I think it's safe to assume that to get to 1850 levels, we have to get to 1980 levels first. So instead of eye-wash it's a first step, as was always intended.
I seriously doubt that he could have forseen the WWW (remember, he made this statement in 2000) in the 70's and early 80's.
Why would he need to? I was using the Internet before the web came along, and I could see back them that things like email, ftp and gopher (!) were really useful things for scientists especially, but for business also. There's no reason why Gore couldn't have promoted the development of the Internet on the basis of such applications and their utility for science and business.
There are indeed a few ideas - solar sails, magnetic sails, laser propulsion. These all basically require something external to push on the spacecraft (eg photons, a magnetic field) rather than ejecting mass. But rockets have more flexibility in general - eg you couldn't use a laser system for a return voyage, unless there was a big laser in place at the other end to send you back. But certainly it seems likely that these methods will have niche uses, especially in the inner solar system.
I've got a gas one - it's fine for showers. For me anyway - it's hot but I can rarely get it scalding hot, if that's your thing! On the other hand, where I live it very rarely gets below freezing (and I'm not usually showering at that time of the morning anyway!), so as you say, it may not be a good solution for all climates.
Hear, hear! He was chosen to play Bond on the basis of a fight scene screen test. And some of his action scenes in OHMSS were terrific. He could have been a great Bond, IMHO - even as it stands, OHMSS is my favourite Bond film.
Hang on, define "classically trained"? Looking at this bio, I can find little evidence of training at all, except in something called "the technique of wordless communication and the adequate rhythm", which whatever the hell THAT means, doesn't sound like classical training to me.
I agree, he's a great actor, but that's not the same thing as being classically trained.
I did watch it. I was not convinced. Again, the way Faramir behaved in the book did not destroy the power of the Ring, so there's no reason why it necessarily would have in the film either.
Well, I consider myself fairly hardcore, I've read the trilogy about 8 or 9 times over the last 20 years, and I'm quite happy to nitpick Jackson's version of Tolkien. But I recognise it's a movie, and is going to be different to the books. Just in this case, I think Shelob would have been a far better ending than what we got. Anyway, it's quite clear that Jackson would have screwed with the timeline if he felt it served his purposes, no matter what the diehard fans thought - he butchered Faramir's character and took Frodo and the Ring to Osgiliath. He didn't make the films for the obsessive Tolkien geeks. At any rate, I don't think even most diehard fans would care that much about the precise timing compared to major changes like Faramir and Osgiliath - especially when, in the books, you'd only pick up the relative timing of events if you were paying attention. It's not an obvious aspect of the story at all.
And yes, the plotlines do reconnect - but only right at the end. Jackson could easily have varied the pacing as needed in the middle, and joined them back up at the end.
PS I shouldn't have said "Jackson could have also" [split them up], I agree that intermixing the plots was a far better idea for the films. What I should have said was that Jackson could have interpolated them however he saw fit, ie because the plotlines don't connect.
No, your argument is stupider. Where did you get the idea that because its a film it has to be some sort of chronologically perfect construction, as though it were some sort of historical record? It's not: you put scenes in whatever order you want to achieve the desired effect - in this case, to heighten the drama. (Example: In Silence of the Lambs, do you think it matters if Clarice knocks on Buffalo Bill's door at the precise instant that the other FBI agents are raiding the wrong house? Do you think its even likely that it is taking place at the same time? Of course not, but that's the way it's presented - because it is dramatically far more powerful that way.) What does it matter to the audience whether or not the encounter with Shelob happened at the same time as the Ent attack on Orthanc, or a few days later or whatever? The one plotline has nothing to do with the other, which is why Tolkien could split them up, and Jackson could have also.
I understand he had his reasons for filming it the way he did, but chronological accuracy is not a good one.
No, but the stuff in the EEs wasn't specially filmed for the EEs, it's stuff that was filmed for the theatrical version but got cut. So because the Scouring was dropped from the script for length and pacing reasons
early on (ie well before filming), there was never any chance of EE footage of it. Sadly.
Not sure why it being a "current" trilogy is so important, but Indiana Jones supposedly isn't finished - Spielberg and Ford have publicly committed to making a fourth. Of course, if that does happen then it will be current, but no longer a trilogy...
Christ, mate, lighten up. The buffoon thing was meant as a joke; nobody has seriously used that line as an insult since about the 18th century. I clearly stated it's a matter for opinion; but rather than just stating my opinions, I gave my reasons for disagreeing with you, hoping to spark an intelligent discussion about two films I enjoy very much - instead all I get is assertion and "you just proved my point!!!" And finally, your point about it becoming a franchise is also stupid, because given that it only became a franchise once the second film was made, logically that second film could not have done any harm to the franchise, non-existent as it was up until that point; only the third and subsequent films could have. Easy enough for you to understand? I doubt it - and yes, that is an ad hominem, which as you already know gives you complete license to ignore any substantive arguments I've made.
DiCaprio, for sure. Winslet, no way! Have you seen her in Enigma? That's some good geek cred right there, and she plays a very dowdy-but-smart character who actually gets to use her brains. A 1940s geekgirl, in other words. (No, I don't confuse actors with the roles they play, but since I don't know them personally, there's not much point in trying to judge them on any other basis.) Anyway, I wouldn't say she was good-looking enough (as the movie world judges these things) to get by on her appearance, she's certainly not in the same league as pretty-boy DiCaprio.
You, sir, are a buffoon! Firstly, there was no Alien franchise to ruin before Aliens - there was just a single movie. Secondly, unlike most sequels which try to recapture the success of the original by copying it, Cameron cannily made a completely different kind of film - action rather than horror - and made an excellent film of that type. Thirdly, you've missed the point of Aliens, which is that all those gung-ho Marines went in guns blazing and very nearly were wiped out, because they completely underestimated the enemy.
