The question we have to ask, though, is if the Conservapedia listing for Poe's Law is in fact an example of Poe's Law?
http://conservapedia.com/Poe%27s_law
Dear God...
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Abbie
The question we have to ask, though, is if the Conservapedia listing for Poe's Law is in fact an example of Poe's Law?
http://conservapedia.com/Poe%27s_law
Dear God...
With all that, don't we encourage discussion here? Isn't that the point? I think that "Fight Club" is an atrocious film-there I said it!
Ok, now what?
I agree with everything in that statement except the Fight Club thing. Though I'm curious to hear your reasoning for why.
For me, it has to be one I saw just yesterday, a direct-to-DVD "thriller" titled Water's Edge that starred, surprisingly enough, Nathan Fillion. His involvement was the only reason I decided to watch the movie when it popped up on my Netflix streaming feed. And...boy howdy. It wasn't bad in the Plan 9 "so-bad-it's-good" way; it was just bloody awful, horrendously, tediously awful. Fillion did the best he could to bring some dignity to it, but the dialogue was horrendous, the acting from everyone except Fillion ranged from mediocre to completely abysmal, the plot devolved into nonsense that was impossible to follow, characters' motivations were just...ugh. View it here, if you're in a masochistic mood and want to share it with Captain Reynolds.
I think it's safe to say I'm looking forward to "Insidious Communist Propaganda of Steve" more than any other song on the album. Heck, more than any other song this year.
On the King side of things, I'd say his best novel is Misery. If you want to see him take an amazing situation and run with it, it's one of his best ideas, and the ending doesn't disappoint, either. My *favorite* by him is It; most of it is amazing (though it could just be that I really connect with the theme of lost childhood), and the first 150 pages are the best example of building dread in the reader that I've read. You've gotta love rambling King to like it, though--that sucker is *long*--and the ending, like many others of King's, is a bit anticlimactic, as was discussed in the podcast.
One Hour Photo?
I really hope this documentary continues. You'll do great, man; you're an amazing piano player, and I hadn't realized it until it suddenly hit me listening to the Sad Max soundtrack again a couple of weeks ago, but you're also a really talented lyricist. Hope those hands heal soon; that looks like it stings something fierce.
Great episode, you guys. On a side note, related to an offhand comment one of you guys made during the proceedings: I'm curious to hear a commentary on The Birds; your general opinion of it seemed to be fairly negative, which surprised me, as it's considered one of Hitchcock's better films (an opinion I agree with).
Also, another side note related to an offhand comment made by Dorkman: go and buy the Revenge of the Sith novelization by Matthew Stover. It basically just rewrote the entire movie (not a shred of dialogue in it is in the screenplay), makes far more sense (parts of it are almost exactly in line with some of the fixes you guys suggested in your prequel commentaries), and is genuinely emotional and exciting. And Stover's description of the duel between Anakin, Dooku and Obi-Wan stands with the Princess Bride duel as one of the best swordfights in literature that I've read.
Teague, after all the copyright crap you went through earlier this year, and then the 4chan horror last month, and now reading about your hands on Twitter--I really just want to give you a big hug. It'll be okay, man. We believe in you.
Damn. I feel so fucking bad for you, man. That said, great essay, and a well-performed audiobook. You should do this kinda thing more often.
FIREFLY: SERENITY
Dorkman says that "Cry Baby Cry" is an older song that The Beatles covered. In truth, John Lennon wrote most of the song, with Paul McCartney penning the "Can You Take Me Back?" coda.
The Room? *cowers from the inevitable flames*
Lucas says that he thinks Abrams "understands" Star Wars. God help us all.
http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Geo … 152597.asp
This one has a lot going on, but it avoids, I think, feeling too busy. While the original poster, with Luke's saber raised high and Leia leaning against him, is more iconic, it really doesn't capture the feel of the film—Luke isn't a god, and Leia isn't his loyal lover. This one captures all of the characters in all of their glory, looking like they do in the movie, and the action pose Luke is in somehow avoids looking cheesy and instead seems thrilling. It almost feels like the poster's in motion.
I just saw it. Thought it blew Avengers out of the water, personally.
