Use it on hippies first! I think the military has a point. this will give hippies a chance to do their part and do what comes natural.... toke up, get rowdy and start smashing stuff the barbarian hordes inventing the strange symptoms they will claim to suffer and even have a cute name for the syndrome
The dude may be too square to realize that you don't generally get rowdy and smash stuff when you toke up, but that doesn't make him a troll.
Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
Executive producers usually do little more than hand over the cash. Wikipedia's definition is fairly accurate:
An executive producer of a motion picture is typically a producer who is not necessarily involved in any creative or technical aspects of production.
Usually, but not necesserily. Which was my point: The title means nothing, you cannot reliably infer from that title wether or not the person had any creative input in the work.
Usually, it's just a nice title to give to someone who's got money in the project, but sometimes it's the title of a suit sent down from the head office of the production company, and he is there to execute the desires of the producers. Like the devil I meantioned...
Check IMDB again. Berman was a producer on many things Star Trek since 1987, not an executive producer. So he's a terrible example.
Rick Berman is co-creator and executive producer of Paramount Network Television's Star Trek: Enterprise for UPN. Berman was previously the co-creator and executive producer of Star Trek: Voyager for UPN and was executive producer, since its inception in 1987, of Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Know your enemy. And yes, he is a terrible example: No one follow his lead!
the actors could look quit a bit different and most people would not notice it
I just hope they do it before Bilbo and Gandalf die. I'd hate to see the Hobbit done with different actors. Sir Ian is in great shape, but he won't last forever:(
We're all falling for this trick where names get attached but you need to realize that they're just "producing" it, not directing or writing it.
Yeah, celebrity-names are a suckers game. In any context.
But producers can do a LOT. Often, one person will produce many movies, and hire directors to do his bidding. He will get a team of writer, director, art director, etc, and send these minions who do as the allmighty producer has decreed.
My point is, a famous person executive producing a movie means nothing. None of their talent, none of their expertise, none of their influence is put into the movie.
Executive producer means nothing. That does not mean that "none of their influence is put into the movie", since that would be a meaning of "executive producer".
Example: Rick Berman, executive producer of all things Star Trek since 1987. His influence was balanced by Gene Roddenberry for a while, after the creator's death, he started to turn Star Trek into the pile of shit that culminated with the realisation of his vision of what Star Trek ought to be: Enterprise (of which he wrote many sucktastic episodes). he's executive producer, and he is the one who took a preachy vision of humanist techno-eutopia into a preachy, designed by comitee, pro-establishment pile of drivel.
Executive Producer means nothing. Not "that guys has nothing to do with the content". It's a throaway title for someone involved in the high-level money-talking decision making process. Sometimes they have nothing to do with the movie personally, only their money is involved, but sometimes they're so involved we can safely put the blame for the sucking on them and them alone.
I realize that once the flame stage came up I got mixed up as to the origin of the argument and pulled in stuff from other threads. But as to the question of whether it's 3 books or 6, I still see the answer as "Yes."
Sigh.
Yes, it's possible to confuse the issue with 3 or 6 books. I often refer to LotR as a trilogy, like everyone else, and I'll call Two Towers "the second book". That's not the issue here.
The issue is that to the general public, it's 3 books. To LotR nerds, it's 6 books, because we have not simply heard of the books, we have read them, and we have read the words "Book six". Therefore, when person1 says "he took six books into 3 movies" and person2 'corrects' him with "there are only 3 books", person2 is wrong. There are 6 books, in 3 volumes.
If you start with your lil' nonsense about using alternating definitions of book, we can fall in the "there is one book" argument, or even 7 (one edition has the appendices in it's own binded pile of dried tree pulp). I read it as one big book. That's not the question.
So, stop defending the guy who's wrong. We all understand why he thought what he did, you did not need to explain it to anyone. Just because you can see the reasoning that led him to say what he said, and that from his POV it made perfect sense, does not make it factually correct in the context in which it was uttered.
If it had been a discussion about the availability of the story, saying it is available in 3 books is right. But that wasn't the context. Here, book meant one thing, and he did not parse that right.
He made an error. He was corrected. It should have been that simple.
Way to once again not read to the end of the post.
That Godwin nonsense? Oh yeah, Nazis would have a black woman as their sky marshall. Sure.
