Here's a couple edits I've uploaded from the 8 minute "Whose fault is it that Teague switched off Dark City after 25 minutes?" fistfight (with a side order of "Which is better, Dark City or The Matrix (Trilogy)?")

00:34:25 - 00:36:10  Murdoch vs. Neo and which movie plays out its premise better (1m43s)
00:36:15 - 00:38:18  Did The Matrix win, and does it matter?  (2m02s)
00:39:21 - 00:42:39  Should movies aspire to entertain everybody?  (3m18s)

These are all "insight" clips rather than "humor" clips (in the language of the one of the earlier cataloging threads), but I'm kinda surprised at how hostile this gets by the end.

BigDamnArtist wrote:

I still have no idea what that's from and the only part I know is All Your Base Belong To Us, and that's only cause a friend of mine in high school used it CONSTANTLY.

It's from a Sega Mega Drive game called Zero Wing, which was famous for having an opening sequence which was notoriously badly translated from Japanese.  Being a huge Monty Python fan as well as professionally interested in language, I just can't get enough of stuff like that.

BigDamnArtist wrote:

ALL YOUR HOTLINKS ARE BELONG TO US!!!!! YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME!!!!  HAAAAHAAAAHHAAAAAAA!!!!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7356/10494332865_5e60533e75.jpg

Fixed it for you.

154

(30 replies, posted in Off Topic)

BigDamnArtist wrote:

"Frankenstein's monster, named Adam and having taken the surname of his creator, becomes involved in a war between two immortal clans in an ancient city."

Ah, fair enough then.  Yeah, I mean it seems like it could be fun in a mindless sort of way (and I don't mean that as a criticism), but it probably will fall into that paradox for me of "not fun enough to watch at home (where the lack of super loud explosions and vision-filling screen will draw attention to the plot, writing, etc.), but not fun enough to spend ungodly amounts of money to see at the theater". 

I've just realized this:  you know what this country (the UK) needs?  More dollar theaters.  Maybe those fancy folks down south in London Town with their fine hats and streets paved with gold have 'em, but there certainly aren't any 'round my way.

155

(30 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I think if only the film had been about Frankenstein's monster, rather than its creator Dr Frankenstein, it would have been a lot cooler.

156

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

fireproof78 wrote:

Yeah, second baby's must come fast for normal people. Our second took nearly 18 hours to appear...

Ouch!  That's rough.  Must be a genetic thing.  My wife was my mother-in-law's second and they barely made it to the hospital.

Dave wrote:

The three C's of England had me in tears - which one was that in?

Sounds like the V for Vendetta clip that Anodreth mentions here.  It's at 2:13:39 to 2:15:00.  I've got it handy.  I'll clip and upload.

158

(16 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Awwwwwww.  Soooooo cute!  Yeah, second children come quicker apparently.  (We made it to the hospital with a shade over 30 minutes to spare.)  You'll probably think you've forgotten how all this stuff works, but it all comes back to you!

A couple of advice reminders (in your case, since you've done this before) from the thread about Dave's recent child:

First, if you have any support while you're at home (parents who've come, friends who live near by) DO NOT HESITATE to exploit them to the fullest extent possible.  Your partner needs her rest, but so do you, and you both need to spend time with your baby.  Get people to cook for you, clean the house for you, go shopping, etc. etc.  ANYTHING they can do for you, tell them to do it.  Now is not the time to be humble and self-effacing.  That is what they are there for.

Second, you guys might have Neal's Yard [in Canada].  If so, score a tub of something they sell called "Baby Balm".  That stuff works miracles with diaper rash.  Their large tub will last you like six months at least.

Eddie wrote:
Trey wrote:

Sounds like an opportunity for a secondary donation scheme, like pledging when people run marathons and stuff.  For every contiguous hour Mike stays at his post, you pledge x dollars...

Building upon this, I'll totally email the recipe for my meals to the highest donor in a 15 min block every time I bring food out.

Man, I'm going to have to set up a snipe for the ramen recipie!  I think Goblet of Fire is 5AM UK time.

