#3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys

#2 2001 Space Oddessy.

#1 Dune.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys

  What is that? IMDB doesn't know it.

  For some reason when I watched Blade Runner, I found it incomprehensible.
The book was a lot more comprehensible. (I don't remember which one I saw/read
first...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys

There's a movie called "The Island" and another one called "Twelve monkeys",
and then there's a movie about one single monkey on an island but really
it's an ape and it's called "King Kong". Which one didn't you understand? Or 
the 3 of them?

>
> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.

You didn't get the name right either.

> #1 Dune.

Well, you got this one right, but that's a 4-letter title.

Did you see the movie "Pi"?  It's only one letter in greek and about maths, 
I guess you should get it :D

G.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys
> 
>   What is that? IMDB doesn't know it.

It involves Bruce Willis in a dystopian future and a team of scientists 
who keep sending him back in time to try to avert the terrorist 
catastrophy that overtook civilisation - apparently perpetrated by a 
band calling themselves "the island of the twelve monkeys". As it turns 
out, this band is actually a bunch of kids out to cause a bit of 
trouble, and the real catastrophy was brought about by an eminent 
biological scientist who decided to murder the world. For no defined 
reason. Obviously nobody believes that Willis is actually from the 
future, and he slowly goes mad, eventually believing that his time spent 
in the future is actually a hollucination.

Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.

>   For some reason when I watched Blade Runner, I found it incomprehensible.
> The book was a lot more comprehensible. (I don't remember which one I saw/read
> first...)

I think I'd class that one more as "rather hard to follow" rather than 
actually "incomprehensible".

Dune made absolutely no semblence of sence. I mean, events happen, and 
the events kind of vaguely make sense, but WHY are these events 
happening? And who ARE these people? And WTF is going ON here? I'm lost! 
Ditto for 2001. (Seemingly a random selection of camera angles.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:08:24 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Warp wrote:
>> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys
>>    What is that? IMDB doesn't know it.

Just IMDB Twelve Monkeys instead.

> It involves Bruce Willis in a dystopian future and a team of scientists  
> who keep sending him back in time to try to avert the terrorist  
> catastrophy that overtook civilisation - apparently perpetrated by a  
> band calling themselves "the island of the twelve monkeys". As it turns  
> out, this band is actually a bunch of kids out to cause a bit of  
> trouble, and the real catastrophy was brought about by an eminent  
> biological scientist who decided to murder the world. For no defined  
> reason. Obviously nobody believes that Willis is actually from the  
> future, and he slowly goes mad, eventually believing that his time spent  
> in the future is actually a hollucination.
>
> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.

I really enjoyed it, for the first half of the film you're unsure whether  
Willis is really a time-traveller or just nuts, for the second half that  
all gets cleared up. I can't say more without spoiling it.

>>   For some reason when I watched Blade Runner, I found it  
>> incomprehensible.
>> The book was a lot more comprehensible. (I don't remember which one I  
>> saw/read
>> first...)
>
> I think I'd class that one more as "rather hard to follow" rather than  
> actually "incomprehensible".

I've got to admit for me BR was a bit too artsy; don't get me wrong I  
enjoy/ed it, but at times it seems/ed to be art for the sake of art. Meh.

> Dune made absolutely no semblence of sence. I mean, events happen, and  
> the events kind of vaguely make sense, but WHY are these events  
> happening? And who ARE these people? And WTF is going ON here? I'm lost!

To me the film with Sting had the contradictionary stance of a) not  
following the book's plot except in general, while b) only making sense if  
you'd read the book; not helped by having to cram it all into a keeping  
bums-on-seats time. The longer mini-series is much better.

> Ditto for 2001. (Seemingly a random selection of camera angles.)

Again I liked 2001 even if the first time I saw it I couldn't make head  
nor tail of it; it grew on me.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
>> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys
> 
> There's a movie called "The Island" and another one called "Twelve monkeys",
> and then there's a movie about one single monkey on an island but really
> it's an ape and it's called "King Kong". Which one didn't you understand? Or 
> the 3 of them?

LOL!

Well King Kong is pretty easy to understand. I've never seen The Island, 
so I'm guessing the middle one.

>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
> 
> You didn't get the name right either.

In what way?

>> #1 Dune.
> 
> Well, you got this one right, but that's a 4-letter title.
> 
> Did you see the movie "Pi"?

No - but I own the soundtrack. (Which is mostly of a pretty low quality.)

