This sounds like a good idea, until passengers end up watching live TV coverage of the next 9/11 and then start hunting in the plane they are riding in for assumed "terrorists" causing a riot in-flight.
Oh, we won't need something as serious as all that to get passengers seeking frantic in-flight vengeance. A simple screening of Kangaroo Jack ought to do the trick.
The Sam & Max games have had such a ruff history that it's hard to believe Adventure Gamers aren't just barking up the wrong tree. They could really end up in the doghouse with fans, especially on the tail end of their previous difficulties. This game keeps getting wagged in front of our faces, I swear they're like a dog with a bone......what?
The procreation instinct could very well get short-circuited by virtual immortality. After all, why have a kid to live vicariously through when you have enough time to do all those things you want yourself?
Which is not to say that's why everybody has kids, but I think a very long-lived population would have a definite impact on its growth.
In the future depicted in the book, most wealth and power is concentrated with the very old, leaving the young in society marginalized with very little upward mobility.
Those wacky science-fiction authors. What outlandish, freaky alternate realities will they come up with next?
Actually, in the book, Gollum dances to the edge of the pit in a delerium over recovering the Ring, and then falls in. Biting Frodo's finger off isn't holding him up (?)
And in the movie, they both fall off the cliff, not just Gollum -- Frodo just happens to catch himself, where Gollum does not, again, because he's totally obsessed with the ring -- which I think maintains something of the spirit of the book's point.
Well, if what you say is true and not just anti-Jackson rumor-mongering, I will have heard about it years before the fact, wouldn't I? Plenty of time to watch my existing editions to my satisfaction.
And if it's not true, this whole discussion is meaningless. So either way, I'm not too worried about it.
And I'm not so naive as to believe that the EEs contain all the footage that could possibly be released. Peter Jackson has said repeatedly, in interviews and commentaries on both the FOTR and TTT DVDs, that he left out even more material that he'd like to put in later. So this comes as no shock to me.
Besides, most filmmakers have tons of footage, a lot of which just gets tossed or destroyed. I think with the advent of "director's cut" DVDs, we're going to see a lot more of that, previously useless, footage brought out to pad the entertainment values of DVD releases.
The other point being, I'm a big LotR fan, and if there's more of it to be had, that's OK with me. If and when this mythical box set comes out, I'll look at it, see if the added features make it worth buying, and if so, I'll buy it. If not, not. But I don't look at it from the perspective of being a completist. In this day and age that's just absurd.
I think an ending of "The ring is mine! -- oops" *ploop* would have been very galling to conventional movie audiences after nine hours of build-up. While I as a Tolkien geek would have been fine with the traditional ending, I don't think padding it was an unforgivable offense.
I also don't think it changed it from accident to intent, just involved Frodo in that accident, which is a questionable decision, but one I as a filmgoer can live with.
I love Sean Astin. He is such a movie nerd, and so unabashedly enthusiastic about what he's doing. On the commentary and in the interviews, he's kind of dorky, but I just can't help but dig him.
Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-King gives me chills just from the trailer. I am so excited about that.
I once again have to hand it to Andy Serkis for having to spend so much time in that goofy-looking blue-screen outfit, give a great performance, and then be essentially removed from the film digitally. Serkis is awesome.
Looks like Merry gets to fight Sloth! "Baby Ruth! Baby Ruth!"
I'm sure they were tough, but cut for time. There was plenty of complaining about the run-time as it was, especially given the (admittedly) long denoument of the third film. If you read the reviews, the biggest critical complaint leveled at the film is the run-time. So a lot had to go.
The one thing I think is funny is the first scene when the Witch-King speaks:
Orc: "What about the wizard?" Witch-King: "I will break him!"
Very chilling, but of course in the theatrical version they never even come close to each other, so this scene is meaningless. When I'm watching the movie with friends, I change this line to "I will snub him!"
But I deeply missed the Saruman confrontation and Voice of Sauron. Frankly, I think they could easily have cut some of the material at the end to make more room for these far more interesting scenes.
I won't. Anything that means more LOTR is okay with me.
As long as they're up front about it, I'll buy it again. I don't mind spending the money, because you see, I really enjoy the movies. No one is forcing me to buy the newer versions -- but they're there, if I want to see more material.
