Remake Pathology: Michael Bay's 2001: A Space Odyssey

Post by Harry Bailey
... and Mel Gibson's A Clockwork Orange ... !!!!!!!! And the Farrelly
Brothers' Citizen Kane!!!!
Yeah, I bet you've a deep unconscious desire to see such 'remakes' (if
they were to be made, of course :-)).
But such re-make insanity is not beyond the bounds of possibility any
more in our 'end of history' era (the future, increasingly now, just a
cheap-thrill, consumerist, twisted permutation of all that already
exists, the future as already past, our lost futures the only thing to
be nostalgic about), indeed, it's increasingly likely (we've already
had Scott's banana-chocolate-advert Lolita remake), and presently we
Rosemary's Baby (produced by Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes)
Suspiria (by Italian production company First Sun)
The Seven Samurai (produced by the Weinsteins; this one really kicks
the biscuit: script by [break out the cyanide tabs] John Fusco (Young
Guns I & II, Hidalgo) and you can check it for yourself here: [http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3282&Itemid=99].
It's been 'modernized' to soldiers taking on an evil druglord, natch.
CGI explosions a-plenty.)
Straw Dogs (by Director Rod Lurie of "Resurrecting The Champ" & "The
Contender")
Rififi (directed by Harold Baker and starring master of subtlety Al
Pacino)
A Tale of Two Sisters (to be called "The Uninvited" directed by the
Guard brothers)
The Long Good Friday (reimagined by Paul WS Anderson of Resident Evil/
Alien Vs Predator fame)
There's no end to it, to this juggernaut of reappropriating banal,
twisted and deflationary versions of past cultural achievements (and
you can bet your bottom dollar that these guys are the first to
complain about today's 'lack of cinematic innovation' while
simultaneously up to their eyeballs in militantly shutting down all
possibilities for any such innovation). And it's all so fucking
TEDIOUS and amnesiac (even with remakes of fairly mainstream movies -
I mean, who even already remembers the remakes of Planet of the Apes
or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, despite their runaway box-
office "success"?).
What's even worse is that when highly respected and established
directors ('auteur' film-makers, or at least those with some track
record of having a consistent vision, philosophy, or set of themes
manifested in their previous work) fall into this trap, their future
becomes increasingly bleak and disappointing: consider Scorsese after
his remake of Cape Fear [and his current Rolling Stones shite; he
might as well be making a doc glorifying the 'magic' of Coca-fucking-
Cola]; consider Soderberg after his CGI remake of Solaris; consider
the Coens after [and before, it should be said] their remake of The
Ladykillers; consider Gus van Sant after his remake of Psycho;
consider Brian de Palma's remake of The Black Dahlia; and on and on
and on.
Haneke's remake of Funny Games is pretensious, over-laboured SHITE
(though you won't think so if you haven't seen his original from a
decade ago); but we can go back further: Hitchcock, perhaps the first
director to remake his own movies (The 39 Steps, etc), could never
surpass the originals, even though he only remade them, as he himself
then cynically reasoned, for the Hollywood-US market in order to
increase his movie-making muscle there (and his loot).
And none of this is even to begin to address those film-makers who are
desperate, not just to appropriate/bask in the narcissistic glory of
another's past achievements by 'remaking' their work, but to even
Spielberg 'finishing' Kubrick's AI (well, we've had a million mad
threads hereabouts on THAT topic already); Tykwer 'finishing'
Kieslowski's Heaven; and an abandoned Kurosawa project currently being
'finished' by some pompous gobshite.
Like Peter Finch in Network, "I'm mad, I'm mad as hell - and I'm not
going to take it any more!!". Instead, I think I'll go and 'do' a
remake of Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space (shot and edited 'in-
camera' on an iPhone, of course); I mean, there's just gotta be a lil'
market niche for remakes of failed movies that are bound to keep the
capitalist suits box-office happy-dappy!
So then, seriously, what's your fave 'remake'?
And what film is really so lousy (the ONLY justification for ever
remaking anything), that it's crying out for a remake (but never will
be, precisely for that very reason)?

Michael Bay is also remaking Hitchcock's "Birds". Several years ago he
also produced a remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". "3:10" to
Yuma was another remake that didn't add anything new to the original.

I'm shocked that "Rosemary's Baby" is being remade. There are certain
films that you simply don't touch, and if a remake like this is
greenlit, then what's to stop some director, in 50 years time,
updating a Kubrick film?

Thankfully most remakes are treated with the reception they deserve.