> It's only one letter in greek and about maths, 
> I guess you should get it :D

I suspect it's actually *not* about maths, but about some theory that 
behind all the equations there's some amazing secret to be discovered, 
and this is what the film revolves around. But that's only from my 
impression of the soundtrack...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys

You mean 12 Monkeys. It's not supposed to make sense til the end.

> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.

Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the other
2.
What was confusing about this anyway?

> #1 Dune.

Try reading the book. Just don't bother with any of the sequels.

FWIW, I watched and loved all three, and had no problems understanding them
(at the end, you're supposed to be asking questions while watching).

That said, they're not straight forward no-thought-required movies and, I
believe, a lot of the attraction of them would be lost if they were

Post a reply to this message

Invisible a écrit :
> Warp wrote:
>> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys
>>
>>   What is that? IMDB doesn't know it.
> 
> It involves Bruce Willis in a dystopian future and a team of scientists 
> who keep sending him back in time to try to avert the terrorist 
> catastrophy that overtook civilisation - apparently perpetrated by a 
> band calling themselves "the island of the twelve monkeys". As it turns 
> out, this band is actually a bunch of kids out to cause a bit of 
> trouble, and the real catastrophy was brought about by an eminent 
> biological scientist who decided to murder the world. For no defined 
> reason. Obviously nobody believes that Willis is actually from the 
> future, and he slowly goes mad, eventually believing that his time spent 
> in the future is actually a hollucination.
> 
> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.
> 

I think you mean "Twelve Monkeys":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/

Actually the name of the terrorist band should be "the army of the 
twelve monkeys". It's also the French title of the movie :-)

I've seen it on the TV and found it not so bad...

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys
> > 
> >   What is that? IMDB doesn't know it.

> It involves Bruce Willis

  The name of the movie is "Twelve Monkeys". I don't understand where
you got the "island" part. I don't even remember the world "island"
being even mentioned in the movie.

> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.

  Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen. If I remember
correctly, I have seen it 4 times, and each time I have got something
new from it.

  The very first time you see it there might be things which are difficult
to understand (it becomes much clearer on a second viewing). However,
I really don't understand what you mean with "incomprehensible".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" wrote:
> It involves Bruce Willis in a dystopian future and a team of scientists 
> who keep sending him back in time to try to avert the terrorist 
> catastrophy that overtook civilisation - apparently perpetrated by a band 
> calling themselves "the island of the twelve monkeys". As it turns out, 
> this band is actually a bunch of kids out to cause a bit of trouble, and 
> the real catastrophy was brought about by an eminent biological scientist 
> who decided to murder the world. For no defined reason. Obviously nobody 
> believes that Willis is actually from the future, and he slowly goes mad, 
> eventually believing that his time spent in the future is actually a 
> hollucination.
>
> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.

I think it's a very good film (one of my favorites) that mostly makes sense 
just fine. Certainly, the time travel logic used makes a lot more sense than 
in most other movies with time travel, i.e. it doesn't contradict itself.

The "beauty" of the time travel story here is the recurring dream he has 
about some man dying at an airport. The dream is caused by him witnessing 
this stranger dying at an airport as a child, and in the end of the movie, 
it turns out that the man is actually himself. So as a child he witnessed 
his older self dying and the scene keeps coming back to him in his dreams.

> and the real catastrophy was brought about by an eminent biological 
> scientist who decided to murder the world. For no defined reason.

Sounds like something that could happen in the real world to me. Some people 
*are* weird and take very strange decisions.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
>>> 
>>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>>
>> You didn't get the name right either.
> 
> In what way?
> 

You really deserve this one.  http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
>  Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen.

Wow, we have a common favorite movie, despite our often very different 
tastes. :P

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:

> I think you mean "Twelve Monkeys":
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114746/
> 
> Actually the name of the terrorist band should be "the army of the 
> twelve monkeys". It's also the French title of the movie :-)

Hmm. You could be right. Damn, where did I get "island" from...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

> You mean 12 Monkeys. It's not supposed to make sense til the end.

It didn't make sense even at the end.

But then, the film was so unrelentingly depressing that by then I'd 
given up *trying* to understand it.

>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
> 
> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the other
> 2.
> What was confusing about this anyway?

First there's some monkeys hitting a large black brick. Then there's a 
baby floating in space. Then there's something approximating a bad acid 
trip. There's also a computer who calls everybody "Dave".

Um... wuh??

>> #1 Dune.
> 
> Try reading the book. Just don't bother with any of the sequels.

It does look like the kind of film where they tried to fit a giant story 
into quite a short film - with the result that it makes almost no sense 
at all. (Unless you already know what's going to happen.)