This...all of this at once and at the same time. Love Nicholas Cage:
*also whispers* My Chemical Romance covers */whispers*
It's been called the best traditionally animated film of all time, and is certainly the most successful one—as well as the seventeenth-highest grossing film in history—with a box office gross of nearly $1 billion. Its songs and characters have become something of a pop-cultural touchstone. It represented, at the time of its release in 1994, the high point of the period known as the Disney Renaissance, which continued through 1999 but never again yielded such a success. I had never seen it before, despite the fact that I was born in 1996, only two years after its release. So, when I started to get more and more into animated musicals early in 2012, I was extremely curious about their supposed zenith. Was The Lion King really that good, I asked myself?
Early this year, I finally purchased a VHS copy from Half-Price Books and popped it in my player. I watched it. The whole thing. And the verdict: it's a good film. And there are many great moments. But overall, the whole cannot be called great.
A plot summary probably isn't necessary for most readers of this review, but I'll give one anyway. The Lion King is Disney's only original story of the entire Renaissance period (or their entire history, for that matter), but don't think that means it has a radical structure. Its writers, Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts, and Linda Woolverton, freely admit that the film's story was largely cribbed from those two most famous of archetypal storytellers, Shakespeare and the Bible (specifically Hamlet and Macbeth and the stories of Joseph and Moses). That's not to say the film's story is inferior by any means, because it works. Oh boy, does it ever work (except for the length and placement of the beats—more on that later). In brief, the movie opens with the birth of Simba (Jonathan Taylor Thomas), the only heir to the Lion King Mufasa (James Earl Jones)—much to the chagrin of Mufasa's younger brother Scar (Jeremy Irons). Simba grows up rambunctious, adventurous, and with a rather large sense of entitlement due to his position, and Scar, already seclusive, draws further and further away from the lion pride. Finally, he decides enough is enough, and, along with the help of a trio of hyenas (Whoopi Goldberg, Cheech Marin, and Jim Cummings), engineers a wildebeest stampede that nearly kills Simba and, in the course of a rescue attempt by Mufasa, becomes a successful regicide. Simba, convinced by Scar that Mufasa's death was his fault, flees into the wilderness and takes up residence with the unlikely duo of meerkat Timon (Nathan Lane) and warthog Puumba (Ernie Sabella), who advocate a philosophy of apathy and fun. But destiny, as ever, cannot be thwarted, and an adult Simba (Matthew Broderick) finds himself compelled to return to his home and confront his traitorous uncle once and for all...
The positives first, starting with the cast. Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Matthew Broderick are hardly outstanding in the lead role of Simba, but they really can't be—the role is that of a fairly bland Hero's Journey protagonist, and the voice actors are quite serviceable for this task. It's the supporting cast that really shines in The Lion King, with the notable highlights of James Earl Jones as Mufasa and Jeremy Irons as Scar. Jones' booming, powerful voice lends itself wonderfully to Mufasa's dignity and power, but he also beautifully captures the warmth of the king's love for his son, which is a large part of what makes the character's death so incredibly traumatic and memorable for the film's children viewers. Irons is gleefully seductive and sardonic, relishing Scar's evil—it's been said that a Disney film is only as good as its villain, and Scar is one of the best ones to come out of the Renaissance (he's also the only one to actually get away with his nefarious plot—for a time, at least). The other supporting characters are also well-cast and acted.
The film's animation is gorgeous—apart from the criminally overlooked The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it's probably the best-looking hand-animated movie Disney has ever done. The incredibly tricky task of drawing anthropomorphic animals that still look realistically beastlike is pulled off masterfully—the physiology of the lions especially is astonishingly well done. The colors and shading are gorgeous, particularly in the little details (the shading in a scene early on in the film, in which Scar lazily toys with a mouse he is about to eat, blows my mind). Computers assist with some sequences, particularly the stampede scene, but the CGI is integrated so well that in most scenes it's almost impossible to tell what is computer-rendered and what is hand-drawn.
I'm of two minds on the film's music. Apart from the incredibly majestic “Circle of Life”, the songs (with music by Elton John and lyrics by Tim Rice) are nowhere near as good as those written by Alan Menken and Howard Ashman/Stephen Schwartz in most of the other Renaissance films—their poppy nature clashes violently with the movie's relatively somber, majestic tone, and, with the exception of Scar's “Be Prepared”, Rice's lyrics are too cliched, cheesy, on the nose, or all three. However, the score—dear heavens, the score—composed by Hans Zimmer and with choral arrangements by Lebo M, is breathtaking. It's Zimmer's only Academy Award-winning score, and for good reason. The sheer sweeping majesty and wistfulness of tracks like “This Land” and “Under the Stars” are awe-inspiring, and the alternating portent, desperation and heartbreak of the music during the stampede scene (“...To Die For”) will stir even the coldest listener. The official soundtrack for the film only contains four of Zimmer's compositions, which is unforgivable—fortunately, professional bootlegs of the entire score can be found with some digging.
