metadigital Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 For once you're speechless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Not really something to aim for, I would have thought ... on a discussion forum. " OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 :"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 :Darque: OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cantousent Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 "I think the uthor of the letter should be judged harshly based on the content of the letter, just like everyone else who might like to write a political statement." I don't believe we should blame folks for their political statements, merely understand that some of them are wrong. Still, it is easier to resent someone for promoting a bad outcome for a bad reason than it is to resent someone who promotes a bad outcome for what they see as a good reason. Any number of participants in these threads tries to determine intent. I don't believe the letter writer in question should be judged harshly for her personal belief. Rather, I think she should be faced with reasonable arguments in the hopes that she return them in kind. Furthermore, perhaps I am wrong, in which case I must be willing to listen to her reasonable arguments as well. Finally, it doesn't hurt her if we judge her harshly. She doesn't know us and our argument here will have little impact on her. For that reason, we might as well put aside harsh judgments in favor of reasonable discussion. "You seem to be contradicting your previous paragraph in this one. I agree that the market will find its level." I don't believe I am inconsistent, but I am unsure of your position. I merely believe that, even if the film doesn't have a great message, it is still possible to import our own message into the film. Modern readers don't always get the message ancient authors intended, but that doesn't prevent readers from finding a message nonetheless. "I think such generalisations are quite na Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 Damnit, speak to the topic. Quit derailing my pristine thread! By the way, Cant, did you author that e-mail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cantousent Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 My take is this, I truly enjoyed Constantine, Road to Perdition, and even LoEG. Of the three, I think RtP was the best, but there was something to be said about all the films. I don't know about Christian values in regards to these films, or VifV, but the primary purpose of films is to entertain. If VifV looks like it has some good action, I'll undoubtedly watch it, even if only on DvD. The trailer looks promising, even if I'm a bit leery of Natalie Portman. Still, she's pretty even if she has growing to do as an actor. I suppose I should cease from replying to the "Hollywood v Christian" argument and instead address the V is for Vendetta discussion. This makes particular sense since I really have no problem with movies. If I don't want to see one I don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Child of Flame Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 ^Eldar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oerwinde Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 (edited) Alan Moore isnt very pleased about the way his comics have all been raped when filmed. From hell and LoEG had virtually nothing to do with the original comics. His comments about Watchmen were promising. He said that Hayter's script was as close to the comic as he believes a movie can be. Though he also said he wouldn't be seeing it. He says Watchmen, like all his works, are meant to be read curled up in a chair next to the fire with a cup of hot chocolate, not watched on a screen. V For VendettaAnd W for Whitemithrandir I love alphabet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> W is 3 syllables. You lose. Edited November 2, 2005 by Oerwinde The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cantousent Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Watchmen is a great comic. I will be looking forward to that one with great anticipation. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oerwinde Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Watchmen is a great comic. I will be looking forward to that one with great anticipation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm kinda glad the rights returned to WB just as WB started to realize that if you treat your properties with respect, they turn out better. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 (edited) ...the liberal Hollywood elites never make any family-friendly, Christian entertainment anymore, Is that their job? To make Christian entertainment? Hollywood has always made challenging movies that upset all sorts of people, as well as lots of dross that plays to the middle ground and upsets no-one. The latter seems to be in the ascendency at the moment. However, some people just like being upset. It used to be the case that Hollywood movies recovered their production costs and made a profit based on US cinema tickets sold, with any international sales a bonus. Now they depend on doing well in Europe and Japan, and on video/DVD. Is that influencing them in a way that US conservatives dislike? So I suppose I'm rather curious how you folks think this'll play, or even if it's crossing a line or something like that, given the current state of world affairs. It will play well in Europe, where exploration of the issue of terrorism is seen as interesting and useful. People feel instinctively that the Bush approach of painting all terrorists as evil fiends plotting our destruction for kicks is wrong, but aren't sure how to achieve a more nuanced and balanced understanding. If this film deals with such issues in an intelligent way, I'll be going to see it. Edited November 2, 2005 by SteveThaiBinh "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveilled Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 W is 3 syllables. You lose. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not if you pronounce it as the voiced labio-velar frictive [w]. Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 (edited) ...the liberal Hollywood elites never make any family-friendly, Christian entertainment anymore, Is that their job? To make Christian entertainment? Hollywood has always made challenging movies that upset all sorts of people, as well as lots of dross that plays to the middle ground and upsets no-one. The latter seems to be in the ascendency at the moment. However, some people just like being upset. It used to be the case that Hollywood movies recovered their production costs and made a profit based on US cinema tickets sold, with any international sales a bonus. Now they depend on doing well in Europe and Japan, and on video/DVD. Is that influencing them in a way that US conservatives dislike? I don't know. And you should've put quotation marks around that quote; someone will attribute it to me and think I've gone all crazy Christian conservative. So I suppose I'm rather curious how you folks think this'll play, or even if it's crossing a line or something like that, given the current state of world affairs. It will play well in Europe, where exploration of the issue of terrorism is seen as interesting and useful. People feel instinctively that the Bush approach of painting all terrorists as evil fiends plotting our destruction for kicks is wrong, but aren't sure how to achieve a more nuanced and balanced understanding. If this film deals with such issues in an intelligent way, I'll be going to see it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, see, that's the thing; nuance doesn't play well on this side of the pond. If it's not a ten-words-or-less hardass statement, it doesn't fly. Certain sections of society over here are going to get very, very offended at the mere suggestion that acts of terrorism could ever be committed in a way that's portrayed as either good or simply ambiguous. Edited November 2, 2005 by Commissar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveilled Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Damn that's a confusing post! " Fixxored: ...the liberal Hollywood elites never make any family-friendly, Christian entertainment anymore, Is that their job? To make Christian entertainment? Hollywood has always made challenging movies that upset all sorts of people, as well as lots of dross that plays to the middle ground and upsets no-one. The latter seems to be in the ascendency at the moment. However, some people just like being upset. It used to be the case that Hollywood movies recovered their production costs and made a profit based on US cinema tickets sold, with any international sales a bonus. Now they depend on doing well in Europe and Japan, and on video/DVD. Is that influencing them in a way that US conservatives dislike? I don't know. And you should've put quotation marks around that quote; someone will attribute it to me and think I've gone all crazy Christian conservative. So I suppose I'm rather curious how you folks think this'll play, or even if it's crossing a line or something like that, given the current state of world affairs. It will play well in Europe, where exploration of the issue of terrorism is seen as interesting and useful. People feel instinctively that the Bush approach of painting all terrorists as evil fiends plotting our destruction for kicks is wrong, but aren't sure how to achieve a more nuanced and balanced understanding. If this film deals with such issues in an intelligent way, I'll be going to see it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, see, that's the thing; nuance doesn't play well on this side of the pond. If it's not a ten-words-or-less hardass statement, it doesn't fly. Certain sections of society over here are going to get very, very offended at the mere suggestion that acts of terrorism could ever be committed in a way that's portrayed as either good or simply ambiguous. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 What I dont like about Moore's 80s stuff is the horrible colouring. Its like theyve taken perfectly good B&W comics and raped them with pastel-like colours of a nausea-inducing mix DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 All old colouring looks like that though innit? before digital painting when the pics looked dirty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 Damn that's a confusing post! " Fixxored: ...the liberal Hollywood elites never make any family-friendly, Christian entertainment anymore, Is that their job? To make Christian entertainment? Hollywood has always made challenging movies that upset all sorts of people, as well as lots of dross that plays to the middle ground and upsets no-one. The latter seems to be in the ascendency at the moment. However, some people just like being upset. It used to be the case that Hollywood movies recovered their production costs and made a profit based on US cinema tickets sold, with any international sales a bonus. Now they depend on doing well in Europe and Japan, and on video/DVD. Is that influencing them in a way that US conservatives dislike? I don't know. And you should've put quotation marks around that quote; someone will attribute it to me and think I've gone all crazy Christian conservative. So I suppose I'm rather curious how you folks think this'll play, or even if it's crossing a line or something like that, given the current state of world affairs. It will play well in Europe, where exploration of the issue of terrorism is seen as interesting and useful. People feel instinctively that the Bush approach of painting all terrorists as evil fiends plotting our destruction for kicks is wrong, but aren't sure how to achieve a more nuanced and balanced understanding. If this film deals with such issues in an intelligent way, I'll be going to see it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, see, that's the thing; nuance doesn't play well on this side of the pond. If it's not a ten-words-or-less hardass statement, it doesn't fly. Certain sections of society over here are going to get very, very offended at the mere suggestion that acts of terrorism could ever be committed in a way that's portrayed as either good or simply ambiguous. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Woops, didn't even notice all that. Thanks, Rev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now