Messages

I ased before if the film ranks up with classic epics, but I found an interesting quote from Roger Ebert in his review of the film:

"That it falls a little shy of greatness is perhaps inevitable. The story is just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece. It is a melancholy fact that while the visionaries of a generation ago, like Coppola with "Apocalypse Now," tried frankly to make films of great consequence, an equally ambitious director like Peter Jackson is aiming more for popular success. The epic fantasy has displaced real contemporary concerns, and audiences are much more interested in Middle Earth than in the world they inhabit."

What does everyone think of that?

I know people will say things like "It's unfair to compare the two cause their different movies."

However, both are grand-scale epics films based upon classic novels.

I agree that both directors struggled to make something ambitious.

However, Ebert is right: Jackson's film is a fantasy, while Coppola's is about the politics of a real event.

Granted, Jackson's trilogy is still magnificant but Coppola struggled to make a thought-provoking film about a depressing period in history.

Any thoughts on this?

Actually, the best Christmas link I've ever seen is this -- 'The Fat Slob That Stole Christmas'

Oh yea, warning -- don't look at my image if you're sensitive to violence.

Oh who are we kidding? This is the internet!

The games' description was a strategy game, so I placed it in the non-adventure.

However, if CUG want to put it in the Adventure section instead, he's more than welcome.

Very sneaky.

Barcik:

I do not regard it is a classic. As I have explained in the Indy thread, I only call timeless movies, movies that will not be affected by time, classics. The Lord of the Rings trilogy will. Sooner or later, a move spectacular high-scale epic will come out, making new audiences laugh at the old dated attempt of 2001-2003.

You misunderstood me.

I know it's not a classic, cause it's still a new movie.

But I'm asking if it ranks among classic epics.

In other words, does it have the same depth and scope as a film from David Lean.

Could you even describe it as an epic?

[What is a Photoshop Phriday?]

What is a Photoshop Phriday?

Photoshopping isn't drawing a completely new image -- It's editing images to create a new image, such as editing one image or combining several images.

Also, you don't have to specifically use Photoshop -- Paint Shop Pro, MSPaint, or any other programs can be used.

See this link:
http://www.somethingawful.com/photoshop/

And for other examples, see here:
http://www.worth1000.com/

The two above websites should give a fair idea of what is involved.

Also, make sure your image doesn't exceed the width of the screen -- If it does, I will delete it.

-------------------------------------

What do I have to do?

This week's Photoshop Phriday is: "If forum names were true..."

This one is a bit difficult, but should be a load of fun.

Simply create an image of any forum member where their nickname becomes true to the max.

For example, what if Shawn Guzzo really became roadkill:


Eww!

Anyway, maybe you can come up with something more tasteful!

Then again, MAYBE YOU CAN'T!

Thanks to SSH for his suggestion of this week's topic.

And here's why.

By the way, where's the secret animation in the second one?

I've tried clicking everything and still can't find it.

gandalf:
Glad you liked my pisstake.

On 24:
The show does have faults, like any show, but my point is that it's a concept that's very original on TV.

Here are some other questions for people to ponder in this post.

What do you think about some critics saying LOTR now ranks among classic epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur?

Also, what do you think of Jackson's next project: A remake of King Kong?


Also, the Gollum Rap: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/gollum.php

It's not cause you're new...

IT'S CAUSE YOU WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO DO YOUR OWN DAMN WORK FOR YOU!

Okay, it hasn't been released yet in a lot of places but I figure there's going to be a post on it so I might as well start one.

Have you seen it, and what did you think (spoilers hidden of course)?

If you haven't seen it, what are your expectations?

Do you think it'll live up to the buzz and hype he critics are giving it?

98% on RottenTomatoes.com so far - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheReturnoftheKing-1127213/

95% on Metacritic so far - http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/returnoftheking/

And what did you think about Christopher Lee being cut from the film?

Eric:
LOL, Those wacky Russians!

Seriously though, I hope Trap ignores those shitty comments and makes more.