dumb_n00b

2008-04-10 14:22:24 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
... and Mel Gibson's A Clockwork Orange ... !!!!!!!! And the Farrelly
Brothers' Citizen Kane!!!!
Yeah, I bet you've a deep unconscious desire to see such 'remakes' (if
they were to be made, of course :-)).
But such re-make insanity is not beyond the bounds of possibility any
more in our 'end of history' era (the future, increasingly now, just a
cheap-thrill, consumerist, twisted permutation of all that already
exists, the future as already past, our lost futures the only thing to
be nostalgic about), indeed, it's increasingly likely (we've already
had Scott's banana-chocolate-advert Lolita remake), and presently we
Rosemary's Baby (produced by Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes)
Suspiria (by Italian production company First Sun)
The Seven Samurai (produced by the Weinsteins; this one really kicks
the biscuit: script by [break out the cyanide tabs] John Fusco (Young
Guns I & II, Hidalgo) and you can check it for yourself here: [http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3282&It...].
It's been 'modernized' to soldiers taking on an evil druglord, natch.
CGI explosions a-plenty.)
Straw Dogs (by Director Rod Lurie of "Resurrecting The Champ" & "The
Contender")
Rififi (directed by Harold Baker and starring master of subtlety Al
Pacino)
A Tale of Two Sisters (to be called "The Uninvited" directed by the
Guard brothers)
The Long Good Friday (reimagined by Paul WS Anderson of Resident Evil/
Alien Vs Predator fame)
There's no end to it, to this juggernaut of reappropriating banal,
twisted and deflationary versions of past cultural achievements (and
you can bet your bottom dollar that these guys are the first to
complain about today's 'lack of cinematic innovation' while
simultaneously up to their eyeballs in militantly shutting down all
possibilities for any such innovation). And it's all so fucking
TEDIOUS and amnesiac (even with remakes of fairly mainstream movies -
I mean, who even already remembers the remakes of Planet of the Apes
or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, despite their runaway box-
office "success"?).
What's even worse is that when highly respected and established
directors ('auteur' film-makers, or at least those with some track
record of having a consistent vision, philosophy, or set of themes
manifested in their previous work) fall into this trap, their future
becomes increasingly bleak and disappointing: consider Scorsese after
his remake of Cape Fear [and his current Rolling Stones shite; he
might as well be making a doc glorifying the 'magic' of Coca-fucking-
Cola]; consider Soderberg after his CGI remake of Solaris; consider
the Coens after [and before, it should be said] their remake of The
Ladykillers; consider Gus van Sant after his remake of Psycho;
consider Brian de Palma's remake of The Black Dahlia; and on and on
and on.
Haneke's remake of Funny Games is pretensious, over-laboured SHITE
(though you won't think so if you haven't seen his original from a
decade ago); but we can go back further: Hitchcock, perhaps the first
director to remake his own movies (The 39 Steps, etc), could never
surpass the originals, even though he only remade them, as he himself
then cynically reasoned, for the Hollywood-US market in order to
increase his movie-making muscle there (and his loot).
And none of this is even to begin to address those film-makers who are
desperate, not just to appropriate/bask in the narcissistic glory of
another's past achievements by 'remaking' their work, but to even
Spielberg 'finishing' Kubrick's AI (well, we've had a million mad
threads hereabouts on THAT topic already); Tykwer 'finishing'
Kieslowski's Heaven; and an abandoned Kurosawa project currently being
'finished' by some pompous gobshite.
Like Peter Finch in Network, "I'm mad, I'm mad as hell - and I'm not
going to take it any more!!". Instead, I think I'll go and 'do' a
remake of Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space (shot and edited 'in-
camera' on an iPhone, of course); I mean, there's just gotta be a lil'
market niche for remakes of failed movies that are bound to keep the
capitalist suits box-office happy-dappy!
So then, seriously, what's your fave 'remake'?
And what film is really so lousy (the ONLY justification for ever
remaking anything), that it's crying out for a remake (but never will
be, precisely for that very reason)?

Michael Bay is also remaking Hitchcock's "Birds". Several years ago he
also produced a remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". "3:10" to
Yuma was another remake that didn't add anything new to the original.
I'm shocked that "Rosemary's Baby" is being remade. There are certain
films that you simply don't touch, and if a remake like this is
greenlit, then what's to stop some director, in 50 years time,
updating a Kubrick film?
Thankfully most remakes are treated with the reception they deserve.

At least they're doing it while Polanski is alive and still producing
amazing films like the Pianist. His spotty morals be damned, the man
is an artist.

Speaking of Adrien Brody, I quite enjoyed the remake of King Kong. It
was very nicely done even though I walked into it expecting something
along the lines of what Michael Bay would have done. In the remaking-
your-own-film category, I also enjoyed the Producers remake Mel Brooks
put out in 2005.

There is no possible way that anyone low enough to make a remake can
touch Rosemary's Baby and not completely rape it. And it'll probably
be bad to boot, like the Shining miniseries. A lot of the magic of
Rosemary's Baby is the dreamlike atmosphere and lack of action,
something that almost no modern movies (since of course EWS) have been
able to pull off, or even attempt to pull off.

PS: I disagree with you on Black Dahlia and Shine a Light. I thought
Black Dahlia was a fine film, even if it was a bit on the long side.
Shine a Light doesn't bother me.

Harry Bailey

2008-04-14 22:17:40 UTC

Post by dumb_n00b
Speaking of Adrien Brody, I quite enjoyed the remake of King Kong. It
was very nicely done even though I walked into it expecting something
along the lines of what Michael Bay would have done.

I think that Jackson's KK remake crystalises many of the problems
inherent to the escalating remake culture.

As a point of departure, consider the completely pointless first hour:
the film's laboured sense of gratuitousness seems at its most telling
in this first part of the film ...
----------

The ostensible answer - to 'establish' the characters so that there is
someone for us to 'identify' with in the action sequences - is plainly
unconvincing for the simple reason that the characters are pasteboard
thin, no more filled out than their counterparts in the 1933 original.
Jackson is not interested in characters, and what interest we viewers
have in the film has little to do with characters either.

I suspect the real answer lies in the strange, necrophiliac impulse
that presumably drove Jackson to remake the picture in the first
place. That impulse leads to a cinema of the past that is no longer a
cinema of History; a cinema of FX that leaves no traces.