Jackson and New Line have been very honest with their buying audience, Unlike, say, another filmmaker who shall not be named, but who keeps royally screwing up his own films so that people can't buy the version they want.
Well, apparently it got your attention. Are you turning in your dork / nerd license now?:p
I think there's plenty of geek movies listed in the write-up. Terminator and Aliens are pretty dated as franchises, and Titanic is Cameron's last mainstream feature film. From a certain perspective, it makes sense to list it first. I guess they could have said "From the director of Expedition: Bismarck"...
Funny how not even the Wikipedia article mentions what this series is actually about. I'm getting the feeling, from the write-up, that the movie is going to be more technophilia a la Final Fantasy (which, coincidentally enough, is just a re-hash of Cameron's Aliens with some Gaia / New Age junk thrown in to add spice). Isn't there already a live-action Evangelion in the works? I like anime well enough, but does the world really need a spate of live-action adaptations? Have we learned nothing from Fist of the North Star and The Guyver?
Also, speaking of CG -- I have nothing against CG in general, but the idea of a CG main character fills me with a vague boredom and distaste rather than excitement. As a gimmick, it already feels played out. Gosh, MORE distracting computer graphics in a movie, you say? More actors making wooden deliveries to green screens and teamsters waving flags for them to react to? Sign me up!
I would rather see CG used in the environment where it really thrives -- animated films. I don't mean that CG should try to emulate reality as closely as possible -- you just end up with The Uncanny Valley, and the animation will displease people without them ever being able to put a finger on why (it will just look "bad").
I think CG has tremendous potential to show us things that can't be emulated in real life -- and make it look better than it ever has before. I don't think re-hashing an anime title is really going to fit that particular bill. Instead, we see people attempting to make CG look as realistic as possible, which has the effect of making it both "unrealistic" (i.e. distinguishable from reality), and kind of banal. Why would I want to see an animated Jonny Quest jumping onto the back of a moving train, when I can see Jackie Chan do it for real?
A lot of animated shows have added CG to the traditional forms of animation, and seen some tremendous success. I'd rather see the technology go in that direction.
There is a large enough readership of Lord of the Rings, and enough love for it in the popular culture, that I think New Line knew they had to treat the source material with respect and care, else they become infamous for being the company that "ruined" Lord of the Rings.
But LotR is a work of modern pop literature. Watchmen is a comic book (or, if you like, graphic novel). Absolutely no one in Hollywood cares about pissing off comic book fans. Their perception is that we will swallow any old bilge and like it, and if we don't, we're just a bunch of fat 30-year-olds living in our parent's basement, so why should they give a damn?
(Interestingly enough, half of/.ers also think this very same thing about the other half, but that's a different issue.)
They will spare no effort in butchering Watchmen to the fullest extent possible. You can go have a look at Batman & Robin or (groan) "LXG" if you think I'm wrong.
Besides, it's Alan Moore. In my opinion, his work is so great because it's perfect for the medium it's in. Watchmen as a comic is great because it uses the medium to tell a story you could not tell in any other medium. Film comes close, but will ultimately fall short no matter what -- the bar is simply set too high. Even when movie adaptations aren't terrible (From Hell), they don't even hold a candle to the original work.
Dear Penthouse Forum: I never thought it would happen to me. I am a sophomore Sim at Maxis Community College. I had just installed the nude hack when suddenly the doorbell rang...
Yes, that's right... I would be buying SUVs right and left if only I would sit through the ads. But I enjoy "sticking it to the man" by going in the other room instead!
When companies start losing money, they come up with new revenue models or they go out of business, not decide to make lack of profit the crime of others.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like a good idea, until passengers end up watching live TV coverage of the next 9/11 and then start hunting in the plane they are riding in for assumed "terrorists" causing a riot in-flight.
Oh, we won't need something as serious as all that to get passengers seeking frantic in-flight vengeance. A simple screening of Kangaroo Jack ought to do the trick.
And for people who like holding on to their money, Onyx does everything Cocktail does and is free instead of $15.
1) Oh no! This could really hurt AOL's rock-solid reputation as a competent and professional Internet service provider!
..." Oh, the hell with it.
2) I heard they're gonna ship the patch for this problem on ten million CDs!