[BTW, did you ever watch the "extended" versions of the three LotR 
films? My God, they make *so* much more sense! Although, to watch all 
three, you had better have a big bowl of popcorn... it's something 
absurd like 9 hours in total.]

> FWIW, I watched and loved all three, and had no problems understanding them
> (at the end, you're supposed to be asking questions while watching).

I was. ;-) Questions like "who is that guy?", "what just happened?", and 
"what is this film *about* anyway?"

> That said, they're not straight forward no-thought-required movies and, I
> believe, a lot of the attraction of them would be lost if they were

Thinking I don't mind so much. Not being entirely sure why something 
happened I can handle. Having no clue what on earth you're watching 
isn't so much fun...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>> It involves Bruce Willis
> 
>   The name of the movie is "Twelve Monkeys". I don't understand where
> you got the "island" part. I don't even remember the world "island"
> being even mentioned in the movie.

Seems I mis-remembered "army" as "island" somehow... weird.

>> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.
> 
>   Twelve Monkeys is one of the best movies I have seen.

Figures.

Clearly you and I have very different tastes in film. ;-)

>   The very first time you see it there might be things which are difficult
> to understand (it becomes much clearer on a second viewing). However,
> I really don't understand what you mean with "incomprehensible".

I mean it was cryptic beyond my powers of comprehension. [Aside from 
being rather disturbing and generally unpleasent.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   The very first time you see it there might be things which are difficult
> > to understand (it becomes much clearer on a second viewing). However,
> > I really don't understand what you mean with "incomprehensible".

> I mean it was cryptic beyond my powers of comprehension.

  I could write a sarcastic and mean comment on your powers of
comprehension, but I'll skip it this time. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:29 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>  
<"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:

>
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the  
> other
> 2.
> What was confusing about this anyway?

'Oh yes despite not having read the book I completely understood what the  
chimps and the space baby were all about'

>> #1 Dune.
>
> Try reading the book. Just don't bother with any of the sequels.

Does that make me a heretic if I said I actually prefered Children and  
God-Emperor then :-) I just enjoyed the ways they tried to answer some of  
the paradoxes of prediction and offered some possible solutions.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:477e2f0f$1@news.povray.org...
>
> >> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
> >
> > You didn't get the name right either.
>
> In what way?

2001: A Space Odyssey

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:477e3b03$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> >> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
> >
> > Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the
other
> > 2.
> > What was confusing about this anyway?
>
> First there's some monkeys hitting a large black brick.

The monolith on earth, sparking tool usage in proto-humans and kick-starting
the whole human race.

> Then there's a
> baby floating in space.

OK, I don't remember that. Wait, wasn't that at the end, after Dave
sees/falls into the monolith?

> Then there's something approximating a bad acid
> trip.

You mean the space trip to IO to investigate the monolith? Or the end where
Dave's experiencing the monolith.

> There's also a computer who calls everybody "Dave".

No. It only calls Dave, Dave. But then, seeing as it's killed everyone else,
there's not really anyone else to speak to.
btw, the computer's name was HAL 9000

The whole theme of the movie/book is evolution of mankind. Natural or
forced.

> Um... wuh??

Seriously, read the book. It's by Arthur C. Clark. Read Odyssey Two as well.

There's some good comments on the movie here
http://www.bautforum.com/small-media-large/4510-meaning-2001-space-odyssey.h
tml

> It does look like the kind of film where they tried to fit a giant story
> into quite a short film - with the result that it makes almost no sense
> at all. (Unless you already know what's going to happen.)

It is quite a long book. Forget the movie version of it. it wasn't great.
See if you can find the mini series version (4 parts) That's quite good and

> [BTW, did you ever watch the "extended" versions of the three LotR
> films? My God, they make *so* much more sense!

Yes a few times, but seeing as I've read all the books more than once, they
made sense anyway.
Though there are long pieces in the movie that aren't in the books at all.

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.t4etagikc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:29 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
> <"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:

> > What was confusing about this anyway?
>
> 'Oh yes despite not having read the book I completely understood what the
> chimps and the space baby were all about'

I did. I read the book after watching the movie. Understood if better after
the book, but the movies didn't leave me going Huh???

>
> Does that make me a heretic if I said I actually prefered Children and
> God-Emperor then :-) I just enjoyed the ways they tried to answer some of
> the paradoxes of prediction and offered some possible solutions.

Not at all. I ran out of patience on the 3rd book. I really prefered the
first one.
Each to their own.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>> I mean it was cryptic beyond my powers of comprehension.
> 
>   I could write a sarcastic and mean comment on your powers of
> comprehension, but I'll skip it this time. ;)

TY. :-}

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:

>> First there's some monkeys hitting a large black brick.
> 
> The monolith on earth, sparking tool usage in proto-humans and kick-starting
> the whole human race.