Darth Praxus wrote:
Dorkman wrote:

We should do some bleeping for the sake of the Potter audience, keep things PG-13.

Should you guys even go to that trouble, though? Considering they're going to be listening to a show which has a habit of harsh language and the semi-frequent R-rated story, just bleeping the preview seems like it'd be producing a false impression that would then be corrected by the actual marathon. Or are you referring to somehow bleeping the livestream as well as the hour "teaser"? Sorry if this sounds contrary, because I'm really not intending it that way and I obviously am not someone whose decision-making has anything to do with the show, nor should I be; it's just something that occurred to me.

Yeah, I can see where you might be coming from if you think the Potter angle will change your demographic.  And certainly agree that the preview and the actual stream should be consistent, whether that's doing nothing or like putting the live feed on a 30-second delay or something so that you can bleep stuff.  But given that this is going to be a marathon, I'm not sure I would rely on yourselves to consistently self-censor.  Over here on TV, the continuity announcer usually says something like "This program contains strong language and adult situations from the outset and throughout."  That's the signal for all kids staying up late to start paying attention.  But it's (presumably) not going to be like Archer or anything.

I guess in these kinds of situations I tend to think of Picard's quote from the TNG pilot:  "If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are."

I'll claim the Thor episode as it's a personal favorite.  I've already got too much stuff just in the first 45 minutes probably.  I'll come back and edit when I've got specific stuff clipped in case I miss something additional that somebody really wants to add.

Edit:  Here's what I've uploaded. 

00:04:34 - 00:04:50    Dorkman's plea - "Come back, sense!" (15s)
00:05:40 - 00:09:10    Trey criticizes the opening sequence and Natalie Portman (3m30s)
00:09:24 - 00:09:38    Why Dorkman's already drunk (14s)
00:28:57 - 00:31:43    Thor's non-arc and "orcs are people too!" (2m45s)
00:34:43 - 00:35:45    Animating CG creatures (52s)
01:12:56 - 01:13:47    Dorkman's Captain America fantasies (51s)
01:35:51 - 01:36:19    Thor finally has an actual arc (after getting punched) (28s)
01:55:38 - 01:57:00    "What's wrong with Thor?" - the 'through line' issue (1m19s)

I'm sure you don't want like tons of really short things 'cause you'll be editing until the end of time, but the two really short ones aren't screen specific, so you could drop them in anywhere to fill in a hole or something if you need to, and I think they're both really funny.  The "Animating CG creatures" one I liked just as a serious, "we really have experience with VFX" comment, but it's a little clipped at the end because there's some quasi-overlap with stuff I didn't want, so it might not work.  There's also a couple of lengths to choose from for the longer ones, depending on what you need.  All just grist for the mill really.

Eddie wrote:

Order of Phoenix: ?

If you shift the stuffed peppers here, you could have stuffed red, orange and yellow peppers, getting kind of a fire/phoenix motif going.  That's also going to be the middle of the night, and you could make something like that in advance and thereby minimize cooking at a bad time, give yourself a bit of a break, etc.

Eddie wrote:

Half Blood Prince: ?

Well, with the "potions" theme the obvious way to go here would be drinks, but at 4 in the morning and the 16-hour mark, alcohol might not be the way to go.  Some kind of exotic coffee?  And maybe scones (playing the role of chemical nuggets)?  (Not like they'd be rocks or anything, I hasten to add!!)

Something else just to put out there, in terms of the time/money/effort theme.  You have a slow cooker, I assume?  If you have some kind of stew, goulash, etc., you can prep it in advance and use cheaper cuts of meat, etc.  Just a thought.

Oh, and can I just say that the schedule graphic on the page is really lovely.  That'd make a nice poster for a memento or something. 

Still though, Chinese Obi Wan sez:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3822/10428557243_25b5321fa3.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2844/10428213086_1d147a06fc.jpg

Zarban wrote:

I've never quite understood the love for Blade Runner myself....I've ranted here before about how the unicorn dream basically ruins the movie.