Anyone who signs-off a post with "Biatchhhhhhhhhhh" is either a fuckwit or... no nevermind, he's just a fuckwit.

Oh man, I'm so glad you're still making flash animations!

I laughed my butt off at that!

P.S. Potter Pals 2 is now at number 3 on the top 50!

[Mr. Burns:]

I believe The Flintstones was the first animated series to air in prime time. (It was also the first show to show a married couple sharing a bed.)

But that does nothing to diminish The Simpsons.

I wasn't too sure about the Flintstone when I posted, but I checked and you are right.

However, keep in mind the Flintstones was just an animated version of the Honeymooners -- not really an original concept.


Trap:
Actually, it's Homer's retarded catchphrases that bother me these days.

They aren't as funny as they used to be -- I think it's cause Homer is too damn oafish and tries to act like a selfish teenager, whereas he just used to be naive.

For example, from the union leader episode:

Mr. Burns: We don't have to be adversaries, Homer. We both want a fair union contract.
Homer: [thinking] Why is Mr. Burns being so nice to me?
Mr. Burns: And if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
Homer:[thinking] Wait a minute. Is he coming onto me?
Mr. Burns: I mean, if I should slip something into your pocket, what's the harm?
Homer: [thinking] My God! He *is* coming onto me!
Mr. Burns: After all, negotiations make strange bedfellows.
[chuckle]
Mr. Burns: [wink]
Homer: [thinking] Aaaaaagh!
[aloud]
Homer: Sorry, Mr. Burns, but I don't go in for these backdoor shenanigans. Sure, I'm flattered, maybe even a little curious, but the answer is no!

The genesis of a new genre usually brings about great interest because innovation i.e. it's something people have never seen before.

Trap spoke of the humanity's golden age, which was a time when television was new.

People were glue to their sets, even if there was nothing but crap rigged quiz shows on TV.

Bringing this theory to the Simpsons, when it first started it was something different -- What began as a bunch of shorts on Tracey Ullman turned into a primetime animated show, which is very rare thing.

How many other animated shows were on at primetime before The Simpsons started? -- I can't think of any, so can anyone else?

Not only that, the Simpsons reflected a lot of social ideology, which was also rare for cartoons of the early ninties (Side note: they even analyse these things at universities; I once did a marxist analysis of the episode where Homer becomes union president of the Power Plant).

So, the genesis of primetime animated shows (The Simpsons) has now rendered the genre a little passe, which includes not only the Simpsons but South Park, Futurama, Family Guy, etc, etc.

It's very rare to come up with new concepts these days -- we seem to be going through a huge reality TV show phase (which was a new concept, but the popularity is starting to dwindle -- Hopefully, reality TV will become passe in a year or two.)

The only TV show that seems to be actually innovative these days, in my mind, is 24.

There's not any other shows that manage to capture the same second-by-second pace.

Having said that, most TV is pretty crap, which is probably why I'm spending more time on the net and watching DVDs than in front of the tube.

This thread is soooooo May!!!

Notice this:

The show was originally written by Harvard graduates and it was highly praised for its social commentary and satire.

But in later years, they hired a guy who used to write for Saturday Night Live to be the head of scripting.

I wonder if that had anything to do with the show's decline?

Spoiler

YES IT FUCKING DID!!!

[close]

You can continue, but it will be irrelevent. Because, were it a lie (and I still believe it isn't, and I there is plenty of counter evidence), it will still be a different kind of lie from telling that the US found them when they really didn't.

A lie is still a lie, only the US Government is doing it on a global scale.

Lol... the funny thing is that I was pretending to answer like you in that answer      

Anyway... I was jocking (As I suppose you were when you told me retarded), but if it is you the only one who has the right to post 1337 and use capitals, make me know, Chris Jones will gladly make a new membergroup for you.

Farlander, I was joking -- That's part of the irony in my comment, that it sounded like something I'd say.

Hogwarts will definately miss him.

This is probably the funniest thing I've read all week.