3) The good news is, almost all AOL users are too dumb to notice they've been locked out!
4) "You've got
...aw.
The Sam & Max games have had such a ruff history that it's hard to believe Adventure Gamers aren't just barking up the wrong tree. They could really end up in the doghouse with fans, especially on the tail end of their previous difficulties. This game keeps getting wagged in front of our faces, I swear they're like a dog with a bone... ...what?
What article? I'm too engaged with this fresh and scintillating Al Gore debate!
The procreation instinct could very well get short-circuited by virtual immortality. After all, why have a kid to live vicariously through when you have enough time to do all those things you want yourself?
Which is not to say that's why everybody has kids, but I think a very long-lived population would have a definite impact on its growth.
In the future depicted in the book, most wealth and power is concentrated with the very old, leaving the young in society marginalized with very little upward mobility.
Those wacky science-fiction authors. What outlandish, freaky alternate realities will they come up with next?
"Good" old IE?
You have been gone a while.
Actually, in the book, Gollum dances to the edge of the pit in a delerium over recovering the Ring, and then falls in. Biting Frodo's finger off isn't holding him up (?)
And in the movie, they both fall off the cliff, not just Gollum -- Frodo just happens to catch himself, where Gollum does not, again, because he's totally obsessed with the ring -- which I think maintains something of the spirit of the book's point.
Well, if what you say is true and not just anti-Jackson rumor-mongering, I will have heard about it years before the fact, wouldn't I? Plenty of time to watch my existing editions to my satisfaction.
And if it's not true, this whole discussion is meaningless. So either way, I'm not too worried about it.
And I'm not so naive as to believe that the EEs contain all the footage that could possibly be released. Peter Jackson has said repeatedly, in interviews and commentaries on both the FOTR and TTT DVDs, that he left out even more material that he'd like to put in later. So this comes as no shock to me.
Besides, most filmmakers have tons of footage, a lot of which just gets tossed or destroyed. I think with the advent of "director's cut" DVDs, we're going to see a lot more of that, previously useless, footage brought out to pad the entertainment values of DVD releases.
The other point being, I'm a big LotR fan, and if there's more of it to be had, that's OK with me. If and when this mythical box set comes out, I'll look at it, see if the added features make it worth buying, and if so, I'll buy it. If not, not. But I don't look at it from the perspective of being a completist. In this day and age that's just absurd.
I think an ending of "The ring is mine! -- oops" *ploop* would have been very galling to conventional movie audiences after nine hours of build-up. While I as a Tolkien geek would have been fine with the traditional ending, I don't think padding it was an unforgivable offense.
I also don't think it changed it from accident to intent, just involved Frodo in that accident, which is a questionable decision, but one I as a filmgoer can live with.
I love Sean Astin. He is such a movie nerd, and so unabashedly enthusiastic about what he's doing. On the commentary and in the interviews, he's kind of dorky, but I just can't help but dig him.
Gandalf's confrontation with the Witch-King gives me chills just from the trailer. I am so excited about that.
I once again have to hand it to Andy Serkis for having to spend so much time in that goofy-looking blue-screen outfit, give a great performance, and then be essentially removed from the film digitally. Serkis is awesome.
Looks like Merry gets to fight Sloth! "Baby Ruth! Baby Ruth!"
I'm sure they were tough, but cut for time. There was plenty of complaining about the run-time as it was, especially given the (admittedly) long denoument of the third film. If you read the reviews, the biggest critical complaint leveled at the film is the run-time. So a lot had to go.
The one thing I think is funny is the first scene when the Witch-King speaks:
Orc: "What about the wizard?"
Witch-King: "I will break him!"
Very chilling, but of course in the theatrical version they never even come close to each other, so this scene is meaningless. When I'm watching the movie with friends, I change this line to "I will snub him!"
But I deeply missed the Saruman confrontation and Voice of Sauron. Frankly, I think they could easily have cut some of the material at the end to make more room for these far more interesting scenes.
I won't. Anything that means more LOTR is okay with me.
As long as they're up front about it, I'll buy it again. I don't mind spending the money, because you see, I really enjoy the movies. No one is forcing me to buy the newer versions -- but they're there, if I want to see more material.