It's not that it went unnoticed, it's just that it was executed for shit.
You seem to have no specific point, only foul language props up your disdain of the movie. Obviously, you aren't going to admit that you missed the subtle parts, you'll keep putting your fingers in your ears and shout "lalala, there's nothing to see or hear, lalala!". So bah-bye now.
I don't know if I should be proud or depressed:-) But hey, you can admit it, which makes you a better geek than many dorks in here still beating that dead horse.
The only way the question even makes sense is if you're trying to determine how many books (literary work) are involved. So why insist that the only valid answer to the question is in terms of books (divisions)?
Because intelligent people don't discuss things using one word to mean many different things.
Hence, when discussing the Lord Of The ring, you use the vocabulary that was used since the first printing to distinguish between the six books and the three volumes of that one novel.
When someone said "the six books", he was correct. When someone replied "there are not 6, but 3 books", he was wrong. As I, and many others, pointed out. We proceeded to do the intelligent, civil thing: To impart upon our poor deluded comrade the wisdom which we hold as to the number of books....and then the idiots showed up, spewing crap about how they can choose other definitions of the word "book" than the one that applies to this specific case in order to render the sentence unintelligible, and these people are wrong on many levels. They are wrong in their assumption, they are wrong in their interpretations, and they are wrong in their affirmations... It all comes down to a difference in motivation: I argue in order to prevent the truth from being drowned out, they argue in order to "win" a discussion, without care for facts, truth, or anything but their own narcissistic endeavour.
[Douglas Admas] was fairly heavily involved in production, up until his untimely death
At which point they did a complete rewrite and THEN went in production. I kid you not.
Don't kid yourself, that movie was not Adams approved. Yes, the producers said it was faithfull. The -always- say it's faithfull, it's their contractual obligation to bullshit the hardcore fans into shelling out money, they will always maintain plausible deniability of their meddling. I Robo was said to be faithfull too... those bold face lying sunzof... grrrr.
Since I'm factually correct, and his "points" are empty rhetoric, this is not a simple question of two parties calling each other the same name. This is one party (me and the other well informed Tolkien fans in this thread) telling party b) (them people who don't know that it's 6 books, often in 3 volumes, forming one novel) that they are wrong.
One side is wrong, and uses rhetoric to argue, the other can back up their facts. This is not an equilibrium.
In the books I actually enjoyed Tom. I wasn't disparaging him in any way. I was merely pointing out (as did many others) that Tom didn't appear in 'The Hobbit', making the OP's comment about Tom singing actually kind of stupid. Oh, and I did not miss Tom from the movie - I don't think he would have transferred well to film.
Ah, then we're in complete agreement. Though it took me a while to warm up to Tom... I had issues with the whole "realistically conveying the time it takes to walk all the way to another country" thing Tolkien had going on, I just wanted them to get to the orc-slaying. But, he grows on you, and his boots are yellow.
Listen, go find a hard copy, and page through it. You'll see that I couldn't care less about what definition others may use to argue pointlessly about this: In the damn thig it says "Book one", then "Book two", all the way up to six.
It's not a question of trying to infer the state of mind of a dead man, it's a very basic question of looking at the source, and seeing those words in black ink on white paper. Anyone can do it. Why don't you?
Indeed, I have it as 6 books plus appendices. The note on the text in the first book states that it is often published in three volumes. The first time I read it, it was as one volume with nearly 1,100 pages.
Here we go. I read it as one ig chunk too, but it did have the "Book one; two; tree..." pages in it, as well has the volume pages for the Fellowship, Towers and Return.
All one has to do is to open up his handy copy of LotR, and see the words "Book One", up to "Book six" written plainly, black on white, right before their eyes.
It's not hard to do, but people, it seem, would rather argue pointlessly than simply check the gorram source.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd hate to go to China and try to play with my Wii
What an odd thing to say...
Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
An executive producer of a motion picture is typically a producer who is not necessarily involved in any creative or technical aspects of production.
Usually, but not necesserily.
Which was my point: The title means nothing, you cannot reliably infer from that title wether or not the person had any creative input in the work.
Usually, it's just a nice title to give to someone who's got money in the project, but sometimes it's the title of a suit sent down from the head office of the production company, and he is there to execute the desires of the producers. Like the devil I meantioned...