In his classic analysis, Jameson identified a waning of the historical
sense as a defining characteristic of the postmodern. The 'nostalgia
mode' is evident, not so much in films whose content is backward-
looking, but whose form belongs to the past. Thus an archetypal
postmodern film such as Body Heat will be characterised by a tension
between its contemporary setting (the 1980s) and its Noir form (which
derives from the 30s/40s). The 1976 Kong remake, directed by John
Guillermin at a time in which remakes were not so wearisomely ten-a-
penny as they are today, corresponds to this model much more than does
Jackson's film. Neither the contemporary setting nor a post-Oil crisis
plot involving a petroleum expedition can disguise the fact that the
76 version (undistinguished and rather boring as it was) runs on a 30s
Adventure movie template.

Someone else's memories...

Jackson's film is something different again. It eliminates the tension
between contemporaneity (setting) and the past (form as revenant) by
ignoring the present altogether and setting the film in the year the
original film was released, 1933. The result is a peculiar, slightly
creepy, homage, which might well constitute a new type of postmodern
arfifact altogether. The 21st century obtrudes into Jackson's King
Kong only in the form of technology. The implicit conceit is that this
is the film that would have been made in 1933 were the technological
means available at that time. FX are, naturally, the real stars of
Jackson's King Kong. (I need hardly point out that Jackson's whole
career as a film-maker, from the ecstatic mondo trash of his early
features through to Lord of the Rings, rests on a mastery of special
effects.) In King Kong, FX have replaced history. Or rather, 'history'
- now flattened out into a series of period signifiers - has itself
become a kind of special effect. (Technology substitutes not only for
history but for culture, too; in 2005, technological progress is the
only faith that remains to us.) Even if the simulation were note-
perfect accurate, History, in the Marxist sense of struggle,
antagonism and contingency, would still be photoshopped out. The
Depression is a stage-set, an inexplicable backdrop. This a museum
without History, the Past as Experience, Theme Park...

I'm reminded of Wash-35 in [Philip K] Dick's Now Wait for Last Year, a
'painstakingly elaborate reconstruction' of Washington in 1935, built
on Mars at the behest of a plutocrat who wants to walk through the
city of his childhood again. 'Here was Grammage's, a shop at which
Virgil had bought Tip Top comics and penny candy. Next to it Eric made
out the People's Drugstore; the old man during his childhood had
bought a cigarette lighter here once and chemicals for his Gilbert
Number Five glassblowing and chemistry set. "What's the Uptown Theater
showing this week?"'

Yet there's something touching about Wash-35 - according to Jameson it
is one of 'Dick's most sublime inventions' - whereas watching the
simulations of 30s New York in the first few minutes of King Kong -
from the opening Al Jolson number through to the Vaudeville routines
and scenes of the Depression-hit poor - makes for an empty, if eerie,
experience. Perhaps it's because this is nostalgia for something that
Jackson himself had never encountered, nostalgia for the context of a
film he in any case would have only have seen decades after it had
been released, that these scenes have a strange hollowness and
depthlessness. It's a nostalgia that is already thoroughly mediated, a
replicant nostalgia, a nostalgia for someone else's memories.

Someone else's dream

There's something homologous in the way that the film refuses to
linger in the memory. Walking out of the cinema, I found myself unable
to bring any images to mind. It felt like there was nothing to talk
about, as if the film had instantly erased itself from the memory. No
doubt that is because the most arresting sections of the film - the
CGI action sequences - never enter visual memory at all. If the
breakneck tactility of these sequences is retained, they are more
likely to be stored in the body's motor reflexes than in its visual or
narrative memory.

Is such an immediate auto-erasure inherent to CGI, or is it because so
many CGI-dominated films are devoted to high-speed action that CGI
films typically leave so few traces? As I try to recall King Kong now,
it is like attempting to bring to mind a dream, but a dream I never
really had myself, someone else's dream...

UPDATE:

1. Simon [http://andsothisischristmas.blogspot.com/2006/01/note-on-
thought-that-remains-to-be.html] asks why did I bother seeing it at
all? Partly what fascinated me was the discrepancy between the
uniformly laudatory press the film has received here and the disdain
expressed by I.T. and Savanorola after they saw it. Their view - that
it was tedious, poorly edited and racist - bore no relation whatsoever
to the standard media position that this was a well-made blockbuster.
In addition, media hype is a kind of mind virus, a mental itch... and
sometimes you have to scratch...

2. '[N]o one ever looked at a staggeringly mysterious sublime - but
patchy - early Icon of some religious scene and said: Well, what's
wrong with this is that it isn't REAL enough...' Penman [http://
andsothisischristmas.blogspot.com/2006/01/note-on-thought-that-remains-
to-be.html] takes up the cudgels. I think a Baudrillardian AND a
psychoanalytic critique of digital realism can be derived from Ian's
remarks here. It is important, though, to distinguish between the Real
and the realistic, since this distinction is precisely what is lost in
the pursuit of seamless CGI simulation. Nothing highlights the retreat
of the Real under pressure from the realistic more than Kong. Here
Baudrillard and Zizek would be in perfect harmony - realism imagines
that the Real can be grasped head on, without residue or symbolic
debt, whereas for them, it can never be apprehended directly, only
anamorphically, out of the corner of the eye. The theatrical and the
artificial, i.e. the very things collapsed in the name of realism, are
therefore not properly opposed to the Real; they are the means by
which the Real can be registered, the frames through which we can
glean something of its contours. Kong is a film without the
unconscious. It is as as odd, as pointless - and as autistically point-
missing -, as if a particularly literal-minded individual had made a
minutely observed, fastidiously reconstruction of someone else's
dream. Everything is lost in translation.