As Hudson says, "You maybe haven't been keeping up on current events but we just got our asses kicked, pal!" It's only when Ripley takes control and they start using their brains that they have any chance at all.
Obviously, it's a matter of taste. They are both great films, but they are very different films. Personally I enjoy watching Aliens more, but Alien is fantastic, too.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's safe to assume that to get to 1850 levels, we have to get to 1980 levels first. So instead of eye-wash it's a first step, as was always intended.
Why would he need to? I was using the Internet before the web came along, and I could see back them that things like email, ftp and gopher (!) were really useful things for scientists especially, but for business also. There's no reason why Gore couldn't have promoted the development of the Internet on the basis of such applications and their utility for science and business.
There are indeed a few ideas - solar sails, magnetic sails, laser propulsion. These all basically require something external to push on the spacecraft (eg photons, a magnetic field) rather than ejecting mass. But rockets have more flexibility in general - eg you couldn't use a laser system for a return voyage, unless there was a big laser in place at the other end to send you back. But certainly it seems likely that these methods will have niche uses, especially in the inner solar system.
Global warming is a fact of nature. Deal with it.
I've got a gas one - it's fine for showers. For me anyway - it's hot but I can rarely get it scalding hot, if that's your thing! On the other hand, where I live it very rarely gets below freezing (and I'm not usually showering at that time of the morning anyway!), so as you say, it may not be a good solution for all climates.
Please think before you post - your tinfoil hat is showing.
BTW, you're both talking about the same guy - the Ghost who Walks AKA Walker AKA the Phantom.
Hear, hear! He was chosen to play Bond on the basis of a fight scene screen test. And some of his action scenes in OHMSS were terrific. He could have been a great Bond, IMHO - even as it stands, OHMSS is my favourite Bond film.
I agree, he's a great actor, but that's not the same thing as being classically trained.
You're kidding, right? Spiner is a hack compared to Stewart.
No, the whole reason for this thread is that Ford said he'll be doing at least some of his own stunts.
I did watch it. I was not convinced. Again, the way Faramir behaved in the book did not destroy the power of the Ring, so there's no reason why it necessarily would have in the film either.
And yes, the plotlines do reconnect - but only right at the end. Jackson could easily have varied the pacing as needed in the middle, and joined them back up at the end.
PS I shouldn't have said "Jackson could have also" [split them up], I agree that intermixing the plots was a far better idea for the films. What I should have said was that Jackson could have interpolated them however he saw fit, ie because the plotlines don't connect.
No, your argument is stupider. Where did you get the idea that because its a film it has to be some sort of chronologically perfect construction, as though it were some sort of historical record? It's not: you put scenes in whatever order you want to achieve the desired effect - in this case, to heighten the drama. (Example: In Silence of the Lambs, do you think it matters if Clarice knocks on Buffalo Bill's door at the precise instant that the other FBI agents are raiding the wrong house? Do you think its even likely that it is taking place at the same time? Of course not, but that's the way it's presented - because it is dramatically far more powerful that way.) What does it matter to the audience whether or not the encounter with Shelob happened at the same time as the Ent attack on Orthanc, or a few days later or whatever? The one plotline has nothing to do with the other, which is why Tolkien could split them up, and Jackson could have also. I understand he had his reasons for filming it the way he did, but chronological accuracy is not a good one.
Why would anyone want to read it so fast? Don't you want to savour the experience? Or think about what you've read?
That may be as is, but so what? By that argument, Tolkien couldn't have put Shelob at the end of the Two Towers, and yet he did.
No, but the stuff in the EEs wasn't specially filmed for the EEs, it's stuff that was filmed for the theatrical version but got cut. So because the Scouring was dropped from the script for length and pacing reasons early on (ie well before filming), there was never any chance of EE footage of it. Sadly.
Not sure why it being a "current" trilogy is so important, but Indiana Jones supposedly isn't finished - Spielberg and Ford have publicly committed to making a fourth. Of course, if that does happen then it will be current, but no longer a trilogy ...
Christ, mate, lighten up. The buffoon thing was meant as a joke; nobody has seriously used that line as an insult since about the 18th century. I clearly stated it's a matter for opinion; but rather than just stating my opinions, I gave my reasons for disagreeing with you, hoping to spark an intelligent discussion about two films I enjoy very much - instead all I get is assertion and "you just proved my point!!!" And finally, your point about it becoming a franchise is also stupid, because given that it only became a franchise once the second film was made, logically that second film could not have done any harm to the franchise, non-existent as it was up until that point; only the third and subsequent films could have. Easy enough for you to understand? I doubt it - and yes, that is an ad hominem, which as you already know gives you complete license to ignore any substantive arguments I've made.
ObPedanticNitpick: the Titanic was Edwardian era technology, not Victorian. Different other era!
DiCaprio, for sure. Winslet, no way! Have you seen her in Enigma? That's some good geek cred right there, and she plays a very dowdy-but-smart character who actually gets to use her brains. A 1940s geekgirl, in other words. (No, I don't confuse actors with the roles they play, but since I don't know them personally, there's not much point in trying to judge them on any other basis.) Anyway, I wouldn't say she was good-looking enough (as the movie world judges these things) to get by on her appearance, she's certainly not in the same league as pretty-boy DiCaprio.
Obviously, it's a matter of taste. They are both great films, but they are very different films. Personally I enjoy watching Aliens more, but Alien is fantastic, too.
Ah. You're obviously not old enough to remember the original Macintosh :)
You say that like it's a bad thing!