Check IMDB again. Berman was a producer on many things Star Trek since 1987, not an executive producer. So he's a terrible example.
Know your enemy.
And yes, he is a terrible example: No one follow his lead!
the actors could look quit a bit different and most people would not notice it
:(
I just hope they do it before Bilbo and Gandalf die. I'd hate to see the Hobbit done with different actors.
Sir Ian is in great shape, but he won't last forever
We're all falling for this trick where names get attached but you need to realize that they're just "producing" it, not directing or writing it.
Yeah, celebrity-names are a suckers game. In any context.
But producers can do a LOT. Often, one person will produce many movies, and hire directors to do his bidding. He will get a team of writer, director, art director, etc, and send these minions who do as the allmighty producer has decreed.
My point is, a famous person executive producing a movie means nothing. None of their talent, none of their expertise, none of their influence is put into the movie.
Executive producer means nothing.
That does not mean that "none of their influence is put into the movie", since that would be a meaning of "executive producer".
Example: Rick Berman, executive producer of all things Star Trek since 1987.
His influence was balanced by Gene Roddenberry for a while, after the creator's death, he started to turn Star Trek into the pile of shit that culminated with the realisation of his vision of what Star Trek ought to be: Enterprise (of which he wrote many sucktastic episodes). he's executive producer, and he is the one who took a preachy vision of humanist techno-eutopia into a preachy, designed by comitee, pro-establishment pile of drivel.
Executive Producer means nothing. Not "that guys has nothing to do with the content".
It's a throaway title for someone involved in the high-level money-talking decision making process. Sometimes they have nothing to do with the movie personally, only their money is involved, but sometimes they're so involved we can safely put the blame for the sucking on them and them alone.
Not to mention that the gratuitous tits
Yeah, you know what, if you have a problem with that, I have a problem with you.
I realize that once the flame stage came up I got mixed up as to the origin of the argument and pulled in stuff from other threads. But as to the question of whether it's 3 books or 6, I still see the answer as "Yes."
Sigh.
Yes, it's possible to confuse the issue with 3 or 6 books. I often refer to LotR as a trilogy, like everyone else, and I'll call Two Towers "the second book".
That's not the issue here.
The issue is that to the general public, it's 3 books. To LotR nerds, it's 6 books, because we have not simply heard of the books, we have read them, and we have read the words "Book six".
Therefore, when person1 says "he took six books into 3 movies" and person2 'corrects' him with "there are only 3 books", person2 is wrong.
There are 6 books, in 3 volumes.
If you start with your lil' nonsense about using alternating definitions of book, we can fall in the "there is one book" argument, or even 7 (one edition has the appendices in it's own binded pile of dried tree pulp). I read it as one big book.
That's not the question.
So, stop defending the guy who's wrong. We all understand why he thought what he did, you did not need to explain it to anyone. Just because you can see the reasoning that led him to say what he said, and that from his POV it made perfect sense, does not make it factually correct in the context in which it was uttered.
If it had been a discussion about the availability of the story, saying it is available in 3 books is right. But that wasn't the context. Here, book meant one thing, and he did not parse that right.
He made an error.
He was corrected.
It should have been that simple.
Way to once again not read to the end of the post.
That Godwin nonsense? Oh yeah, Nazis would have a black woman as their sky marshall. Sure.
It's not that it went unnoticed, it's just that it was executed for shit.
You seem to have no specific point, only foul language props up your disdain of the movie. Obviously, you aren't going to admit that you missed the subtle parts, you'll keep putting your fingers in your ears and shout "lalala, there's nothing to see or hear, lalala!".
So bah-bye now.
I've been out-geeked.
:-)
I don't know if I should be proud or depressed
But hey, you can admit it, which makes you a better geek than many dorks in here still beating that dead horse.
The only way the question even makes sense is if you're trying to determine how many books (literary work) are involved. So why insist that the only valid answer to the question is in terms of books (divisions)?
...and then the idiots showed up, spewing crap about how they can choose other definitions of the word "book" than the one that applies to this specific case in order to render the sentence unintelligible, and these people are wrong on many levels.
Because intelligent people don't discuss things using one word to mean many different things.