As much as I love Blade Runner, I totally agree with that.  But that's Ridley Scott's fault, not Blade Runner's fault.  La la la la la la.....

fireproof78 wrote:

I have no defense for Adam Sandler save that Happy Gilmore is a guilty pleasure of mine.

Actually, I'll go for 50 First Dates as being a sweet and largely winning film (as long as you don't think too much about how their lives are actually probably going to work after 10 or 20 years time). 

I first saw it on DVD, and immediately after said only slightly facetiously "you know, this feels like these characters were originally bohemian 20-something's in New York or whatever, but then when Adam Sandler came on board they decided to change his character to a wacky aquatic animal trainer in Hawaii".  And then in the EPK, they all but say that that's exactly what happened.

Zarban wrote:

"Disinterested" and "uninterested" are held by modern usage experts to represent a useful distinction worth maintaining.

Lexicographers, by comparison--and I include the venerable OED--are and always have been whores who suck dick for a dollar behind the Piggly Wiggly.

Well, having no experience with lexicographical proclivities, I'll defer to your obviously first-hand knowledge tongue.  However, while I'm as quick as the next person to tell those damn kids to get off my lawn,

[highhorse]

I do know that the soi disant "modern usage experts" are nothing of the sort.  They're just pig-ignorant, snooty busybodies who, like the Emperor Caligula, are fighting the tides by throwing spears into the water and collecting chests full of worthless seashells.  Semantic drift happens all the fucking time, everywhere, and always has.  So in addition to being totally pointless, it's also completely arbitrary to say "English shall go this far, but no farther."  Why not wind back the clock to when 'silly' could mean 'rustic'?  There's just as much, or as little, reason to do that.

As for the 'disinterested'/'uninterested' distinction, I'm confident that any actual, real-life confusion can and will be sorted out by 'impartial', 'uninterested', etc.  But if I say "I need to go to the bank before work", you won't tend to look for me near the River Tyne.

[/highhorse]

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread....

Don't talk that way about my Blade Runner!!! My Blade Runner was a saint!!!!!!

168

(42 replies, posted in Off Topic)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest didn't have David Attenborough in it anywhere. 

Clint Eastwood ends up with almost half a million adjusted for inflation at the end of For A Few Dollars More

Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf? wasn't a slasher film about the Bloomsbury Group. 

I couldn't find any S&M scenes in Tim Minear's screenplay for The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

Teague wrote:

He was kidding.

Dorkman: I find child beauty pageants to be depressing.

Zarban: Terribly sorry, but depressing means "causing misery or dejection," I think you meant "fucking ridiculous."

Ah, well if that was the case then I apologize and withdraw my objection.  I fear that fighting the good fight against National Grammar Socialism is rather a hobby horse of mine, as it is often without an appreciation for historical context.

Zarban wrote:
Dorkman wrote:

EDIT: Oh, I've got a controversial opinion that I've just recently been reminded of: Richard Harris' portrayal of Dumbledore was not any better than Gambon's. He was clearly disinterested and phoning it in.

I hate to be Mr. Grammar Guy, but "disinterested" means not having a vested interest in the proceedings. That is, being impartial.

Not to get into a grammar-swinging contest or anything, but the Oxford English Dictionary actually gives precisely Dorkman's intended sense "without interest or concern; not interested, unconcerned" as the first definition, with verified usages of the word with this meaning going back to John Donne in the 17th century.  It's behind a paywall, alas, but many modern dictionaries will also give something like this as a definition in addition to 'impartial', as usage is swinging towards it. 

Here's a quick test for any wannabe grammar nazis, brought to you by the Department of People Who Live In Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones:

(1)  What does "begging the question" mean?

SPOILER Show
If you said "to demand that a question be raised", you fail.  It means "to engage in circular reasoning, to provide an argument which presupposes its conclusion"

(2)  What does "livid" mean?  Describe a person who is livid.
SPOILER Show
If anything like 'flushed' or 'red' appeared in your description, you lose.  The first definition in the OED is 'a bluish, leaden color, the color of a bruise'.  'Red' is nowhere to be found in the entire entry.

