Slashdot Mirror

Blair Witch Project was a pile of crap, and it caused moviegoers to get violently ill because of the horrible camera work. The only reason it was successful was because of the hype they generated before release. To borrow a term from the music industry, it was a one-hit wonder. Anyone making a similar movie now wouldn't make any money at all.

If The Blair Witch Project was a pile of crap, it was successful only because of hype generated before it's release, and was a one hit wonder explain Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 which has had revenue of more than 3 tymes it's cost of $15 million, and explain The Blair Witch Project 3. According to The Blair Witch Project 3: Interview the "Book of Shadows" wasn't that good because it "was prepped without" the team that made the first movie. It however still made more than its cost.

Also, I don't know where you got your numbers, but I remember reading that the whole pile of crap cost about $40k to make, which is surprising since they just used some shitty consumer handheld camera that you could buy at any electronics store.

Obviously you didn't even read links I provided so I see no reason to continue. You are not arguing based on data but on what you make up.

Falcon

Blair Witch Project was a pile of crap, and it caused moviegoers to get violently ill because of the horrible camera work. The only reason it was successful was because of the hype they generated before release. To borrow a term from the music industry, it was a one-hit wonder. Anyone making a similar movie now wouldn't make any money at all.

If The Blair Witch Project was a pile of crap, it was successful only because of hype generated before it's release, and was a one hit wonder explain Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 which has had revenue of more than 3 tymes it's cost of $15 million, and explain The Blair Witch Project 3. According to The Blair Witch Project 3: Interview the "Book of Shadows" wasn't that good because it "was prepped without" the team that made the first movie. It however still made more than its cost.

Also, I don't know where you got your numbers, but I remember reading that the whole pile of crap cost about $40k to make, which is surprising since they just used some shitty consumer handheld camera that you could buy at any electronics store.

Obviously you didn't even read links I provided so I see no reason to continue. You are not arguing based on data but on what you make up.

Falcon

LOP gas has beecome popular in Australia recently.

I was talking to a gas specialist recently who told me they are selling a lot of diesel conversions.

I was puzzled by this until he explained. They inject some gas into the inlet whilst the primary fuel is diesel. The installer claimed, and later reading backed him up, that a 15% increase in fuel economy and 20% power increase occoured on turbo diesel engines.

see: http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/4wd-diesel-lpg-conversion.htm

In this interview director Sam Raimi indicates that the footage was shot specifically for the teaser. He wanted to use the image but in a different context for a key part of the final reel. Hence they manufactured the bank heist story for the teaser, but the clip showing the web would have been used at a more pivotal point in the movie as opposed to a bank heist unrelated to the rest of the plot.

They should have taken a clue from Planet of the Apes and used a Volkswagon Beetle.

1976 Ford Granada. 4 years from show-room to scrap yard, at 60,000 miles. Front end literally fell apart after 2 years, and the power steering managed to disconnect from the steering wheel - fortunately while parking. Also developed the infamous "Ford transmission that wouldn't stay in Park" around the 50,000 mile mark, the undersized Uniroyal tires that wore out prematurely, etc.

If any manufacturer today put out a POS like that, they'd be forced to make multiple recalls, and then they'd go belly-up. If it weren't for the current low interest rates and the home equity ATM buying spree, both Ford and GM would have gone bankrupt by now.

As it is, Toyota has taken the #1 spot worldwide

Would that be something like this beach?
http://www.jaunted.com/files/3/borat_swimsuit_cann es.jpg
http://www.jaunted.com/files/3/borat_cannes_2.jpg
http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/i mages/borat-preview-1.jpg

Bery naice!

The only difference between northern climates and australia is that the southern hemisphere has a lower ozone density http://www.webwombat.com.au/careers_ed/education/o zone.htm

Hmm? That web page makes no such claim.

The claim might be true, but things are complicated. See here for recent measurements and here for what it was like in January.

I suspect the actual cause of the high skin cancer rate is really a combination of all of the factors: population that is mostly northern European, not adapted to the sun; low latitudes; higher insolation in the summer due to perihelion; low ozone levels; nice weather; nice beaches. They just seem to have lucked out in all the categories.

The only difference between northern climates and australia is that the southern hemisphere has a lower ozone density http://www.webwombat.com.au/careers_ed/education/o zone.htm

The earth's oliptical orbit is nearly circular, the axis wobble is consistant, so the only difference left is the fact that the southern hemisphere has less ozone, and the number of sunny days a particular location gets.

The sun is not 'brighter' the atmosphere is protecting you less from the harmful UV radiation. That and the statistical number of 'sunny' days, but that would vary from location to location, and there are a few locations in the nothern hemisphere that average 360 sunny days a year too. Trying to aggregate that data for a country the size of austrailia would be meaningless, so even if you find the statistical number of sunny days in say, sydney, I bet one could find 5 locations in the northern hemisphere at about the same longitude with as many, or more sunny days per year if one tried, and had access to the data.

Anyways, nice try, your 'gut' feeling was wrong, the reason they have more skin cancer deaths is because they're the ones suffering from low ozone levels. That and the great barrier reef has protected some of the finest beaches in the world.
So, you'd have to find a northern hemisphere country at about the same longitude and size with as many beaches... and frankly, you can't do that 'exactly perfect' the closest would be if you included the entire caribbean island chain, with mexico, and agregate the number of deaths from skin cancer in that region.

There's unquestionably room in the market, especially in highly urbanised countries where fuel is expensive, for tiny funky city cars like these. I'd buy one. But the Smarts, despite being a Mercedes co-production (which would lead you to think it'd be nice but have lousy quality control...), are just lousy to drive and too expensive, according to all reports. The reviews (Review 1, Review 2) have been so lousy that I ruled out even ever test driving one; if the things cost $AU5000 then that'd be another matter, but they're really quite expensive here, and the US pricing would seem to be similarly inflated, compared with the lower pricing of regular cars in the States.

Here in Sydney, Australia, I see a Smart tooling around every now and then, but every single one I've seen has been a corporate promotional vehicle, not a private car. There's no reason at all for a private citizen to buy one of these expensive, annoying little things, when perfectly good four-seat Japanese subcompacts are available for the same money. Korean ones cost rather less.

Deep vein thrombosis can really kill a good buzz.