Oh, is that what that's supposed to be. (What is this monolith thing, 
and why is it there?)

>> Then there's a
>> baby floating in space.
> 
> OK, I don't remember that. Wait, wasn't that at the end, after Dave
> sees/falls into the monolith?

Possibly... I don't really remember now.

>> Then there's something approximating a bad acid
>> trip.
> 
> You mean the space trip to IO to investigate the monolith?

Oh, is *that* why they went there? (And that's where "there" was...)

> Or the end where Dave's experiencing the monolith.

Again, I'm not sure exactly where. But I do remember Futurama did a 
parody that was quite amusing...

>> There's also a computer who calls everybody "Dave".
> 
> No. It only calls Dave, Dave. But then, seeing as it's killed everyone else,
> there's not really anyone else to speak to.
> btw, the computer's name was HAL 9000

or IBM 8999, if you prefer. ;-)

> The whole theme of the movie/book is evolution of mankind. Natural or
> forced.

Right. This wasn't evident from the film at all.

>> Um... wuh??
> 
> Seriously, read the book. It's by Arthur C. Clark. Read Odyssey Two as well.

I did read *a* sequal book - but sure exactly which one. It was quite 
depressing, but otherwise fairly incoherant and... wait, was there meant 
to be a point?

>> It does look like the kind of film where they tried to fit a giant story
>> into quite a short film - with the result that it makes almost no sense
>> at all. (Unless you already know what's going to happen.)
> 
> It is quite a long book. Forget the movie version of it. it wasn't great.
> See if you can find the mini series version (4 parts) That's quite good and

Certainly it looks like the book might well be better than the film. The 
*film* was, as I said, incomprehensible.

>> [BTW, did you ever watch the "extended" versions of the three LotR
>> films? My God, they make *so* much more sense!
> 
> Yes a few times, but seeing as I've read all the books more than once, they
> made sense anyway.
> Though there are long pieces in the movie that aren't in the books at all.

The final film seems to consist of about 45 minutes of intense battle, 
followed by 8 hours of "saying goodbye"...

I've never read the books, but I'm guessing it's not like that. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys
> >
> >   What is that? IMDB doesn't know it.
>
> It involves Bruce Willis in a dystopian future and a team of scientists
> who keep sending him back in time to try to avert the terrorist
> catastrophy that overtook civilisation - apparently perpetrated by a
> band calling themselves "the island of the twelve monkeys".

It's just Twelve Monkeys.  where did you get the island from?

BTW, it's another terrific movie by ex-Monthy Python Terry Gilliam.  Try his
"Brazil" or "The fisher king" (or something like that) for far more
"incomprehensible" stuff...

if you want a really incomprehensible movie, watch the Blender-made "Elephant's
Dreams" CG movie... depressing waste of CG...

hmm, come to think of it, Final Fantasy:  Advent Child is pretty
incomprehensible for non-fans too... seems like there are too many CG artists
out there while most good story tellers are busy at Pixar...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> hmm, come to think of it, Final Fantasy:  Advent Child is pretty
> incomprehensible for non-fans too... seems like there are too many CG artists
> out there while most good story tellers are busy at Pixar...

No idea about Advent Child - but Spirits Within was fairly hard to 
follow. While still managing to be awesom to watch. Until the end, where 
you just want to go slit your throat to end the misery...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:477e49fd$1@news.povray.org...

> Oh, is that what that's supposed to be. (What is this monolith thing,
> and why is it there?)

Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.

> Oh, is *that* why they went there? (And that's where "there" was...)

Did you sleep through the first half or something?

> The final film seems to consist of about 45 minutes of intense battle,
> followed by 8 hours of "saying goodbye"...
>
> I've never read the books, but I'm guessing it's not like that. ;-)
>

Pretty much is. In the books, book 5 mostly concerns Gondor and all that
happened there, and book 6 mostly follows the happenings of the hobbits

The battle of Pellanor fields starts on page 83 of the edition I have and
ends around page 140.
The goodbyes start on page 301 and the last page of the book is 378. But
then a lot happens in that that was left out of the movie. The movie did
stretch the ending out far too long. There were so many more things they
could have put in from the book, that they didn't.

(pages 200-300 are Sam and Frodo's trip across Mordor to Mount Doom)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> #3 Island of the Twelve Monkeys
>
> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
> #1 Dune.

