the Chamber of Secrets to destroy the Cup.)

What? Ron does almost nothing in 3, 4, 5 (until the end), 6 (until the end), and a good part of 7.

Doctor Submarine wrote:

He also stands by Harry when the whole school turns against him in Chamber and OotP. If you like, he serves as Harry's emotional support, and Hermione is his intellectual support. Loyalty like Ron's is nothing to sneeze at, which is a point that Rowling hammers home.

Ron Weasley: loyal till the end... except in 4 and 7.

Here is what Ron actually does. I'd like some examples of Ron bringing the other two down to earth, because I think that's wishful thinking, an attempt to invent a role for him, especially since he literally abandons his friends in 4 and 7 and somewhat in 6, when he spends time with Lavender.

SS: He befriends Harry and introduces him to the Wizarding World. He knocks out the troll. He beats the chess challenge.

CoS: He helps rescue Harry from the Dursleys and gets him to school in the flying car. He helps discover Draco is not the heir of Slytherin with the polyjuice potion. He helps Harry escape the giant spiders.

PoA: He does pretty much nothing but help stun Snape in the Shrieking Shack.

GoF: He mostly abandons Harry but does warn him about the dragon challenge.

OotP: He joins Dumbledore's Army but little else until he fights by Harry's side in the Ministry of Magic.

HBP: He mostly gives Harry bad advice but helps fight off the Death Eaters in the school at the end.

DH: He mostly abandons Harry but does help destroy the locket and diadem [edit: and cup]. He fights by Harry's side in the second half.

SS: She (misguidedly) sets Snape's robes on fire. She figures out most of the mystery. She immobilizes Neville. She beats the plant guardian and the potions challenge.

CoS: She creates the polyjuice potion. She solves the mystery despite being paralyzed for months.

PoA: She punches Draco in the nose. She fights by Harry's side in the Shrieking Shack. She fixes everything with the time turner.

GoF: She helps Harry with the challenges. She keeps Victor Krum from winning the tournament that he is clearly best suited for by distracting him with--one assumes--blowjobs.

OotP: She starts Dumbledore's Army. She arranges the Quibbler interview that changes people's minds. She tricks Umbridge into going into the forest. She fights by Harry's side in the Ministry of Magic.

HBP: She mostly gives Harry bad advice but does help fight off the Death Eaters in the school at the end.

DH: She does all the prep and most of the advanced spell-casting. She makes the polyjuice potion to get them into the Ministry of Magic. She helps find the locket and destroy the diadem. She fights by Harry's side repeatedly.

Darth Praxus wrote:
Zarban wrote:

Regardless, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more useless sidekick in all of fiction.

I wouldn't call him useless—knocking out a mountain troll, getting them past the chess game, destroying the locket, figuring out how to destroy Hufflepuff's cup, etc. etc. Compare that to, say, Merry and Pippin? I agree that he doesn't do much compared to Harry, but Hermione really doesn't do a whole lot either.

Your four examples come from book 1 and book 7, and at least one of them he actively tried to get out of doing. Merry & Pippin bring the ents, light the signal fire to bring the Riders of Rohan, and help Eowyn kill the Witch-King, three of the most important events in the story.

And Hermione doesn't do a whole lot? What do you mean? She has the answer to everything and casts nearly all the spells outside of fights. Except for the fact that she has all the courage of a little old lady, one could rationally argue that Harry and Ron are HER sidekicks.

Darth Praxus wrote:

[Ron] had so many good lines in the books, and in the films that's shoved aside to give Hermione more screentime.

I didn't think Ron was particularly funny in the books. If anything, Rupert gave him a bit of life, at least in the first three films. Regardless, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more useless sidekick in all of fiction.

498

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I watched Oblivion with Tom Cruise and, despite its being rather cold and familiar and not having a bit of snappy dialog, I liked it quite a bit. 3.5 stars.

  Show
I did have a fairly big problem with the idea that Jack thought the scavengers were aliens and not humans. There was no explanation as to why they ran around in scary costumes and didn't bother to, for example, leave graffiti messages about the situation.

Also, what was Victoria's value? Why couldn't Jack just communicate with mission control directly all the time? Or why not send her with him to help? Or make even more Jacks so they can work together but put them in masks so they don't know they're all the same?

Okay, now I hate this movie.

I watched RED, with Bruce Willis and friends liked it a lot. It felt warm and fresh and had plenty of snappy dialog. 4 stars.

Doctor Submarine wrote:

I think the excuse they come up with early on (during the Dueling Club stuff in Chamber) is something to the effect of, "Look, when you're in a battle for your life, it's easier to do a quick disarming spell than something really cool and inventive."

Yep, that's why I watch movies about wizards, JK Rowling: realism.

I'm no fan of the excesses of Jason Statham movies, but there's a wide middle ground, I think.

500

(164 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The 4th season of Community is fascinating. All the ingredients are there except one, and the show is just lifeless as a result. It's like replacing the milk in Cheeseburger Macaroni Hamburger Helper with more water.

I'm enjoying Elementary, altho it feels like it's treading water for the past few episodes, despite the addition of Rhys Ifans as Mycroft.

I'm also occasionally streaming Black Books, which is a terrific Britcom from a while back with Dylan Moran and Bill Bailey, as well as some Campion, which is a Chrystiesque period mystery with Peter Davison as a kind of PG Wodehouse version of Sherlock Holmes.