(3) What does 'silly' mean?
SPOILER Show
It means 'rustic' or 'unsophisticated', or at least it did until the end of the 18th century.  Is that of any relevance to anything?

171

(42 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Cotterpin Doozer wrote:

I hate to say this, but The Neverending Story quite clearly does end

And Lionel Hutz sued them for false advertising over it, don't forget.  So justice was done there.

Personally, I was disappointed by how close they kept to the script in Say Anything.  Maybe because it was a writer-director.

...still on TV (man, this is liberating!)

1.  There's absolutely no decrease in quality between Seasons 1 and 2 of Heroes.  They're both appalling.

2.  The Battlestar Galactica reboot miniseries and first half of Season 1 are excellent and then after that, with the exception of a couple of upward ticks, it's straight downhill into a Speed Racer car-crash of undergraduate cod-philosophizing, badly-written relationship problems that we don't give a toss about (because of what the writers decided to do at the end of Season 2), and general half-assedness in virtually every respect (the near-constant use of the "24 hours earlier" structure, the few interesting side characters are squandered by clichéd resolutions to their arcs, nothing anyone says or does during the trial of Baltar makes any sense at all, etc. etc. etc.)

3.  Dollhouse is a terrific show whose critical reappraisal is already overdue.  Just about the only major gripe that's out there that I'll accept is that Season 2 is kind of rushed, and the time spent on various people/arcs doesn't feel quite allocated correctly.  (Too much at the beginning of the season, not enough at the end.)

I think the "Doll of the Week" stuff at the beginning of Season 1 works, because it allows you to get comfortable with the universe, and parcels out bits of information (including hints of the gradual "awakening" of Echo) that then start coming together as the season progresses.  People who say that Eliza Dushku is weak or that early on you can't establish a rapport with the main character because she's changing personalities are missing the point.  It's more at the early stage of having a rapport with or empathy for the situation, for precisely that reason, and I think Eliza Dushku actually does a really good job with the little moments that she has to work with.

I'm thinking of like that bit in one of the first episodes where she's coming back from a "romantic engagement" and talking about it with her handler -- how she normally doesn't go for XYZ type of guy (I think she says he's fat), but this guy was really sweet and she really likes him and wants to tell him how she feels, but she's nervous, etc. On the one hand, of course she's been 'programmed' to feel that way, but Eliza Dushku does a really good job of making it feel real. And so, when you hear the line "Are you ready for your treatment", it's kind of sad in a Roy Batty "all these moments will be lost in time" sort of way. It doesn't matter that on one level it was 'engineered'. It's a happy moment in her life and it's going to be taken away from her.

The rest of the acting is uniformly excellent, the twists and turns are generally great, and it actually makes an effort to be about something.  If this were shot in black-and-white, and in French, and shown in art-house theaters in the mid 1960's, people would be all over it.

173

(39 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Congrats, Dave!  It does sound like things were a little rough, but it'll all come good. 

First, if you have any support while you're at home (parents who've come, friends who live near by) DO NOT HESITATE to exploit them to the fullest extent possible.  Your partner needs her rest, but so do you, and you both need to spend time with your baby.  Get people to cook for you, clean the house for you, go shopping, etc. etc.  ANYTHING they can do for you, tell them to do it.  Now is not the time to be humble and self-effacing.  That is what they are there for.

Second, you guys might have Neal's Yard down under.  If so, score a tub of something they sell called "Baby Balm".  That stuff works miracles with diaper rash.  Their large tub will last you like six months at least.

Looking slightly into the longer term, and relating to your father-son movie nights comment, you'll need to make sure to get them into stuff that you and your partner can bear watching.  Little kids do like watching stuff over, and over, and over, and if it's stuff you can't stand, it's a nightmare.  I had a lot of luck with The Muppet Show.  It's got puppets and the sketches and whatnot are pretty quick-fire, so it holds their attention.  Yellow Submarine I also find works well.

