Messages

I think that's your theatre's problem and not the actual soundtrack.

The volume wasn't too overpowering when I saw it.

Theatre have been known for stuffing up stuff like this and blaming it on the film.

For example, (and Roger Ebert talks about this quite a lot) sometimes you'll probably see the boom mics hanging over the heads of actors -- This isn't the fault of the filmmakers but the fault of the projectionist.

I know this because I saw it happen in About Schmidt -- I saw it at one cinema and it had a boom mic in frame and saw it a second time in another theatre and saw no mic (and a better composed  scene too)

America sucks and that's that. If you think I should "move to another country if you don't like here" then you know NOTHING about America

Why do I get the feeling Darth Mandarb is going to reply soon?

I am more disturbed by the Gator popup I saw.

He didn't. He was saying that that is what you called me. Maybe you should make an appointment with the optician because you seem to have trouble reading other people posts (and your own, although you have now finally admitted that you said taht Lucas is a talented writer after denying it 3 or 4 times).

Bspeers said:
"You seem to be unable to accept that someone can challenge your method of argumentation without either a. disagreeing in principal or b. being a masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck."

I probably misinterpreted it as:

"You seem to be unable to accept without either a. disagreeing in principal or b. being a masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck"

However, I didn't call you a "masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck", SSH -- That's taking what I actually said to extremes.

I did call you a pseudo-intellectual, in the sense you seemed to be arguing with very minor aspects of my list for the sake try to sound smart (After all, you did say you were trying to "mock my assertions").

Yes, they were very pedantic points you argued.

No, I didn't unjustly insult your personal stature (i.e. I didn't call you a retard).

And, we are actually arguing the same thing, because we think Raiders is a good movie.

You're arguing that I think it became a classic because so many critics like it, when I'm not even saying anything of the sort.

All I said is it's a classic and here's my proof why (i.e all these high ranking people think it's a classic, therefore it adds weight).

I'm not arguing any cause and effect.

I could argue the personal reasons why I like it, but I prefered to use something a little more concrete than my subjective opinion.

We have a miscommunication here.

So, I'm not going to 'bait you' or any of that -- But perhaps I just need time out for a while, so I might take a little leave from the forums for a week or so.

I appologise to bspeers for saying he sounded like a 'pompus arsehole' -- I misread his 'masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck' comment. (In all fairness, we've both called each other names like that in the past, so it's only natural to assume so).

I hope this clears up everything

I use the term 'classic' in a slightly different manner than the usual. For me, a classic is a film that is timeless - it cannot look out-dated. Such as 2001, Brazil or Pulp Fiction. However, other movies I like such as LotR, Matrix (the first) or my favourite action flick Die Hard are bound to promise nothing new sooner or later. And as you can understand from the "Barcik definition", very few adventure/action movies are list of classics.

I dig the Barcik definition!

Dear DG,

I used to visit these boards frequently, but have had a recent extended absence.  I've returned, but one of my old friends is asking me about turning one of his posts into a weekly Competition-like thing in the Comps and Activities thread.  I know that our forefathers died so that I'd have the right to vote, but I'm not sure what to do.

How should I vote?



--Mister P____

Vote NAY! -- He sounds like an utter twat!

And if he's a friend of yours, you're a fool to even associate with such a cretin!

Dear Daniel,

How many eggs do I need to do an omlette?

Yours faithfully,
Boris

You don't need any eggs to do an omlette -- just some lube and a vibrating bed.

Make sure you give your omlette some foreplay first, such as teasing the nipples and rubbing the thighs.

However, if you really wish to use eggs, I suggest a whisk for beating them, but that's pretty damn kinky!

But whatever happens, don't forget to tell your omlette you still will respect it in the morning -- But don't eat it!

Dear DG,

Do black guys really have bigger dicks than white guys? If so, why are we TRYING TO STOP RACISM?

Don't you remember those immortal words by Martin Luthur King?

"I have a dream... that all white men will be envious over the size of our dicks!"

