Amentep

Dude, you're old. You really can be a disagreeable little punk when you want to be can't you? Actually I picked the cartoon figuring no one would recognise it. It was pulled from television in the 60's for being too violent ( knifing and shooting ) for kids on Saturday mornings. :D Jonny Quest was originally, like the Flintstones, a prime-time television cartoon on ABC. It was hugely successful in 1964-65 but because each episode ran over budget, Hanna-Barbera opted to show the show continuously in re-runs rather than make new episodes. Like a lot of H-B shows, it ran off and on throughout the 60s and 70s on various schedules (ABC, NBC, CBS, syndication). It was here that some felt that the originally made for prime-time episodes weren't fit for kids, and in 1972 (8 years after the last new episode was made) the show was "edited" for its content but continued in syndication. Its debatable if it was ever "pulled" because the show wasn't, as far as I can tell, ever consistantly part of a line-up past their intial prime-time season (as they only had one season worth of shows). I used to love Jonny Quest as a kid.

I haven't seen snow in a few years. :|

Doesn't look familiar to me atm, definately not from either of the US Ring films afaik.

I thought stuff was...like...possesions and things. AKA that which Kroney owns must not be touched. Ever.

All I'm arguing against is the idea that V *can't be* a villain (which was the post I replied to making that very point in my apparently easy to misconstrue way). The author sees him as interpretable as a villain, the character sees himself as a villain, ergo I think you can make a strong case that he is, in fact, a villain and not the dreaded (IMO) "Anti-Hero". The nice thing about V - and this I agree with - that you can make a case that V is as much hero as villain, which is I think part of the point of the story. But I don't think that its clear-cut and if someone wants to determine V to be a villain than I support them in that, just as I would someone if they decided to say he was a hero. Or something.

If you read the introduction by Alan Moore to the Trade Paperback, you'll see that what I just mentioned is what he himself writes. I don't believe my reasoning is "stupid", even if you disagree.

Even though the movie was a pretty poor translation of the graphic novel... V WAS NOT A ****ING VILLAIN YOU [have got that wrong, he was an ANTI-HERO]! Thank you. Even Alan Moore disagrees with you there. Book 1, chapter 1 in V for Vendetta is called "The Villain" and introduces V.

I'd concur with that too. I'm pretty agreeable.

I concur with your assessment of the situation.

Hmmm, I would have never thought to look four pages in a NWN2 thread for the answers... :(" Thanks to you and The Artist Now Known As Quixotic (TANKAQ).

As near as I can tell there isn't another thread here to explain what happened to the "house". But perhaps I missed it? As far as I know, there isn't an explaination. No one seems to have heard from Mistress about the lair. But I could be wrong...

You should embrace your 2000 posts, Roshan. Hug them! Each and everyone! :cool:

I didn't really like Hollywoodland, mostly because it hamstrung itself with a split narrative that doesn't do justice to either main character (Reeves or the fictional detective) That said, I don't think the movie really gives us more information on Reeves; it in fact has - from my understanding - some serious factual problem, mostly because they don't present an accurate representation of where Reeves was at that time in his life. Instead, they present the single idea he was washed up, bitter and strugling to find work (which was only ever put forth by his fiance, Leynore Lemon after his death). At that time, George Reeves had agreed to do another season of The Adventures of Superman in 1960; in fact the production had already approached Pierre Watkin, who played Perry White in the serials (as Noel Neil had Lois Lane) to replace the late John Hamilton (who had died after the 1958 season) from what I understand. His role hadn't been cut in From Here to Eternity, nor was there a screening with people screaming out "Superman" as shown in the movie; both the writer and director for the movie have said that Reeves filmed what was written for his part and its all in the film. Add into that that Reeves was scheduled to shoot a film in Spain and was Hitchc ock's original choice for Detective Arbogast in Psycho (and had been cast in that part) and that Reeves was scheduled for a wrestling match the day after he died and you get a very different picture of where Reeves was at that point in his life from what the film presents. Add into that the fact that the film ignore several other possibilities on his death, that Reeves - who had a very high blood alcohol level - could have accidently shot himself while screwing around with his gun or that Reeves' earlier car crash and injuries may have had a dramatic effect on his personality and you have a movie that is really about creating an account of Reeves built on the "myth" of his story, and not the reality.

Watched the Japanese film Noroi no yakata: Chi o s

^Who looks to movies for historical accuracy anyhow? :-"

I have no particular interest in it (heck a Godzilla RPG would be more my line anyhow... ), I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing if done well. That said I'd personnaly rather a lot other types of RPGs before a Transformers one. But I can see with the movie set to be made, Transformers are probably going to be more in the publics mind, I imagine there will be games. Probably action games, but games none the less...

I dunno, given that it seems all of mine and Blue's discussion over V for Vendetta seems to have been blocked out (about the movie, about the comic and about othe dystopian future movies like 1984, Brazil and so forth that I'd hardly consider spoilerific), it seemed a little more than a request, thus why I kinda thought some clarification was needed.

I totally agree with you there...definately not a good film, albiet not quite as dissapointing to me as High Tension was.

That's not a problem, but part of the discussion that appears to have been edited was about the comic book, which is over 20 years old; do we have to put a spoiler tag on *everything* no matter how old it is? Or is it simply because the movie is only six months old (I notice several older film discussions - including the end to the original Poseidon Adventure haven't been edited)? Again if that's how things operate here, that's fine and I'll try to [ spoiler ] all recent film discussion, but almost every board I've ever been to has a statute of limitations on such things which has usually only been a few months after a movies release (but I can understand tightening this up since these forums only have one movie discussion thread and spoilers are harder to avoid).

Poking around a bit, it looks like Jackson is producing the film, but not directing it. Which I hadn't heard.

No they did originally say he was making the Hobbit with them. And then Jackson said it was the first he'd heard of it. Which then I think turned to a "clarification" from MGM. MGM owns the distribution rights to the Hobbit while New Line owns the rights to make the film, which means no film will be made before MGM and New Line agree to it, which will have to happen before Jackson hopes to get involved, if he wants to do it. Blue - the Dambusters story was proven false, AFAIK; Jackson's not remaking it. The Lovely Bones he's doing on spec (he wants to have a script done before presenting it to a studio to be made) which word is he'll do with Temeraire as well. Halo afaik he's only producing.

Peter Jackson seems to have optioned Naomi Novik's Temeraire novel(s) (aka His Majesty's Dragon) Yahoo's news report Haven't read the novel myself but it sounds interesting. This would theoretically be Jackson's movie after The Lovely Bones. Which puts more wonder to MGM's announcement Jackson was making The Hobbit with them...

I really like both "12 Monkeys" and "City of Lost Children"...at the moment I'm blanking on really good dystopian films... :"> (12 Monkeys is more post-apocalyptic to me anyhow, but I'm not sure genre matters too much).

Perhaps its not as downbeat as, say, the original end to Brazil; I was merely pointing out the irony of calling something a "comic book" ending when the comic ended differently.

An amusing assertation since they changed the ending of the movie version of V for Vendetta rather drastically from the ending of the comic book... :("