Anchorhead

I have an account and use it to keep in touch with some friends who are literally all over the world. Local people I can call in the same time zone or go visit? - seldom. In fact, I had 7 friends for however long I've been using it and I checked in once a month or so.

Recently, however, a board I've been part of for about 7 years announced they'll be shutting down, so we decided to use FaceBook to keep in touch and created a group. It's been strange having to get accustomed to using real names. Imagine that - actual names.

There's only one film I'm interested in and it came out in 1977.  I use the title that was in the theater when I was 15 and on the one-sheet I had hanging on the wall in my bedroom - Star Wars. 

If a person I'm speaking with asks which film I'm talking about, then we're most likely not on the same wavelength anyway, so we should move on to a different topic.  I occasionally refer to it as Star Wars77, but only if I'm trying to address a certain time frame or version.

My go-to for Star Wars, the NPR version, also refers to it by its original, singular title -  Star Wars. That's all there is in my world.

TV's Frink said:

...Anchorhead.......PARDONED for time served.

Davnes007 said:

Thunderhorse!

.

.

Yeeeeesss - I'm aware that's off-topic.

*Self-probation.

TV's Frink said:

I thought Indy 4 could have been decent but had too many groan moments to properly enjoy. 

Yeah, there are a few scenes I could have done without, but they're no worse than a few scenes in Temple & Crusade.

TV's Frink said:

... a regular old style limited flip phone.  I don't move around enough to need a portable device like an iphone something similar.

Same for me. I have no desire to be connected constantly. I have a Razr because it's small. It can slip into my riding jacket and I don't even know it's there. I really just carry it for emergencies that may take place several hundred miles out. Truthfully, I seldom use the thing.

doubleofive said:

Is the book better than the movie?

I think so. Like most novels, it's more thorough than the film. Much more of the workings of Akator are explained and the characters are fleshed-out more. Also, it starts with the conquistadors. Filmed as the novel version, it would have been a deeper film. That said, it would have been crowding three hours long. That would be fine with me, but not everyone digs a three-hour movie. Besides, the films have never been deep, drawn-out affairs. They're pulpy homages to old movie serials.

While we're drifting off-topic, I should point out that I really liked the film. My dislike of Lucas' lying about Star Wars and how terrible the one prequel I saw was have zero affect on how I view his other work. My feelings regarding Lucas & all things Star Wars are completely separate from all things Indiana Jones. That's why you don't see me jumping on the "Lucas has destroyed everything he touches" hate wagon. I have no interest in punishing him or slamming him constantly - the way some people do around here. I have no problem separating the prequels & SEs from Indiana Jones - because they are separate.

Left unchecked, I think Lucas is a bad film maker. As part of a creative team, I think he's a great idea man. He is one third of the team that has created all four Indiana Jones films, not the destroyer of worlds that the prequel haters want to make him out to be.

C3PX said:

Er hem...

I think the iPad is completely ridiculous and useless. They have taken everything practical about the iPhone/iTouch and turned it into something very impractical. It is really too bulky to be very portable, and it lacks much of the functionality and freedom you get from an actual laptop. So in the end, what demand does the iPad really meet? What reasons have Apple given us to opt for an iPad over an iTouch or a MacBook? I can't see any at all.

Save your money, go with a relatively inexpensive netbook (or even better for the Apple fan, save your pennies and grab a MacBook). I think the majority of the people buying the iPad will be those very same technology junkies with too much money on their hands who upgrade to the latest generation of iPhone the instant it is released. Most of the population will see the iPad as the cool but impractical and fairly useless piece of technology it is. It is like the tablet PC all over again... yeah, you don't see too many people at the airport with those do you? Because the tried and true laptop is just that much easier and practical to use.

My thoughts exactly. It seems almost like a SNL commercial - The Giant iPhone.

Something else that seems strange to me is the thought of an electronic device in place of a physical book. I get it for college classrooms, and in fact, I assume it will be how schools function in the next few years. It makes perfect sense. One device in place of an armload of textbooks. Students just get the address of the download site at the start of the school year or semester, and download the books for that course.

However, where a paperback book is concerned, I can't fathom the idea of wanting a device instead of a book. With a book, you can toss it in a suitcase or backpack, it always works, it's not fragile, and doesn't rely on an account, download capabilities, or electricity.

This is the book that I took on my last trip to Spain & France. That was a lot of flying, driving, packing & unpacking, etc. It took a beating, but it was available, convenient, and functional the entire time. In every imaginable situation on that trip, an electronic device would have been less convenient and, for me, I wouldn't have bothered.