And how so! -- Man, that Luther King sure is a soothsayer!

You see, racism was just a front -- It was all about penis envy.

Luckily, white men are starting to realise that it's okay to have a tiny dick, which brings me to my next question:

Dear DG,

Do white guys really have smaller dicks than us black guys? If so....then why....er...

Seriously, they do have smaller dicks -- I looked at mine recently: very small, like a shrivelled sardine.

However, white guys have bigger testicles so it all balances out in a ying-yang kinda way.

As for Asian guys, they give good head.

* DGMacphee dreams of Gilbert...

AGS SUCKCKCKS!!1!

RGPMAYKER 2000 SI TEH BESTEST!!!!1!

I MAYKE TEH 1000 HOUR RPG AND YUO IS SUCKCK TEH PENISH!!1!!!

[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: "NINJAS!!1!"

Very easy one -- It's like the C-Leks vs the Ninjas thread from ages ago.

Simply Ninjafy an adventure game character.

Go crazy!

Deer DG,

Why do you have antlers?

I think the more important question is "Where do I have antlers?"  



I just had a realy crazy idea -- Why don't I turn this into a weekly Competition-like thing in the Comps and Activities thread.

Each week someone different gives the worst possible tech support they can to people.

What do you all think?

bspeers:
I did say both the quotes you mentioned, it is true.

And yes, SSH's argument counters my opinion of Lucas as a talented writer.

However, I still maintain my belief that his writing in past films show his brilliance (American Grafitti and THX-1138 as examples).

SSH, can counter this argument, sure (and his point of view has as much merit as mine or anyone elses) -- But I'm not going to immediately jump out of my chair and scream "YUO AERS RIGHT, LUCAS AERS TEH HACK WRITER!!1!"

I acknowledge Lucas' recent Star Wars films are poorly written -- However, that doesn't mean his talent suddenly disappears.

BTW, don't you find it ironic that you of all people are calling me a "masturbatory intellectual poofter fuck"?  

It's like a blind man telling another blind man his eyesight is fucked.

Anyway, it's great to see you again on you weekly midnight troll, Blake -- But next time you call someone a pompus arsehole, don't sound like a pompus arsehole.  





And just to show I can accept another person's argument, blake, I typed a response to Quintaros' post, but my McAfee's update wouldn't let me post it before -- So, here it is:

The reason I dispute the Oscars as a factor in whether a film is classic or not is that Oscars are handed out within a year of the films release. A films status as a classic takes time to be established. Most of your other points on the list were valid because they illustrated that 20 years later Raiders was still in the filmgoing publics mind.

I agree totally here.

I only brought the Oscar up as a point of historical significance.

The Oscars may not indicate high quality, but they are voted by people in the industry -- Thus, the nods for Raiders cement it's place in history among the many films voted industry sepcialists.

These people regarded it highly at the time -- Thus, it's historical significance plays a part in proving the classic status of the film.

I think its funny that you describe Titanic as an "over-produced, mass-marketed piece of drivel" and then defend the Oscars. Maybe its just me but I think the Academy Awards ceremony is the most over-produced piece of drivel coming out of the film industry.

Welcome to Hollywood -- leave your shoes at the door!  

Okay, I'm back!

hello,

just wanted to know what to do about personal feminine itching?

What the hell is 'personal feminine itching'?

Can't you itch like a man for crying out loud?!

And why is it 'personal'??

Is there a 'public feminine itching' too?

Man, you need help, which is why I recommend prison!

Dear DG

Hey, well.. I guess I'll just get too it... There's this stupid post that appeared on AGS GEN GEN and well since i'm a mod of that same forum [i won't tell you who i am! this is anonymous right?] well since I'm a mod on that forum I really want to lock it...

I mean really... What should I do?

Confused With Power

Yeah, I'm getting damn sick and tired of that rodekill posting all that crap too.

You should not only lock his post but ban him altogether!

Then hunt him for game -- Yeah, that'll REALLY make him pee!

