Battra92

From another thread ... Interesting how in England the V symbol with the palm inward is the equivalent of "the finger" in America and much of the rest of the world. I admit I learned about the V from "Are You Being Served?" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign#V_sign_as_an_insult and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_finger We also refer to the middle finger gesture as "the bird." I always liked the UK slang of calling females "birds" (much like in the US we call cute females "chicks.") Do they still use that slang? I know they did on "The In-Betweeners" and AYBS but I don't know how well those represent everyday life. :-P

I'm still waiting on my copy. Darn it! Hopefully it will come in soon as I want to play a game filled with anime breasts.

I'm reading "The Parade's Gone By" by Kevin Brownlow. Surprise, surprise! I'm reading a book that makes me feel snobbier. :-P

Somehow I think this just all means I'm going to spend the rest of my life watching movies made 60 years before I was born. Though judging from the size of my DVD/BD collection I can live in the past for many years to come. :-P One side note: I'd almost say the real innovation in the art of the motion picture will come from some kid living in his parents' basement posting videos on YouTube.

Perhaps, although I feel there are more than 8 tales that can be told. There are certainly more than 8 great movies out there. King Kong also had a sequel the same year that was at least enjoyable. It was then ripped off dozens of times and remade in 1976 and then again in '05. The original still stands are the definitive version of the story. What's ironic is that Hollywood put out some of its best pictures when they owned the theaters. They had to compete with the other studios to get you into their theater. 1939 is universally regarded as the best single year for motion pictures. We're lucky if we can get in a decade a small percentage of the greatness that Hollywood once achieved. Times have changed and things are different now. The parade's gone by ...

I finally got around to reading this article and he makes a lot of good points. I think what is missing most of all in the Hollywood of today is innovation and competition. I'm reading a book on the silent era and even then many were afraid to innovate. Virtually all of the techniques of motion pictures existed in 1905 or so but until D.W. Griffith set Hollywood on its head with "The Birth of a Nation" did we move from the static 9 foot line, one shot per scene film to what can essentially be called the film world of today. There was so much innovation then. Abel Gance experimented with camera placements when he made Napoleon. Carl Theodore Dreyer made a film about Joan of Arc that was told almost exclusively through the human face. Buster Keaton helped turn comedies into more than mere pratfalls but with a coherent story and characters you cared about. Then sound came in and it was all "Oh Dee Oh Doe Dee Oh!" on one side or static drawn out dialogue on the other. Suddenly everyone in the movies spoke like and as much as a New York City playwright. Early talkies are interesting but in the rush to reinvent the wheel a lot was left behind with sound. Still, the art moved forward and many great films have been made in the 84 years since The Jazz Singer. A lot of horse shit has been made since. The number one reason that films of today suck is the need to make a fast and secure profit. Hollywood accounting is basically where the studios can figure just about every film to be a loss or to break-even on paper. Now clearly this is meticulous but it's the way Hollywood operates. Many films also lose money at the box office and yet continuously make long term profits in the home video market (Gods and Generals for example) but because they aren't going to make 10 bajillion dollars on opening weekend, the studios just don't care. Independent films aren't all that much better despite what people seem to claim. The Japanese, Hong Kong and European studios occasionally release a gem but honestly, they probably have the same good to crap ratio as Hollywood if not worse. It's rare that I see a good movie and I will even confess that I enjoy some bad movies from time to time. The modern film output might be worth 90 minutes on a snowed in day but when I have so many better films to watch I just skip the multiplex and instead go with Blu-Ray and DVDs. The popcorn is better at my place anyway.

But I'm running Ubuntu Linux. It just has a dock app that looks like OSX.

Everyone? ;-)

Well, I had another Borders card and took advantage of their 33% off coupon (and because they are under Chapter 11 and would like to make sure that they get some business)

This is a great Pacifistic film made in 1919 by the great French director Abel Gance. When filming Gance was asked who he accusing. He replied "I am accusing war. I am accusing man. I am accusing universal stupidity."

Nice Stand. Maybe we should have a "show off your Entertainment Center" thread...\\Anyway, Deep Discount was having a Buy 1 Get 1 Free sale and this was the only thing worth getting:

Germany is just Martin Luther then the Kaiser and then Hitler.

Our English History is usually from the Middle Ages to the present day where we kind of gloss over most kings and queens (We know Elizabeth, James the First, Cromwell (not a king but more popular here than in the UK) and George the Third and Victoria & Albert.) It's mostly just general history, though. Probably what you guys get of American history but in reverse.

Ditto. A couple of the 'stans get me confused. I'd like to see some of our Non-American members be able to do the US states. I'm curious to know how much of that is taught elsewhere. I can probably do all the Canadian provinces but I'd be lost on English counties or the Provinces of France.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRvhRhWWE44&feature=related

One hoof, two hooves. :-/ But enough MLP :googly:

Another film like that is "SAVED!" I was offended by everything in that movie save for Mandy Moore's cover of "God Only Knows."

This is a roof: The plural of roof is what: Roofs? Rooves? Here in New England I always hear people say the latter and yet Dictionary.com and other web sources say that "roofs" is correct and that Rooves is the older version still used in Australia and New Zealand ... and New England I guess.