Now for what is ultimately the film's greatest flaw, the thing that prevented it from being truly a great movie—the story structure.
Everything from the introductory “Circle of Life” to the conclusion of the wildebeest stampede is incredible. The stampede itself is perhaps the best scene in any Disney movie, period, and one of the greatest in cinema—the animation and Zimmer's score; the desperation of Mufasa's rescue attempt; Scar pacing back and forth across a ledge, watching intently; the death of such a beloved character; all gel together to create an almost overwhelmingly tense and moving five minutes. The preceding scenes perfectly balance comic relief with the prevailing somber, portentous tone of the film. It's not until Simba flees into the wilderness that things start to fall apart and the second act plows over the story like a steamroller.
Entirely too much time is spent with the sidekicks Timon and Pumbaa. Their irreverent attitude clashes horribly with the rest of the film's atmosphere, and the stuff of Shakespeare and the Bible turns into roughly twenty minutes of fart jokes and silly antics. Things pick up once adult Simba is called to action, but still don't feel quite right until, in another iconic scene, he receives a vision of his dead father that commands him to remember who he is. It's at this point that the movie remembers what it is, too—the sense of weight and seriousness returns, and the third act is in full swing. Unfortunately, it's too late. The second act has gone on for far too long, and as a consequence, the final battle for Simba's home feels incredibly rushed. It just happens—there's no sense of buildup or anticipation. Simba just wanders up to Pride Rock, the fight begins within two minutes, and Scar is defeated in under ten. The whole thing could have had so much more emotion and excitement if the screenwriters had chosen to cut out a sizable chunk of Timon and Pumbaa's unnecessary antics and keep the film's tone consistent. Instead, what we're left with is an incredible first act, a second act that feels as if it belongs in another film, and a third act that could have been great but has been sold short.
In summation: it's very easy to see why so many people love The Lion King. I really like most of it myself, and absolutely love many elements of it. But it cannot, in the end, be called a great film. Everything else was there—the acting, the aesthetic, the score. But in the end, the story is inconsistent and overloaded with jarringly immature comic relief. Had perhaps five minutes' worth of the second act been cut, and an additional five or ten added to the third act, this could have been an amazing movie. As it is, it is only a good one. Look elsewhere for Disney's true masterpiece (for me, it's Beauty and the Beast or The Hunchback of Notre Dame)—this one could have been that masterpiece, and that's what makes it so frustrating.
I have both Premiere Elements and Audacity for editing audio, once school gets out. Got Photoshop and GIMP as well, but there are far more capable hands to entrust that part to.
Quick bump with some new pics:
Chekov=Dr. Horrible?
Old Man and the Sea didn't do anything for me and I know what you mean about nothing really happening in 'Sun' but I found the narrators character engaging enough not to find it a problem, You milage may vary
Yeah, I can understand that (I'm pretty okay with On the Road, and it has the same problem).
I've just finished The Sun Also Rises by Earnest Hemingway. It's very character based without much actual plot similar to films in the style of American Graffiti that leave me going "I liked that but I don't know why..."
It follows the character of Jake Barnes, an american journalist living in Paris in the mid 1920's and his relationship with Lady Brett Ashley a promiscuous english lady whose feelings for him are genuine knows they can not be happy together because of a vaguely described war injury means he can't have sex.
The book seems to follow a pattern of them going out and having a big meal then getting terrible drunk.
Hemingway writes about nothing in particular in great detail with as few words as possible in such a way as to be far more readable then it deserves to be and the characters subtly as the story moves to spain for the running of the bulls.
As the book was written in the twenties there were a few times where I tried to figure out a turn of phrase but not nearly as much as you'd expect in fact in a lot of ways it all feels rather modern.
I am rather curious about the movie that was made in the fifties as i'm not sure how the small amount of plot would lend itself to screen.
I've never liked Hemingway. Rises wasn't bad, exactly, but I just found myself asking, "What's the point of all this?" And The Old Man and the Sea should not have won the Nobel Prize. It was like self-parody; Hemingway's always kinda brief, but the sentences in that book were ludicrously simple.
I'm going back and listening to all the Star Wars commentaries now. A way of expressing solidarity, I guess. Best I have, anyway. And hearing Dorkman go full Dorkman over bad movies will be a form of catharsis.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Abbie
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.