Catherine [http://andsothisischristmas.blogspot.com/2006/01/note-on-
thought-that-remains-to-be.html] takes up the line about technology
being our last remaining faith.
--------------

Bill Reid

2008-04-17 01:49:16 UTC

I think that Jackson's KK remake crystalises many of the problems
inherent to the escalating remake culture.

I think a couple things:

1. You are the Usenet crank equivalent of the idiotic "Six O'Clock News",
where every story is breathlessly reported as a "growing trend": drug use,
war, sex and violence on TV, old people being put in nursing homes,
inflation, death and taxes...at least they're just doing it to make a living
by
trying to get people to watch the same old crap (kinda like remakes, if
you think about it), but I've no idea what your weirdo game is here...

2. Like "Si, Weed", you post from Google(TM) Groups incompetently,
so your posts aren't quoted properly in my newsreader. As if they weren't
useless enough to read, they're even more annoying to respond to...

Post by Harry Bailey
the film's laboured sense of gratuitousness seems at its most telling
in this first part of the film ...
The ostensible answer - to 'establish' the characters so that there is
someone for us to 'identify' with in the action sequences - is plainly
unconvincing for the simple reason that the characters are pasteboard
thin, no more filled out than their counterparts in the 1933 original.

Correct, but lacking the charming campiness of the original...I'm NOT
gonna disagree with you that Jackson is a complete waste of time for
EVERYTHING he's ever done, but of course, for you, IT'S A GROWING
TREND OF THE OTHER/VOID TAKING OVER THE DE-HISTORICISM
OF THE CAPITALIST RUNNING DOGS!!!

...making YOU and even greater bore...quite the accomplishment there...

Post by Harry Bailey
Jackson is not interested in characters, and what interest we viewers
have in the film has little to do with characters either.

In the entire recorded history of "well, duh"s, this is perhaps the greatest
"well duh" of all time...

Post by Harry Bailey
I suspect the real answer lies in the strange, necrophiliac impulse

"necrophiliac"? Temporarily run out $10 words there, just grab a
place-holder at random?

Post by Harry Bailey
that presumably drove Jackson to remake the picture in the first
place. That impulse leads to a cinema of the past that is no longer a
cinema of History; a cinema of FX that leaves no traces.

"WHO'S THINKING ABOUT THE HISTORICAL CHILDREN??!!??!!
WON'T SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT THE HISTORICAL CHILDREN?!??!!"

Post by Harry Bailey
In his classic analysis, Jameson identified a waning of the historical
sense as a defining characteristic of the postmodern.

Only in the future can we safely forget the past...otherwise, we
are condemned to be bored by the present...

Post by Harry Bailey
The 'nostalgia mode' is evident,

The Great Depression was a wonderful era and brings back
many heart-warming memories of dispair, hunger, and suicide...

Post by Harry Bailey
not so much in films whose content is backward-
looking, but whose form belongs to the past.

Yes, "American Pie" was constructed from the form of "Pillow Talk"...

Post by Harry Bailey
The 1976 Kong remake, directed by John
Guillermin at a time in which remakes were not so wearisomely ten-a-
penny as they are today,

"Today, we bring you a story on a disturbing new trend: teen rebellion..."

Post by Harry Bailey
corresponds to this model much more than does
Jackson's film. Neither the contemporary setting nor a post-Oil crisis
plot involving a petroleum expedition can disguise the fact that the
76 version (undistinguished and rather boring as it was) runs on a 30s
Adventure movie template.

"My-a Kong-a, he-a make-a you cry." - Dino DeLaurentis

Post by Harry Bailey
Jackson's film is something different again. It eliminates the tension
between contemporaneity (setting) and the past (form as revenant) by
ignoring the present altogether and setting the film in the year the
original film was released, 1933.

That was so the characters would be surprised by the plot...

Post by Harry Bailey
The result is a peculiar, slightly
creepy, homage, which might well constitute a new type of postmodern
arfifact altogether.

"There's been a startling new devlopment in our series on underage
drinking..."

Post by Harry Bailey
The 21st century obtrudes into Jackson's King
Kong only in the form of technology. The implicit conceit is that this
is the film that would have been made in 1933 were the technological
means available at that time.

Probably, but it still would have been in black and white and corny as
hell...

Post by Harry Bailey
FX are, naturally, the real stars of
Jackson's King Kong.

They were the "real stars" of the friggin' original!!! The guy who made
"King Kong" just loved making those stop-motion animation special effects
movies, loved leaving his fingerprints all over those little monster models.
Sheesh, what the hell is the matter with you, never heard of "The Lost
World" or the rest of "oeuvre"?

Post by Harry Bailey
(I need hardly point out that Jackson's whole
career as a film-maker, from the ecstatic mondo trash of his early
features through to Lord of the Rings, rests on a mastery of special
effects.)

I'm not 100% sure about his EARLIEST films, but he's definitely
focused on boring the crap out of us with monumentally-budgeted
snooze-fests ever since...don't even bring up "Lord of the Rings",
why somebody would even make a movie of that pointless garbage
in the first place is beyond me, but he managed to make it even
more soporific than the novels...quite the accomplishment, there...