Dear DgGGG,

Do chicks Really dig Scars?

Some chicks I know even dig post-mortem scars.

Dear Ms Macphee

My socks keep dropping fluff on the carpet.  What I want to know is: should I have salt with my chips?

What the???

Is this some secret code for 'I want to commit necrophilia but don't know how?'

Either way, you should seek professional councilling from this guy:



I heard he "nips problems in the butt".

What are the chords to Cracklin' Rosie, and why am I always inaudible above the music when I sing that deep "Oh I love my Rosie child" part?

Part B:  Balls?

I think it goes something like: duh-dum-duh-duh-dadadada-something-something-lalalala-du-DUH-DUH-LAAAAAAA!

Also, if you are inaudible, sing louder, even if your parents crash your room with Uzis and tell you to shut up -- If it worked for Celine Dion, it'll work for you.

Also:

DG my dearing darling,

How about we get out together and have a nice swim in the Mediterranian Sea? Maybe we can dive in the water and discover teh wonderful city of Atlantis!1!

This is a terrible problem you have -- I recommend a perscription of Echinacea!

That'll clear those sinuses of yours!

DG,

I keep getting a boner when i play with the dog... Am I into Beastiality???

Teh Dog Humperer...

I'd be more worried if the dog is getting a boner while playing with you.



Helping people sure is rewarding!

Man, Tech Support is HARD!

dear mr macphee,

there's this guy... erm, girl who i really fancy, but I'm too scared to ask them out. Can you help?

yours,
sleepless

Yes, I can -- What you must do is kidnap her and put her in a large pit.

This will give her time to fall madly in love with you while you make a jacket from the skin of your victims.

Make sure you give her plenty of lotion and watch out that she doesn't hold your dog hostage.

Dear Sex Master DGMacphee,

My current 'love' affair, if you will, I just learned told my ex whom I was madly in love with that we where doing things behind her back causing her breakup with me. Now, I have an ex who hates me and thinks I'm an asshole and a lying female demanding sex from me. What do I do?

Thanks for the advice ahead of time so I can revoke it,
Guy who needs to get laid with a girl that isnt a bitch.

Oh man, the answer here is so damn simple, and it'll make things fair for everyone.

What you must do is cheat on your current 'love' affair with your ex.

Then the 'love' affair can cheat on you with your ex.

Then I go to the bathroom with some K-Y Jelly.

...

Excuse me...

Dear Auntie DG,

I keep arguing with someone I am secretly in love with and picking pedantic holes in their English usage, what should I do?

Hugs and Kisses,

SSH

Look up the word 'Hari-kari', then commit it.

I can't sleep and I think one of my files has a virus but I can't access it to delete it

heheh

You are me -- Therefore, you are so awesome and don't need Tech Support!

So, go away!

I need a device which can be used to connect a USB device to serial or parellar port. Where can I find one?

Try Mappomedia Industries -- They have everything!

http://mappomedia.tripod.com/

If Mappomedia doesn't have what you are looking for, just jam the USB socket into the hole and beat your computer with a cricket bat.

If your computer reports that it is faulty from repeated beatings with a cricket bat, then don't worry, that is just probably a front for some spyware that's installed on your computer.

You said he was a talented writer. I assumed that you mean that his talent was in writing by putting those two words next to each other, but you now seem to be saying that he was a writer who has talent in other areas...

I said: "He has loads of talent in creating a great cinematic experience."

That includes writing (Unless films just magically appear without a script, which I guess they always do in Hollywood!).

So, stop twisting my words around.

And that is the nub of it. The rest of what you said is about Raiders being great becuase lots of people think its great. Wrong way around. Lots of people think its great becuase it is great. Lots of people thought Ben Johnson was a great athlete, but turned out to be wrong. However, Carl Lewis was agreat athlete and lots of pople thought that too. Cause and effect.

Which is why I was arguing.

We're arguing the same point then.

I brought those "people thinking Raiders is great" as evidence it is a great movie.