My List:

#3 Shaolin Invincible Guys:
  (My friends and I had a contest that went on for years to find
  THE worst martial arts film ever made. Upon showing this turkey,
  the contest was pronounced over and I was declared victorious.)

#2 The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover
   (Friendly warning: this film is considered offensive by several folks
   who are generally rather difficult to offend, myself included.)

#1 Outer and Inner Space (Warhol)

======================================

>Invisible <void [at] dev null> wrote:

>  The name of the movie is "Twelve Monkeys".
> I don't understand where
> you got the "island" part. I don't even remember
> the world "island" being even mentioned in the movie.


Sometimes, running film titles together can produce
entertaining results:

“The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Duckling”
“The Naked and the Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid”
“Stuart Little Shop of Horrors”
“North by Northwest Passage to India” (loooong movie)
“All Straw Dogs Go To Heaven” (unlikely scenario)
“The Man Who Would Be King Kong”
“Moby Dick Tracy”
“Agnes of Godzilla”
“My Fair Lady and the Tramp”

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:48:31 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>  
<"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:

>
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
> news:op.t4etagikc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:29 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
>> <"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>
>> > What was confusing about this anyway?
>>
>> 'Oh yes despite not having read the book I completely understood what  
>> the
>> chimps and the space baby were all about'
>
> I did. I read the book after watching the movie. Understood if better  
> after the book, but the movies didn't leave me going Huh???

Well obviously some of us are more intelligent then others, and by some of  
us I mean you and by others I mean me :-)

>> Does that make me a heretic if I said I actually prefered Children and
>> God-Emperor then :-) I just enjoyed the ways they tried to answer some  
>> of
>> the paradoxes of prediction and offered some possible solutions.
>
> Not at all. I ran out of patience on the 3rd book. I really prefered the
> first one.
> Each to their own.

Indeed. The third one does drag until Jacurutu, but the forth amused.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > The monolith on earth, sparking tool usage in proto-humans and kick-starting
> > the whole human race.
>
> Oh, is that what that's supposed to be. (What is this monolith thing,
> and why is it there?)

why are we here?  where do we go?  why things are the way they are?

You seem the kind of fellow who goes watching a movie and asking every little
now and then for little details that got past your head.  I hope not to sit
next to you at the theater... :P

> > You mean the space trip to IO to investigate the monolith?
>
> Oh, is *that* why they went there? (And that's where "there" was...)

I think that's pretty obvious, no?  All that space ballet until they get to the
moon and Dr. Floyd is told of the discovery... then, it cuts to a manned
mission to Jupiter where the tripulants are actually unaware of the real
mission, confided to HAL alone:  to search for the giant monolith near the
giant planet.  Eventually, the crew's mission conflict with HAL's main mission
and the AI becomes "paranoid", so to speak.  The shit hits the fans and it's up
to Dave to turn off HAL to save his life.  In the process he discovers the real
purpose and gets to the monolith to know the truth.  The bad acid trip could be
seen as the monolith opening a worm whole and getting Dave closer for inspection
by the creators...

the old man seeing the baby in the monolith is an alegory for the life cycle...

Think of the monolith as generators of intelligent life and as beacons for when
such intelligent life are ready for contact...

> > The whole theme of the movie/book is evolution of mankind. Natural or
> > forced.
>
> Right. This wasn't evident from the film at all.

Learn to read in-between lines... if you watched more than you asked you'd get
it...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.

I understood 2001.

I am the future.

You will be assimilated.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> Did you see the movie "Pi"?  It's only one letter in greek and about maths, 
> I guess you should get it :D

It's not about Math, it's about Numerology.

A horrible disappointment to someone who actually wanted to see a movie 
about math :(

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> [BTW, did you ever watch the "extended" versions of the three LotR
>> films? My God, they make *so* much more sense!
> 
> Yes a few times, but seeing as I've read all the books more than once, they
> made sense anyway.
> Though there are long pieces in the movie that aren't in the books at all.

Speaking of which, did you get the feeling that the Dwarves were only 
used in the movie for comic relief?  I found it quite disrespectful.

Especially when the Elves show up in Helm's Deep - yay, so the Elves are 
our friends, but the dwarves are too greedy and uncaring, or something.

The book specifically states that neither the Elves nor the Dwarves help 
out the humans, simply because they are already being attacked by Sauron.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> hmm, come to think of it, Final Fantasy:  Advent Child is pretty
> incomprehensible for non-fans too... seems like there are too many CG artists
> out there while most good story tellers are busy at Pixar...

That was a movie?  I thought it was an ad for their new game.