Post by Harry Bailey
In King Kong, FX have replaced history. Or rather, 'history'
- now flattened out into a series of period signifiers - has itself
become a kind of special effect.

Kind of like "Cleopatra", huh?

Post by Harry Bailey
(Technology substitutes not only for
history but for culture, too; in 2005, technological progress is the
only faith that remains to us.)

"Tonight we report on a growing trend: a big-budget movie was just
released that is historically inaccurate. We're sure it will be on DVD
in a matter of weeks, but remade in 3-D two years from now..."

Post by Harry Bailey
Even if the simulation were note-
perfect accurate, History, in the Marxist sense of struggle,
antagonism and contingency, would still be photoshopped out.

"Animal House" kind of showed a "class struggle", and "Revenge
of the Nerds", too...

Post by Harry Bailey
The
Depression is a stage-set, an inexplicable backdrop. This a museum
without History, the Past as Experience, Theme Park...

Yes, they should have spent another hour explaining that the
Great Depression was caused by the greed of the 1920s Wall
Street tycoons...that would have livened the movie up...

Post by Harry Bailey
Perhaps it's because this is nostalgia for something that
Jackson himself had never encountered, nostalgia for the context of a
film he in any case would have only have seen decades after it had
been released, that these scenes have a strange hollowness and
depthlessness. It's a nostalgia that is already thoroughly mediated, a
replicant nostalgia, a nostalgia for someone else's memories.

Could you get those memories for me wholesale?

Post by Harry Bailey
Someone else's dream

This post is a nightmare of ennui...

Post by Harry Bailey
There's something homologous in the way that the film refuses to
linger in the memory. Walking out of the cinema, I found myself unable
to bring any images to mind.

Were you drunk again? We've talked about this before...

Post by Harry Bailey
It felt like there was nothing to talk
about, as if the film had instantly erased itself from the memory. No
doubt that is because the most arresting sections of the film - the
CGI action sequences - never enter visual memory at all. If the
breakneck tactility of these sequences is retained, they are more
likely to be stored in the body's motor reflexes than in its visual or
narrative memory.

You HAD to have known you were going to "hate" the film, so why
did you even bother to see it? (Aside from getting to bore us with your
fey pseudo-intellectual complaints, of course.)

Post by Harry Bailey
Is such an immediate auto-erasure inherent to CGI, or is it because so
many CGI-dominated films are devoted to high-speed action that CGI
films typically leave so few traces? As I try to recall King Kong now,
it is like attempting to bring to mind a dream, but a dream I never
really had myself, someone else's dream...

I could actually explain this to you, but you probably would not be
able to understand, mainly because you are so consumed with your
own hate for everybody else on the planet you are incapable of thinking
about things rationally. So in the interim, I will just re-post (like a
remake!) my review of the remake of "King Kong" that I posted here
without actually bothering to see it when it first came out:

From: Bill Reid <***@happyhealthy.net>
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Kong? (King, not Major)
Date: Thursday, December 22, 2005

...

I haven't seen it but I'm not exactly rushing out because frankly "The
Lord of the Rings" was a trilogy of boredom, and only part of that was
due to the stupid books the movies were based on that were only read
by lifeless geeks who could somehow identify with deformed midgets,
no, probably the bigger problem is that Jackson is perhaps the
most overrated filmmaker in history who can turn $500 million of
budget into about 10 cents of entertainment, and true to form this
SECOND unneeded re-make of a classic is a friggin' lugubrious
3 HOURS LONG compared to a brisk 100 minutes for the original, and
apparently it takes 1 1/2 hours, almost as long as the entire first film,
to even see Kong--I mean, the original takes like three seconds to
establish that the Carl Denham character is looking for a leading
lady BAM! two seconds later he finds Ann Darrow fainting in
a soup line BAM! five seconds later Captain Jack Driscoll is
saying he don't like dames on boats and Ann says why not and
BAM! he's got his tongue jammed down her throat and BAM!
half a second later the natives have kidnapped her and the Chinese
cook is running around screaming ALL HANDS ON DECK!
ALL HANDS ON DECK! ALL HANDS ON DECK! and BAM!
a second later she's tied to a tree and BAM! KONG APPEARS!!!,
only 14.5 frickin' seconds into the movie--and what's the deal
with casting Jack friggin' Black as Carl Denham, there's no way
that beefboat can deliver a line like, "There's your angle there, boys,
Beauty and the Beast!" like the original guy, like Jackson, Black
is really overrated, more clever than actually funny, and nobody
really wants to see a clever fat guy, we like stupid fat guys like
Belushi-Candy-Farley, and why a skinny guy with a gigantic nose
as the guy who rescues Ann, and I have to agree with one wag
that the greatest special effect is casting a 37-year-old actress as
an ingenue, but frankly that doesn't bother me because I think
Naomi Watts is a peach, loved her in "Muholland Drive", but
is does strain credulity a tad, and why when Kong is fighting the
Tyranosaurus does it keep trying to bite little itty-bitty Ann when
a real dinosaur would be trying to bite the thing that was beating the
crap out of it, not to mention that our local obnoxious TV film critic
gave it a lukewarm review, and it really isn't doing all that great at the
box office, the publicists tried to pump it by saying it would do
"Titanic" business but that was just the same 10 million 14-year-old
girls seeing the movie 17 bazillion times and that ain't gonna happen
for "Kong".