I'm not demonstrating cause and effect -- I'm showing that the two are relational, which is also what you're arguing.

Like I said, you're only arguing these pedantic points just for the sake of arguing, probably because you have nothing better to do that to form a REAL argument.

It's the people of Atlanta I feel sorry for, having Victor Fleming explot their city buring down for  a love story, not to mention all those slave who the war was about...

And don't get me started on all those who died in WW2 being exploited by Casablanca...

But Casablanca and Gone With The Wind aren't superficial tales of love.

Titanic was a teen-pop love story -- Jack meet girl, Jack gets the girl (even though he dies, her heart goes on with his memory inside yadda yadda yadda).

But Rick didn't get the girl in the end.

A Rhett ended "not giving a damn" about the girl.

That's worth the exploitation -- both those love stories have substance to them.

Titanic was superficial and you can never exploit something like death for something so superficial.

I wasn't trying to say that all Robin Williams movies must therefore be sentimental, but plenty are:

GWH, What Dreams may Come, Awakenings, Patch Adams, Mrs Doubtfire, Bicentennial Man

Aye, I was just using your method of mocking your arguments without providing any real substance.

Once again, you say "people like this" and you don't know me. And my point was that you are arguing that the effect proves the cause, which seems to have passed you by completely. Argue that Raiders is great because it has good effects but not becuase it won and award for its effects. Howerver, that can be used as evidence that it does indeed have good effects.

I am not arguing that effect has a cause -- you're just being pedantic again i.e. arguing for the sake of arguing.

I said that Raiders is a classic, here is my proof, boom-boom.

I never said Raiders BECAME great because it won Oscars, got put on critics' lists, and all the other reasons I listed, etc, etc.

Like I said, you're just looking for things to argue about.

Now cut it out.

Hello, and welcome to my Tech Support thread.

I will answer any technical questions you may have no problems.

I give 100% top-notch feedback for your problems, whatever they may be.

Have a look at these satisfied customers:
http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=9261

The best part is it's free!

So ask me anything: Problems with the computer, trouble with the love life, want to know what that lint is always doing in your buttcrack -- No question is too difficult for DG!

So, start asking now!

NOW!!!

The problem is the game thinks you smell bad -- go have a shower!

Man, this tech support stuff is so damn easy!

What!  how dare you take credit for the only games I've released.  I'll soon be releasing Fountain of Youth and Stickmen 2  

That's BS cause I'm making FOY and Stickmen 2!

I'll be releasing them soon through my Mappomedia division of DGMacphee Designs!

Lucas is a great ideas man, that I can agree with. That he is a great writer, I find more difficult to accept.

Then like I said, you've obviously never seen THX-1138 or American Grafitti.

Well, I was trying to check whether you did mean "prolific" as a reason fo rthe movie being great. And what I disagreed with about Lucas was whether he was a great writer which IS what you wrote.

No, I said he's talented, which he is.

He has loads of talent in creating a great cinematic experience.

In the last decade or so, he's made poor choices, which is no reflection on his talent as such, just a reflection on his judgement.

Oscars do not a great movie make.

But the majority of great movies do win Oscars

However, I do think that Titanic is great. I could quote awards, box-office, etc. but the reason it is great is this: a huge number of people who saw Titanic went back to see it again and again, not just on DVD or Video but in the cinema. The reason they did this is becuase Cameron crafted a movie that could have ended oh so differently if the just got to Leo a bit sooner and the audience wanted to believe that next time they saw the movie, it would. It was also a tragedy and all the best stories are tragedies. Most people who don't like Titanic do so out of Leo-envy.

Actually, I didn't really care about the whole Leo.

What I cared about was that it was an over-produced, mass-marketed piece of drivell full of plot holes.

But even that was insignificant when I realised that Cameron was exploiting the people on the Titanic for a FUCKING LOVE STORY about two people that didn't exist.

Imagine if Speilberg did the same thing for Schindler's List -- He'd be crucified!