Seriously though, it's not just incomprehensible... it's one of the 
worst movies I have ever seen in my life.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Seriously though, it's not just incomprehensible... it's one of the
> worst movies I have ever seen in my life.

yes, but the CG was top-notch! :)

and if you were a fan of the game, that final battle between Cloud and Sephiroh
was well worth it!

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:51:34 -0000, nemesis  
<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Oh, is *that* why they went there? (And that's where "there" was...)
>
> I think that's pretty obvious, no?  All that space ballet until they get  
> to the
> moon and Dr. Floyd is told of the discovery... then, it cuts to a manned
> mission to Jupiter where the tripulants are actually unaware of the real
> mission, confided to HAL alone:  to search for the giant monolith near  
> the
> giant planet.  Eventually, the crew's mission conflict with HAL's main  
> mission
> and the AI becomes "paranoid", so to speak.  The shit hits the fans and  
> it's up
> to Dave to turn off HAL to save his life.  In the process he discovers  
> the real
> purpose and gets to the monolith to know the truth.  The bad acid trip  
> could be
> seen as the monolith opening a worm whole and getting Dave closer for  
> inspection
> by the creators...

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but you've pretty much summed up  
why in parts the film could be considered incomprehensible...

See the monolith teaches the apes how to build spaceships out of bone,  
they use this to fly to the Moon where they've discovered another  
monolith. Meanwhile on a flight to Jupiter the controlling computer goes  
mad and starts singing "Daisy, Daisy" until the one member of crew who  
hasn't died from bashing his head against the wall pulls the plug and  
thereby discovers another huge monolith floating around Jupiter. Despite  
declaring that "It's full of stars" is does in fact contain a small white  
room in which an old man is looking at a baby. The End.

> the old man seeing the baby in the monolith is an alegory for the life  
> cycle...

Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
....
> Speaking of which, did you get the feeling that the Dwarves were only
> used in the movie for comic relief?  I found it quite disrespectful.
>
....
Not NEARLY as disrespectful as this little song form "Mr. Frito"
in Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings":
===============================================================
  "A King of Elves there was of old,
      Saranrap by name,
  Who slew the Narcs at Mellowmarsh
      And Sorhed's host did tame.

  And with him marched the stubby dwarves
      Drafted from their mines,
  But when the fearsome Battle raged
      They hid behind the lines.

 Sing: Clearasil, metrecal, lavoris in chorus
  They hid behind the lines!

  Angered was the mighty King
      About to raise the dickens,
  'Just let me get my hands,' quoth he,
      'On those half-pint chickens!'

  Fearful were the chicken-Dwarves,
      But mickle crafty too.
  King Yellowbac, their skins to save,
      The elves did try to woo.

 Sing: Twist-a-cap, reynoldswrap, gardol and duz
  The elves he tried to woo!

  'If you doubt our loyalty,'
      Yello told the King,
  'Take this gift, a dwarfish sword
      That packs a mighty sting.

  'Clearasil, it's called by name,'
      The clever Dwarf spoke on,
  'Take this bribe, and let us let
      Bygones be bygone.'

 Sing: Cadillac, pickapack, Edsel and coke
  Bygones be bygone.

  'I accept this wondrous gift
      And think you Dwarves are tops,'
  Said he, as he took the sword
      And smote him in the chops.

  And since that day it's said by all
      In ballad, lay and poem,
  'Only trust an elf or dwarf
      As far as you can throw 'em!'

 Sing: Oxydol, geritol, wheaties and Trix.
  As far as you can throw 'em!"

===============================================================
I'm afraid the Hobbits (Boggies) don't fare much better.:
===============================================================

  "We boggies are a hairy folk
  Who like to eat until we choke.
  Loving all like friend and brother,
  And hardly ever eat each other.

  Ever hungry, ever thirsting,
  Never stop till belly's bursting.
  Chewing chop and pork and muttons,
  A merry race of boring gluttons.

 Sing: Gobble, goggle, gobble, gobble,
  Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble.

  Boggies gather round the table,
  Eat as much as you are able.
  Gorge yourselves from moon till noon
  (Don't forget your plate and spoon).

  Anything edible, we've got dibs on,
  And hope we all die with our bibs on.
  Ever gay, we'll never grow up,
  Come! And sing and play and throw up!

 Sing: Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble,
  Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble!"

===============================================================

The whole text is here:
http://denrob.freeshell.org/stories/bored.txt

(There may be a copyright issue. I don't really know.
I just stumbled on it.)

Watch our for the Nozdrul,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:

> Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P

In seriousness for a moment...

My sister did media studies at school. Apparently she can no longer 
actually enjoy a film without considering an in-depth analysis of the 
plot devices used.