Those were my opinions on "King Kong" which were mine.
Thank you for reading them.

---
William Ernest "Pre-Historical" Reid

ichorwhip

2008-04-17 03:04:44 UTC

Way to go Reidiot®, you just couldn't stand to let that youngster be
could you? It's one thing to criticize someone's mediocre and verbose
writing and thoughts (which weren't too far off the mark actually),
but you had to get personally insulting and offer nothing constructive
as you have venomous and vacuuous commentary down to a fart... No
wonder you are a registered moron. Also I don't believe for a second
that you've ever read any of "The Lord of the Rings" despite your
self-contradictory vitriole...

And then there's this poopgem, the dildouche's creed to top things
off:

"I could actually explain this to you, but you probably would not be
able to understand, mainly because you are so consumed with your
own hate for everybody else on the planet you are incapable of
thinking
about things rationally. So in the interim, I will just re-post (like
a
remake!) my review of the remake of "King Kong" that I posted here
without actually bothering to see it when it first came out:"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's trim out that mirror image for better posterity: "you are so
consumed with your
own hate for everybody else on the planet you are incapable of
thinking
about things rationally."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, I went ahead and skipped your stupid review since you wrote it,
and I wish I'd never read it the first time. Even when you're right
you're wrong you worthless cellar dwellar.

"stupid books..."
i
"piop"

dumb_n00b

2008-04-17 05:14:14 UTC

I don't completely agree with Harry about King Kong, although his
point about the characters is perfectly valid, and the film was
certainly plasticky enough.

Your counterargument, however, is a combination of trolling, ad
hominem arguments, and the complete inability to hold an intelligent
film discussion on the Interwebs.

If you haven't seen the movie, your counterarguments are pretty much
meaningless. A plot summary isn't enough to cover Bailey's points.

To Harry: I enjoyed the movie despite the effectsiness. In my opinion,
it's the only way to do a remake, even if a remake wasn't necessary.
Even with groundbreaking CG, it would be very, very hard to instill
any sense of awe into the audience with a remake, so the Jackson riff
was, in my opinion, acceptable.

Harry Bailey

2008-04-17 21:37:58 UTC

Post by dumb_n00b
I don't completely agree with Harry about King Kong, although his
point about the characters is perfectly valid, and the film was
certainly plasticky enough.
Your counterargument, however, is a combination of trolling, ad
hominem arguments, and the complete inability to hold an intelligent
film discussion on the Interwebs.
If you haven't seen the movie, your counterarguments are pretty much
meaningless. A plot summary isn't enough to cover Bailey's points.

Which immediately raises the question of why such tortured trolls post
at newsgroups to begin with, as they have no interest in actual
discussion, much less rational discourse, but simply in constructing
some imaginary (cyber) Other for purposes of hurling personalised
vitriol and abuse. Yes, Reid, like so many other loathsome, ego-
deranged posters, is a classic instance of a Tortured Monkey in Hell,
a (cyber-based) creature who is in every sense a genuinely sad
spectacle. For those who post here to engage in or respond to
interesting, positive, informative or meaningful discussion, what use
can be made of his animal-in-a-trap howl of outraged subjectivism?
Well, at the moment, Reid is functioning as a morbidly compelling
example of how not to participate in any discussion (much less actual
social activity). His manic rage, his actual melancholia, his
directionless side-swipes and insecurities, his excruciating
bitterness, demonstrate how the sad and miserable are typically not
engaging directly and sensitively with the world but with their own
frozen images (think of these as being like outdated data archive
caches). Consider, if you can bear it, the way in which Reid tilts at
the windmills of his own phantasms in a flailing, pathetically
resentful hunger for attention that is exemplary of how to produce
depressingly sad encounters. It is a display of that Romantic
fetishization of self-destruction that, far from being subversive or
transgressive, is the pathology of the lost Human in person. Reason
(not to mention joy) is long since lost to such tragic basket cases,
so generally it's just best to either ignore them completely or else
choose occasionally, as Ichorwhip does, to render them as a source of
endlessly fascinating amusement.

Bill Reid

2008-04-17 05:34:50 UTC

Gee, what a surprise, another retard that doesn't know how to post
properly from Google(TM) Groups...time for another re-post, me thinks...

Post by ichorwhip
Way to go Reidiot®, you just couldn't stand to let that youngster be
could you?

Yes, I deeply wounded the pride of the "youngster" "Harried
Bray-Lie"...

Post by ichorwhip
It's one thing to criticize someone's mediocre and verbose
writing and thoughts (which weren't too far off the mark actually),

Don't hate me because you know I'm right about everything...

Post by ichorwhip
but you had to get personally insulting and offer nothing constructive
as you have venomous and vacuuous commentary down to a fart...

You're just mad because you think "King Kong" should have
been remade into a reality TV show: "Survivor: Skull Island"...

Post by ichorwhip
Also I don't believe for a second
that you've ever read any of "The Lord of the Rings" despite your
self-contradictory vitriole...

Which just proves that I'm smart and cool...

Post by ichorwhip
And then there's this poopgem, the dildouche's creed to top things

Post by ichorwhip
"I could actually explain this to you, but you probably would not be
able to understand, mainly because you are so consumed with your
own hate for everybody else on the planet you are incapable of thinking
about things rationally.