Jackson and New Line have been very honest with their buying audience, Unlike, say, another filmmaker who shall not be named, but who keeps royally screwing up his own films so that people can't buy the version they want.
Well, that's what I was hoping "Rise of the Machines" would be -- instead we got Terminator With Tits.
Believe me, if they made a movie that was essentially the first five minutes of T2 for an hour and a half, I'd be happy to eat my words.
Terminator 4? Wow! I wonder what they're going to call that one? Terminator 4: The End of All Credibility?
I can just see the trailer now... animated words flying out at the screen:
"This summer... continuity.... is... history!"
Well, apparently it got your attention. Are you turning in your dork / nerd license now? :p
I think there's plenty of geek movies listed in the write-up. Terminator and Aliens are pretty dated as franchises, and Titanic is Cameron's last mainstream feature film. From a certain perspective, it makes sense to list it first. I guess they could have said "From the director of Expedition: Bismarck"...
Funny how not even the Wikipedia article mentions what this series is actually about. I'm getting the feeling, from the write-up, that the movie is going to be more technophilia a la Final Fantasy (which, coincidentally enough, is just a re-hash of Cameron's Aliens with some Gaia / New Age junk thrown in to add spice). Isn't there already a live-action Evangelion in the works? I like anime well enough, but does the world really need a spate of live-action adaptations? Have we learned nothing from Fist of the North Star and The Guyver?
Also, speaking of CG -- I have nothing against CG in general, but the idea of a CG main character fills me with a vague boredom and distaste rather than excitement. As a gimmick, it already feels played out. Gosh, MORE distracting computer graphics in a movie, you say? More actors making wooden deliveries to green screens and teamsters waving flags for them to react to? Sign me up!
I would rather see CG used in the environment where it really thrives -- animated films. I don't mean that CG should try to emulate reality as closely as possible -- you just end up with The Uncanny Valley, and the animation will displease people without them ever being able to put a finger on why (it will just look "bad").
I think CG has tremendous potential to show us things that can't be emulated in real life -- and make it look better than it ever has before. I don't think re-hashing an anime title is really going to fit that particular bill. Instead, we see people attempting to make CG look as realistic as possible, which has the effect of making it both "unrealistic" (i.e. distinguishable from reality), and kind of banal. Why would I want to see an animated Jonny Quest jumping onto the back of a moving train, when I can see Jackie Chan do it for real?
A lot of animated shows have added CG to the traditional forms of animation, and seen some tremendous success. I'd rather see the technology go in that direction.
So you're saying that Chick tracts are unrealistic?
Whoa -- you cracked the case! WOW!
Apparently somebody loves their "free beer" a little too much...
There's no "+1, Hey Check Out This Guy, What's His Problem." Informative is the next best thing?
There is a large enough readership of Lord of the Rings, and enough love for it in the popular culture, that I think New Line knew they had to treat the source material with respect and care, else they become infamous for being the company that "ruined" Lord of the Rings.
/.ers also think this very same thing about the other half, but that's a different issue.)
But LotR is a work of modern pop literature. Watchmen is a comic book (or, if you like, graphic novel). Absolutely no one in Hollywood cares about pissing off comic book fans. Their perception is that we will swallow any old bilge and like it, and if we don't, we're just a bunch of fat 30-year-olds living in our parent's basement, so why should they give a damn?
(Interestingly enough, half of
They will spare no effort in butchering Watchmen to the fullest extent possible. You can go have a look at Batman & Robin or (groan) "LXG" if you think I'm wrong.
Besides, it's Alan Moore. In my opinion, his work is so great because it's perfect for the medium it's in. Watchmen as a comic is great because it uses the medium to tell a story you could not tell in any other medium. Film comes close, but will ultimately fall short no matter what -- the bar is simply set too high. Even when movie adaptations aren't terrible (From Hell), they don't even hold a candle to the original work.
Dear Penthouse Forum: I never thought it would happen to me. I am a sophomore Sim at Maxis Community College. I had just installed the nude hack when suddenly the doorbell rang...
Yes, that's right... I would be buying SUVs right and left if only I would sit through the ads. But I enjoy "sticking it to the man" by going in the other room instead!
When companies start losing money, they come up with new revenue models or they go out of business, not decide to make lack of profit the crime of others.