I remember we were watching The Lion King once. [Damn, that film should 
have been really cool... but somehow isn't.] Simba walks to the top of 
pride rock, and you see a split-second clip of some water washing away 
an antilope skull. "That's a representation of the changing equilibrium 
of good and evil" my sister tells me. "...Oh" I said.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:51:34 -0000, nemesis
> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>
> > Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, is *that* why they went there? (And that's where "there" was...)
> >
> > I think that's pretty obvious, no?  All that space ballet until they get
> > to the
> > moon and Dr. Floyd is told of the discovery... then, it cuts to a manned
> > mission to Jupiter where the tripulants are actually unaware of the real
> > mission, confided to HAL alone:  to search for the giant monolith near
> > the
> > giant planet.  Eventually, the crew's mission conflict with HAL's main
> > mission
> > and the AI becomes "paranoid", so to speak.  The shit hits the fans and
> > it's up
> > to Dave to turn off HAL to save his life.  In the process he discovers
> > the real
> > purpose and gets to the monolith to know the truth.  The bad acid trip
> > could be
> > seen as the monolith opening a worm whole and getting Dave closer for
> > inspection
> > by the creators...
>
> I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic

I was not.  I just described the plot.

> See the monolith teaches the apes how to build spaceships out of bone,

no, the monolith instigates curiosity and spark of intelligence grews around the
apes around it.  It shows afterward first contact, they learning and mastering
how to use a tool and them a poetic license is used by showing the tool -- a
bone -- being throw high by the monkey and then the scene cuts to the future
and a space ship, result of countless years of tool-making by the intelligent
race.  Is it so hard to get it from the movie?

I guess some people have trouble with continuity in non-linear plots... for
instance, I showed my ex-wife this strip:
http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF162-Executive_Decision.jpg

and she had trouble figuring it out...

> Meanwhile on a flight to Jupiter the controlling computer goes
> mad and starts singing "Daisy, Daisy" until the one member of crew who
> hasn't died from bashing his head against the wall pulls the plug and

that's sarcasm.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> if you want a really incomprehensible movie

  I have heard good things about Eraserhead. Never seen it, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> it's one of the 
> worst movies I have ever seen in my life.

  Then you haven't seen many movies, have you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:48:24 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P
>
> In seriousness for a moment...
>
> My sister did media studies at school. Apparently she can no longer  
> actually enjoy a film without considering an in-depth analysis of the  
> plot devices used.
>
> I remember we were watching The Lion King once. [Damn, that film should  
> have been really cool... but somehow isn't.] Simba walks to the top of  
> pride rock, and you see a split-second clip of some water washing away  
> an antilope skull. "That's a representation of the changing equilibrium  
> of good and evil" my sister tells me. "...Oh" I said.

Those wacky Disney animators I can imagine them now...

"Okay so Simba is going to walk to the top of Pride Rock, now we need some  
sort of visual cue to represent the changing equilibrium of good and evil  
- suggestions"
"How about some water washing away an antelope skull?"
"Hmm don't you think that's a bit obvious?"
"Well we are aiming at the 5-10 age bracket"
"True. Okay we'll try that. Now next on the agenda spelling out suggestive  
words in clouds of dust..."

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Phil Cook wrote:
> > Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P
>
> In seriousness for a moment...

it is:  unknown intelligent race devises a device (monolith) to spread
intelligent life in the galaxy.  One of them ends up on Earth where it
instigates apes to become the dominant life form on the planet.  They
eventually get to a level of sophistication that allows them to travel through
space and reach the moon where the beacon monolith warns the creators that the
new intelligent species are now able to contact.  One of the species come in
contact with the portal monolith and trips over to unknown place where it lives
for the rest of his life.  When of old, at death bed he figures out the purpose
of the monolith, represented as a baby in gestation.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> [BTW, did you ever watch the "extended" versions of the three LotR 
> films? My God, they make *so* much more sense! Although, to watch all 
> three, you had better have a big bowl of popcorn... it's something 
> absurd like 9 hours in total.]

  A bit over 11, actually. Yes, I have watched all three extended versions
on a row once.

  I own the extended trilogy. It rules.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:

> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:477e49fd$1@news.povray.org...

> > Oh, is that what that's supposed to be. (What is this monolith thing,
> > and why is it there?)

> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.