Thanks for saving me the time of casting my pearl, "A Neuro-Linguistic
Analysis of Popular Film Syntax and Cultural Token Drift", before you
miserable swine...

Post by ichorwhip
So in the interim, I will just re-post (like
a
remake!) my review of the remake of "King Kong" that I posted here
without actually bothering to see it when it first came out:"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was childish, ungrammatical, thoughtless...in other words, the
fitting review of ANY of Jackson's crap!!!

Post by ichorwhip
Let's trim out that mirror image for better posterity: "you are so
consumed with your
own hate for everybody else on the planet you are incapable of
thinking
about things rationally."

I know you are, but what am I?

Post by ichorwhip
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee, I just love manually quoting your retarded text because you
are so stupid and broke you can't afford a real newsreader and news
service and have to post from the scourge of the Internet, Google(TM)
Groups, while smelling up the homeless section of the library.

Post by ichorwhip
Hey, I went ahead and skipped your stupid review since you wrote it,
and I wish I'd never read it the first time. Even when you're right
you're wrong you worthless cellar dwellar.

Brilliant. Even when you're stupid you're a moron...

Since you have requested it by your annoying presence on Usenet,
similar to "MI5" nutcases and spammers, I will now re-post my call
for a boycott of Google(TM) for allowing morons like you to befoul my
beloved Internet:

From: "Bill Reid" <***@happyhealthy.net>
Newsgroups: misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Would there be any support for a moderated group???
Date: Sun, 13 Apr

Post by ichorwhip
This used to be a fun groupSSthere was a lot of info exchanged by
participants ranging from the well-informed to the terminally
cluelessSSthere was give-and-take, humor, arguments, theories, etc.
What¹s dominating the N/G now??? Ads for Chinese ripoffs, pure

bigotry,

Post by ichorwhip
forex can¹t-lose systems, cross-postings from political whackos, psychotic
venting & threats, kiddies with $6 get-rich schemes, etc.SS.
I don¹t know whatOs involved in a moderated group or if they even
workSSIs there anyone here that can shed some informed light on the
subject???

Forget it "Blash", it's UsenetTown...

Having gone through this exact thing with other newsgroups that
USED to be focal points of ON-TOPIC conversation about a specific
subject, I know for a fact that a moderated group will probably
NOT work, because it didn't for the other groups. They went through
the whole voting process, got the server, moderator(s), within a
year the moderated group was dead as well and the original
group was just a wasteland of spam...

Remember, I've repeatedly set out the timeline for the ultimate
demise of this group, and we're right on schedule. It's not JUST
the spammers; the death knell is the arrival of completely demented
fakes that sock-puppet each other and form a "voting block" to drive
away any intelligent posters with constant insane repugnant behavior
(sound familiar?). THAT'S the "gating factor" that can predict to a
matter of months the death of the group...again, I speak from
previous experience, you REALLY don't want to know the gory
details...

In a larger sense, Usenet itself is just a manifestation of the
old theory of "The Tragedy Of The Commons" (the idea that
"communism" can NEVER "work"), that a shared resource
that should be used responsibly by all people WILL ultimately
be destroyed by the lowest common denominator.

It also follows my general management principle, which SHOULD
be the foundation for all businesses and "capitalism" as a
whole, that when you divorce RESPONSIBILITY from AUTHORITY
you get chaos, not anything remotely resembling the "invisible
hands" that apologists for "capitalism" like to yammer about.
ANYBODY has the "authority" to post here, whether "homeless",
briefly un-incarcerated mentally-ill, ex-con, Chinese shoe spammer,
whatever, but accept NO "responsibility" to behave in a respectful
productive manner.

BUT...here's a slightly different idea, from a long time ago (in
Internet years). There used to be a concept called the "Usenet
Death Penalty", where a Usenet server that was providing a free
reign to spammers and/or loonies would be "removed" from
Usenet by mutual agreement of the major server operators.
They would just stop picking up posts from the outlaw server,
and that would effectively stop the problem in its tracks;
NOBODY who didn't use that server would ever see posts
from that server again...PROBLEM SOLVED!!! But I'm not
sure what the current status of that "system" is...

But we all know where 95% of today's problems originate, it's
called "Google(TM) Groups". Check the "Path" of a Chinese shoe
spammer or insane mongoloid, and it almost certainly will end
like this (signifying that is the original server that the creep posted
to):

Path:
<your_server>!<server_your_server_copied_post_from!server_that_server_copied
_post_from!and_so_forth!...!...!postnews.google.com!e67g2000hsa.googlegroups
.com!not-for-mail

(the above is an edited header from a "BuffyTheProfitHater" post)

Unfortunately, my newsreader, and many other newsreaders, do
not support "killfiling" a post by the original server, but this is
definitely
something that can be done at the "client" level, so if you have this
capability and are bothered by Chinese spammers and loonies
just "killfile" "googlegroups.com" and you're sailing clear seas
again...

OK, failing that, here's another idea: KILL Google(TM). No,
not "killfile" "googlegroups.com", not the "Usenet Death Penalty"
for "googlegroups.com", I MEAN KILL THE FRIGGIN' COMPANY
GOOGLE...DEAD!!!

Google(TM) STILL derives MOST of its revenue from those little
links they identify as "sponsored links" in your search results.
IF YOU DON'T CLICK ON THOSE LINKS, GOOGLE(TM) GOES
OUT OF BUSINESS (until they wise up and hide the "sponsored
links" in the sea of search results, which they've already started
doing a little bit as their "paid click rates" have gone down
recently).