Anyway, congratulations again!  Kids really are the best!

If we're talking about TV, here's one:

I consider myself a big Joss Whedon fan, and a solid fan of Buffy, and I can't stand the "Once More With Feeling" episode - the musical from Season 6.

I guess I gotta give him props for trying it, and for not using it on a throwaway episode (it's an absolutely key episode in that season's arc), but, as a writer of musicals, he's an excellent television director.  Actually, the stuff is not bad, just horribly, horribly unnecessary.  Bland, journeyman-level writing that sounds like it came from whichever hack wrote the latest high-concept Broadway show. 

And it's doubly infuriating, because, in my opinion (though not everyone's, as we've seen), he's an excellent writer.  Earlier on in the season, Buffy makes a key revelation to Spike, and makes him swear not to tell the others, and it's an almost unbearably moving scene.  So, I'm thinking, "man, when the rest of the gang find out, this is going to be one of the greatest TV moments ever", and it turns out that the rest of the gang find out via a number that sounds like it was dropped from "Alzheimer's: The Musical". 

Unbelievably disappointing (and a large part of what's still keeping me from seeing Dr Horrible).

Zarban wrote:

I think the first film especially explores a child's fear of abandonment (children empathize with the toys, of course; but Buzz is essentially a new baby brother) and ultimately says "Don't worry. You will always be loved, even if you aren't getting all the attention you would like." Adults, meanwhile, recognize themselves in Andy, for whom the theme is "We don't stop loving our toys/friends just because we don't play/hang out with them anymore."

Your problem, I suppose, stems from your judging the toys as if they were rational adults reacting to the universe, a reading which was meant to be invalidated by the childish nature of the toys.

Yes, I think you're definitely right in terms of where the harshness of my reaction is coming from, but I'm not entirely persuaded that I'm wrong about that (not that I have to be, of course).  In other words, I'm maybe not willing to let the toys (and perhaps by extension the film) off the hook so easily. 

I'm not sure I can quite put this coherently, but while the universe the toys are in is a child's universe, the toys are themselves not 'children' within that universe, in the sense of being inexperienced, needing guidance, or not being full participants in that universe.  From their point of view, their universe has rules, and that includes a "higher power" that ministers to their deepest emotional needs as beings in that universe -- toys that desperately want and need to be played with -- which they have a great deal of experience with.  So this is different from, say, replicants in Blade Runner.  Replicants are, in an emotional sense, precisely children in an adult's universe.  So I think it's fairer to see the toys more as adults within the context of that, and therefore expect at least the 'hero' toy to have a more 'experienced' or 'mature' reaction.  (We of course all know from Contaigon, The Towering Inferno, every-war-movie-ever-made that adults don't always, and maybe often don't, react maturely or rationally, but in a mainstream drama Our Hero is supposed to.) 

The other point too is that I think Woody's faith is universe-internally irrational, given the reactions/apparent knowledge displayed by the other toys.  And therefore it's intellectually dishonest of the film to support it (if it indeed does that).  So in addition to the fact that, as far as they know, Andy himself (or someone with Andy's approval) has put them in a box marked "Garage Sale" or "Daycare Center" or whatever, the other toys know something's up/have heard rumors about kids who put their toys aside, etc. etc.  So clearly it's not that the issue is unknown, or incomprehensible or anything. 

Floating around here also I think is the difference between sympathy and empathy.  We can sympathize with the replicants (and their emotional/psychological plight), but we don't empathize with them in the sense that they're not an audience substitute.  We understand what they don't understand and why they don't understand.  But to the extent that the intention is that the children empathize with the toys, and Woody specifically, the film's message regarding the inciting incident of the drama seems to be "just have blind faith, contradicted by virtually all known experience given the changed circumstances."  It's exactly what people complain about with respect to Prometheus, and it's not a message I'd want my children to take away from a film.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I made any sense, or actually said anything different there, but I think this is all really interesting.  It does seem like something unusual is going on with these films.  Or it could just be me.