Of these, only LA Confidential has any greatness. The others are Sentimental, Depressing and Stereotypical and Sentimental respectively. Are you trying to say that Good Will Hunting wasn't as sentimental as Titanic? It had Robin Williams in it!

By your logic here, One Hour Photo is a tear-jerker

I don't see how having Robin Williams in it makes a film a sentimental film.

What I am saying is that Good Will Hunting managed to be sentimental (which isn't a bad thing per se) without being an overproduced piece of drivel like Titanic.

It was an indie film at the time -- Affleck and Damon were virtually outsiders to the whole Hollywood system.

But it was an indie film that became a hit, which is a great thing.

The Full Monty -- I don't see what's wrong with this film as it was intelligently written, well directed, and contained some very above-average performances -- Plus, it's was funny.

As Good As it Gets -- Likewise, well written, a great performance by Jack Nicholson, and it was funny.

I think Raiders is a great movie. I never said it wasn't.

So why are you arguing in the first place?

This was ironic, trying to mock your assertion that all parodies are rip-offs. Sorry that you took it seriously.

Hmmm, backtracking by trying to redefine a derogatory term you used first yourself, eh?

Why don't you read the context of what I say before jumping to conclusions and mocking my assertions.

I said that parodies are a rip-off in response to Barcik's claim that the Godfather hasn't been totaly ripped-off.

I didn't mean it in a derogitory sense (and if you'll ACTUALLY READ BACK you'll see I mean that), and to back that up I can include a list of parodies/rip-offs I find funny: The Naked Gun, Austin Powers, Casino Royale, The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou, etc.

Your problem is you automatically assume I'm being derogitroy when I'm not, and also when I'm phrasing in response to someone else as well (Crap, I wasn't even talking to you, pal).

So don't start pointing the bone, accusing me of backtracking -- I've done nothing of the sort.

So, go mock something else, you psuedo-intellectual!



In fact, let me get this straight: You think Raiders is a good movie, but you're arguing with my points of view on why it's a classic anyway?

You see, your problem is that you just want to argue for the sake for arguing, not because you actually have a conclusive point -- No, no, you just want to pick apart minor details in someone else's argument just because you've got nothing better to do then try and act intelligent.

Well, I've stated the reasons why Raiders is a classic and all exist mutually, as I've said previously.

If that's not good enough for you, fine -- go compile your own list.

But so far, I've responded quite well to all your four arguments-for-the-sake-of-arguing, and my list still stands firm.

See, people like this tick me off -- They act like smartalecs, but never actually come to any conclusive argument thst increases understanding.

Shit, I'd be happier if you were someone who hated Raiders completely and wanted to write down a reason against every point I mentioned in my list.

But even if you did, I've got AMPAS backing up my argument, the AFI, the Smithsonian, John Williams lovers, Roger Ebert, a host of other critics, plus an extensive amount of film knowledge spanning courses and workshops in high school and university.

What have you got to back up your opinion?

Zip -- You provided nothing at all to give your argument any credibility whatsoever!

So, in the words of the great Andy Penis: "I AERS TEH BESTEST AND YOU EAT GRANDPAS SLIPEREY TREETS!!1!!"

Aye, but it's a factor in consideration for a classic.

People seem to think I'm basing Indy's classic status purely on it's Oscar nominations, which I'm not.

The Oscar nominations play a small part in determining its classic status.

If people who wish to criticise only one point (such as it's Oscar nods), please re-read the entire list because I'm basing my opinion on the total combination of these factors.

I don't see anyone disputing the numerous AFI lists, nor the rottentomatoes.com scoring, nor John Williams' music, nor the memorabilia points (the auction and the Smithsoian inclusion).

No, everyone is SOOO focused on the Oscars because, hey, they're bribed by corperate big-wig producers who want to win a gold statuette.

(By the way, this seems to be ceasing this year as the AMPAS pres, Frank Pierson is cracking down of Oscar 'gift baskets' from producers to Academy members -- Also, MPAA pres Jack Velenti is cracking down on piracy, so VHS screeners will be sent to acdemy members only and none to the press or any other similar agents -- Expect a less marketised and commerical Oscar race this year).