Warbler said:

...When it came time to do Forever,  how come they didn't get  Williams to play the role of Two-Face? 

 

I think Williams is a considerably better version of Dent. Tommy Lee Jones played the character like a silly comic book character - which to me, Batman had moved away from (to an extent). Batman still had comic book touches alright, but it felt more reality-based. Which is saying something, considering it's a Tim Burton film.

I've always just assumed that since they had moved so far away from the 89 version at that point, they felt no need to worry about any sort of continuity. Which is just as well anyway. The Schumacher films are throw-aways. It would have been a wasted performance.

For the record; For me, Batman Returns was a one & done. To me, that's the film where Burton became the film maker he is today; Over-the-top-weirdness in place of interest. Style over substance. Needless to say, other than Pee Wee's Big Adventure & Batman - I'm not a fan of his work at all.

I'm not really a fan of Post Impressionism. Seurat is one of the few artists I find interesting, but it's really just the pointillism, not the pieces themselves. Below is probably his most famous work, as well as one of the more famous pieces of Post Impressionist art.

FanFiltration said:

THE ORIGINAL "CLASSIC"  ROCKY!

Hey Rocky - watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

Again?

Nothing up my sleeve

*lion sticks it's head out and roars*

Guess I don't know my own strength.

Great stuff, man.

I love that Spring Training is about to start.

His finest hour.

Fill your hands, you son of a bitch.

Baronlando said:

Yeah, I don't think the tomatometer reflects that so many of Revenge of the Sith's positive reviews were on the level of "I was surprised to find that this movie is un-horrible!"  Yeah, that's positive, but...

The Tomatometer seems about as reliable a source as the IMDB comments section. 

Variety
MPAA
Independent Film Quarterly
Cineaste
Premiere
Tomatometer ???

"Use your mirrors"

C3PX said:

I just don't see it.

 

 

Another one it seems like every man finds the epitome of hot, and yet I just don't see it.

+1 to both. I have absolutely no idea how either has been elevated to their be all-end all status. I just don't see it - at all.

It's not something I give any thought to though. I've never been someone who agrees with the latest "you must worship her perfection" celebrity. My taste seems to run on the fringe of what most guys consider beautiful and very seldom intersects with a celebrity that everyone sees as gorgeous.

Once in a while I understand the attraction, even if the woman in question doesn't move me - but in the case of the two pictured above, the worship is lost on me.

TV's Frink said:

How about TV shows that didn't have the network logo, a logo telling you the name of the show you are watching, and animated promos for other shows WHILE YOU'RE TRYING TO WATCH THE DAMN SHOW!

Those on-screen ads during the shows are going to be the things that eventually make me say goodbye to TV entirely. They're sort of like the airlines charging for the use of a pillow & blanket - once started, then unopposed - that revenue stream will never go away.

Also, I see they're testing the water more & more these days to see just how big they can make the ads before people push back. The on-screen branding went the same way. At first just single-color embossed & somewhat unobtrusive...now they're full-color, complete corporate logos.

Along those lines, I would imagine we're on our way to having ad banners running continuously and we'll need software to disable them, similar to NoScript on browsers.

Fortunately, I'm not a big TV watcher. Maybe an hour a day.

I agree with the above few posts. McGwire was a one-trick pony and that one trick was chemically enhanced. He shouldn't be in the hall - numbers (which he hardly has) or not. And Frink's right-on about the All Star Game. I watch it myself every year and look forward to the pomp & circumstance. That said, as Frink pointed out, it's just a popularity contest for an exhibition game. A player's true value to a team is demonstrated 162 other times every year.

Another thing that's becoming a drag about this whole ordeal (confession, hall arguments, other players commenting) is that it seems like every time McGwire opens his mouth, he sounds more & more moronic. Just say you did them, for however long, apologize, and get on with Spring Training. Stop the explaining - it's really not helping.

No contest. The man, the legend....

skyjedi2005 said:

If Harrison and Steven can ground Lucas sillyness then they could...

You mean like the warehouse scene (eventually dropped) where a gun was going to be knocked to the ground, go off, and a bullet would hit the belt buckle of one of the Russians and his pants were going to fall down around his ankles?

No kidding, man. That kind of juvenile slapstick would have been completely out of place and cheapened the seriousness of the scene.

Good thing Lucas vetoed that scene - even though Spielberg wanted it.

Do your homework Sky, it takes all three to keep the franchise in check.