Hence, when discussing the Lord Of The ring, you use the vocabulary that was used since the first printing to distinguish between the six books and the three volumes of that one novel.
When someone said "the six books", he was correct. When someone replied "there are not 6, but 3 books", he was wrong. As I, and many others, pointed out.
We proceeded to do the intelligent, civil thing: To impart upon our poor deluded comrade the wisdom which we hold as to the number of books.
They are wrong in their assumption, they are wrong in their interpretations, and they are wrong in their affirmations...
It all comes down to a difference in motivation: I argue in order to prevent the truth from being drowned out, they argue in order to "win" a discussion, without care for facts, truth, or anything but their own narcissistic endeavour.
And there is nothing clever nor ironic about that movie.
None that you noticed.
Your loss.
[Douglas Admas] was fairly heavily involved in production, up until his untimely death
At which point they did a complete rewrite and THEN went in production. I kid you not.
Don't kid yourself, that movie was not Adams approved.
Yes, the producers said it was faithfull. The -always- say it's faithfull, it's their contractual obligation to bullshit the hardcore fans into shelling out money, they will always maintain plausible deniability of their meddling.
I Robo was said to be faithfull too... those bold face lying sunzof... grrrr.
If you paid much attention Gollum looks significantly different in each of the three LOTR films
;-)
If the differences were significant, you wouldn't need to pay "much attention" to spot them
Pot, meet kettle.
Cliché, meet irrelevance.
Since I'm factually correct, and his "points" are empty rhetoric, this is not a simple question of two parties calling each other the same name.
This is one party (me and the other well informed Tolkien fans in this thread) telling party b) (them people who don't know that it's 6 books, often in 3 volumes, forming one novel) that they are wrong.
One side is wrong, and uses rhetoric to argue, the other can back up their facts.
This is not an equilibrium.
In the books I actually enjoyed Tom. I wasn't disparaging him in any way. I was merely pointing out (as did many others) that Tom didn't appear in 'The Hobbit', making the OP's comment about Tom singing actually kind of stupid. Oh, and I did not miss Tom from the movie - I don't think he would have transferred well to film.
Ah, then we're in complete agreement.
Though it took me a while to warm up to Tom... I had issues with the whole "realistically conveying the time it takes to walk all the way to another country" thing Tolkien had going on, I just wanted them to get to the orc-slaying. But, he grows on you, and his boots are yellow.
Oh, and replacing swords with walkie-talkies. ;-)
The base question is: Did Tolkien think of it as
Gawd, I grow tired of this.
Listen, go find a hard copy, and page through it. You'll see that I couldn't care less about what definition others may use to argue pointlessly about this: In the damn thig it says "Book one", then "Book two", all the way up to six.
It's not a question of trying to infer the state of mind of a dead man, it's a very basic question of looking at the source, and seeing those words in black ink on white paper.
Anyone can do it. Why don't you?
Indeed, I have it as 6 books plus appendices. The note on the text in the first book states that it is often published in three volumes. The first time I read it, it was as one volume with nearly 1,100 pages.
Here we go.
I read it as one ig chunk too, but it did have the "Book one; two; tree..." pages in it, as well has the volume pages for the Fellowship, Towers and Return.
What message? "Xenophobia is cool
lol! Like, it went ten feet over your head!
No, the message is the exact opposite of that. But since it's clever and ironic, lots of people didn't see it, including you.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_The_Rings#Boo ks
You can get off your high horse now.
Pick up.
A fucking.
Hard copy.
And read it.
In it, you will see the words "Book one", "Book two", and so on, up to "Book six".
Sheesh.
LOTR was one book, one novel. The publisher split the work into three books
See my other posts for rebbuttal to all your points which you needlessly reiterated for the nth time here.
The discussion of this is so ridiculous
Sigh. Yes, it is.
All one has to do is to open up his handy copy of LotR, and see the words "Book One", up to "Book six" written plainly, black on white, right before their eyes.
It's not hard to do, but people, it seem, would rather argue pointlessly than simply check the gorram source.
Batman Returns was good, however
:(
Good, but not great
3 villains is too much for one 2h movie, I'm affraid. It messes up the flow.
Actually, it was 7 books, not 6.
6 books, one set of appendices.
Appendix != book;
How about hero (who is known to be great)
That don't fit Nemo one bit.