  Intelligent Design! ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:50:26 -0000, nemesis  

<nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:51:34 -0000, nemesis
>> <nam### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>> > Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Oh, is *that* why they went there? (And that's where "there" was..
.)
>> >
>> > I think that's pretty obvious, no?  All that space ballet until the
y  

>> get
>> > to the
>> > moon and Dr. Floyd is told of the discovery... then, it cuts to a  

>> manned
>> > mission to Jupiter where the tripulants are actually unaware of the
  

>> real
>> > mission, confided to HAL alone:  to search for the giant monolith n
ear
>> > the
>> > giant planet.  Eventually, the crew's mission conflict with HAL's m
ain
>> > mission
>> > and the AI becomes "paranoid", so to speak.  The shit hits the fans
  

>> and
>> > it's up
>> > to Dave to turn off HAL to save his life.  In the process he discov
ers
>> > the real
>> > purpose and gets to the monolith to know the truth.  The bad acid t
rip
>> > could be
>> > seen as the monolith opening a worm whole and getting Dave closer f
or
>> > inspection
>> > by the creators...
>>
>> I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic
>
> I was not.  I just described the plot.

and you didn't spot all the sudden jumps you described?

>> See the monolith teaches the apes how to build spaceships out of bone
,

I know, really I do.

> Is it so hard to get it from the movie?

You've got to admit it's a long cut-jump.

> I guess some people have trouble with continuity in non-linear plots..
.  

> for
> instance, I showed my ex-wife this strip:
> http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF162-Executive_Decision.jpg
>
> and she had trouble figuring it out...

Bye-bye Earth heh.

>> Meanwhile on a flight to Jupiter the controlling computer goes
>> mad and starts singing "Daisy, Daisy" until the one member of crew wh
o
>> hasn't died from bashing his head against the wall pulls the plug and

>
> that's sarcasm.

As was the bit before it.

-- 

Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> You will be assimilated.

  Should I resist? Or is it futile?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message 
news:op.t4ews0hkc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:48:31 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com> 
> <"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>
>>
>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
>> news:op.t4etagikc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:30:29 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
>>> <"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> > What was confusing about this anyway?
>>>
>>> 'Oh yes despite not having read the book I completely understood what 
>>> the
>>> chimps and the space baby were all about'
>>
>> I did. I read the book after watching the movie. Understood if better 
>> after the book, but the movies didn't leave me going Huh???
>
> Well obviously some of us are more intelligent then others, and by some of 
> us I mean you and by others I mean me :-)
>
>>> Does that make me a heretic if I said I actually prefered Children and
>>> God-Emperor then :-) I just enjoyed the ways they tried to answer some 
>>> of
>>> the paradoxes of prediction and offered some possible solutions.
>>
>> Not at all. I ran out of patience on the 3rd book. I really prefered the
>> first one.
>> Each to their own.
>
> Indeed. The third one does drag until Jacurutu, but the forth amused.
>
> -- 
> Phil Cook

The first is great, I've read it atleast twice. I read the second twice as 
well, because I was planning on reading the third recently, and couldn't 
remember what happened in the second execpt for broad plotlines. I've heard 
that the third is better than the second, but still not as good as the 
first.

Post a reply to this message

"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:50:26 -0000, nemesis
> > I was not.  I just described the plot.
>
> and you didn't spot all the sudden jumps you described?
> You've got to admit it's a long cut-jump.

Long cuts, same movie, same story.  The logical conclusion from seeing the bone
in the air cut to a spaceship is pretty straightforward.  Would it really be
worth it to show men's technical evolution through the ages?  It'd be boring
and not as poetic as that hallmark of a scene...

> Bye-bye Earth heh.

yes, but I guess she didn't know how to follow the logical jump from cute doggy
alien to Earth exploding...

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> "True. Okay we'll try that. Now next on the agenda spelling out suggestive  
> words in clouds of dust..."

  Like SFX?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:477e677d@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>
> > "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> > news:477e49fd$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > > Oh, is that what that's supposed to be. (What is this monolith thing,
> > > and why is it there?)
>
> > Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
>
>   Intelligent Design! ;)
>

Thank you. I nearly choked on my supper when I read that. *g*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

>> and you didn't spot all the sudden jumps you described?
>> You've got to admit it's a long cut-jump.
> 
> Long cuts, same movie, same story.  The logical conclusion from seeing the bone
> in the air cut to a spaceship is pretty straightforward.  Would it really be
> worth it to show men's technical evolution through the ages?  It'd be boring
> and not as poetic as that hallmark of a scene...

The problem is, I watched this thing, and it just seemed to be a fairly 
random assemblage of different images with no obvious connection or 
meaning. Surely the creators had *something* in mind when they created 
this thing, but it's so far removed from what is actually visible on 
screen that it's very hard to guess what they were trying to say...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message