Anyway, my point this: Look at the sum total of my list -- the total combination of those factors make Indy as much a classic film as Casablanca, On The Water Front, The Godfather, Ben Hur, Taxi Driver, or Schindler's List.

It's also what seperates it from non-classic films like, say, The Truth About Cats and Dogs.

Or there's just good marketing, and as usual all awards are doctored in some way (plus the way they are chosen, it's just a popularity contest, and the oascars are totally illegitamate [it's just who the academy want to promote/exploit in the near future]), a bit of money here and there, and Bradman's average was 99.94

I think the combination of the numerous aspects of the film I've discussed (awards, critical evaluation, talent, and spin-offs), you'll see that it's a bit more than just good marketing.

Also keep in mind that the majority of Oscar winning (an nominated) films get remembered more so than films that don't get any nominations.

So, they do count for something.

Ummmm.... being prolific isn't necessarily a good thing: it just means yo umade a lot. Now, Speilberg is a great director, but that aint what you said.

But you've essentially proven my point anyway, so why be critical and mince with my words?

It's pretty pedantic if you ask me.

But it's also hypocritical, if you'll read my next response.

Lucas a great writer? His dialogue is infamous.

Then you obviously have never seen THX-1138 or American Graffiti.

Also, writing a screenplay isn't just dialogue -- There's character, story, action, movement and subtext, which are facets where Lucas excells.

Also, keep in mind I said "conceived" by three of the most talenter writers -- Lucas didn't actually write it but came up with the story (One of Lucas' stronger points) with Phil Kauffman.

Kasdan wrote the script, including dialogue.

I find it hypocritical that first off you you criticise me for using the wrong word, then in the next breath you don't properly read my actual words in your next response.

It sounds like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Is Titanic a great movie?

What's you're point here?

So you've picked one over-bloated, manipulative tear-jerker when you've ignored the fact that so many quality movies also get nominated (and keep in mind Raiders was a nominee, not a winner for Best picture).

In fact, in the same year as Titanic, you had four great films: LA Confidential, Good Will Hunting, The Full Monty, and As Good As It Gets.

As for Best Picture winners (if you want to go that far), keep in mind for every Titanic you have an American Beauty or a Schindlers List or an Unforgiven or a Silence of The lambs or a Last Emeperor or an Amadeus or a One Flew Over The Cukoo's Nest or a Marty or an On The Waterfront.

In fact, let's also look at the year Raiders was nominated -- The Best Pictures for that year were: Chariots of Fire (the winner), On Golden Pond, Atlantic City, Reds, and of course Raiders.

That's some pretty stiff competition for the year.

And even though Chariots took out Best Picture, and Warren Beatty took out Best Direction for Reds, Raiders is still a more well-known film than either the two.

So your whole Titanic theory totally sucks, SSH, because for every Titanic there's about 10 or 20 other worthy films in the Oscar race (Raiders included) that get ignored by people like you.

I count tributes as a total ripoff

I guess you also think O Brother, Where Art Thou is a total rip-off as it's a tribute to Preston Sturges films?

You probably also think Sergio Leone totally rip-offs films as he pays tribute to Akira Kurosawa constantly?

And lets not forget Woody Allen, who's been paying tribute to Fellini for years -- He is a total rip-off master!

Scorsese paid tribute to Godard in Taxi Driver,  Coppola paid tribute to Hitchcock in The Conversation, Jackie Chan paid tribute to Buster Keaton in Project A II -- ALL THESE GREAT FILMS ARE TOTAL RIP-OFFS ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC!

So, fine, let's accept your definition here -- tributes are total rip-offs

But let me tell you something: tributes (and any kind of total rip-offs) aren't a bad thing.

If you think otherwise, you don't know movies, pal.

Yeap, I made those games.

The problem is your computer sucks -- throw it down a salt mine and buy a new one!