You DON'T have to click on those links; I've almost never clicked
on them, and I use Google(TM) search all the time, and use it to
book hotels, airline tickets, etc., BUT I CLICK ON AN IDENTICAL
UN-SPONSORED LINK RIGHT BELOW THE SPONSORED
LINK...THEY'RE THE SAME DAMN LINK, BUT GOOGLE(TM)
DOESN'T GET ANY MONEY FOR IT (or shouldn't)!!!

So here's what you do; send a complaint e-mail about whatever
it is in this group that you don't want to see that is coming from
"googlegroups.com" to this address:

Complaints-To: groups-***@google.com

Word is that they COMPLETELY ignore all mail sent to that
address (the same way Netscape used to ignore all bug-mail,
remember them?), but in addition to specifying the specific
types of posts that are ruining Usenet for you, make sure you
let them know that until THEY take RESPONSIBILITY for
the spam and threats and slander, you will do what you can
to PUT THE ENTIRE DAMN COMPANY OUT OF BUSINESS.

They almost certainly will STILL ignore it, but I always like
watching companies die anyway ("creative destruction") so
what the hell, let's kill 'em dead and make room for the next
flash-in-the-pan Internet company...and if they actually do
something, it will be fun to watch "Lowbrow" scramble for
another free way to entertain us with his idiocy...

---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 1022

---end of archived post

---
William Ernest "Free Radical" Reid

ichorwhip

2008-04-18 01:09:33 UTC

Post by ichorwhip
Way to go Reidiot®, you just couldn't stand to let that youngster be
could you?

Yes, I deeply wounded the pride of the "youngster" "Harried
Bray-Lie"...

Oh yeah, and him too, not that it matters at all as you treat every
person you encounter the same shameful shitty way and have the
audacity to think yourself an intelligent and thoughtful and
responsible poster... Every time you "open your maw" you defeat
yourself. Always the negative and caustic loser... the checkerplaying
chessplayer...

Post by ichorwhip
It's one thing to criticize someone's mediocre and verbose
writing and thoughts (which weren't too far off the mark actually),

Don't hate me because you know I'm right about everything...

I don't hate you, I pity you, and you're far from infallible you
megalomaniacal fool.

Post by ichorwhip
but you had to get personally insulting and offer nothing constructive
as you have venomous and vacuuous commentary down to a fart...

You're just mad because you think "King Kong" should have
been remade into a reality TV show: "Survivor: Skull Island"...

For the record, I didn't like Jackson's "Kink Konk" worth a damn...

Post by ichorwhip
Also I don't believe for a second
that you've ever read any of "The Lord of the Rings" despite your
self-contradictory vitriole...

Which just proves that I'm smart and cool...

Since when did "smart and cool" equal "deceitful and cretinous?"
Tolkien's trilogy is some very fine literature. Just because YOU
don't like it, and won't read it means NOTHING except that you are an
irrational fool who knows not of what he speaks. I can accept someone
who doesn't like fantasy in general (won't ever catching me reading
much fantasy beyond Tolkien in fact), but what you say is just plain
stupid and ignorant

Post by Bill Reid
Gee, I just love manually quoting your retarded text because you
are so stupid and broke you can't afford a real newsreader and news
service and have to post from the scourge of the Internet, Google(TM)
Groups, while smelling up the homeless section of the library.

Only an idiot would pay for something when it's not at all necessary.
Just think, if you weren't paying with your aluminum can money for
your stupid pointless service, you might be able to step up from
potted meat to vienna sausages...

Post by Bill Reid
Since you have requested it by your annoying presence on Usenet,

Since I have "requested it..." I shall now receive a Reidioticulous®

Post by Bill Reid
similar to "MI5" nutcases and spammers, I will now re-post my call
for a boycott of Google(TM) for allowing morons like you to befoul my

"Jesus wept!" Too bad that you and your stupid newsreader is
incompatible with Googlegroups(TM). Nobody cares ya sidetracker! But
let's pick out the really crazy stuff for fun anyways!!!

Post by Bill Reid
Remember, I've repeatedly set out the timeline for the ultimate
demise of this group, and we're right on schedule.

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury".... note how this repugnant fool
assumes that anyone would ever want to remember a thing he says. Mark
that Exhibit F...

Post by Bill Reid
It's not JUST
the spammers; the death knell is the arrival of completely demented
fakes that sock-puppet each other and form a "voting block" to drive
away any intelligent posters with constant insane repugnant behavior
(sound familiar?).

Yeah, that's you! The same old shitake....

Post by Bill Reid
THAT'S the "gating factor" that can predict to a
matter of months the death of the group...again, I speak from
previous experience, you REALLY don't want to know the gory
details...

I didn't REALLY want to "know" any of it you delusional ghoul.

Post by Bill Reid
In a larger sense, Usenet itself is just a manifestation of the
old theory of "The Tragedy Of The Commons" (the idea that
"communism" can NEVER "work"),

But as to the alternative.... Hey Reidiot®!, Nietzsche just called
and said he wanted his moustache back...

Post by Bill Reid
that a shared resource
that should be used responsibly by all people WILL ultimately
be destroyed by the lowest common denominator.
It also follows my general management principle,

Which one? The one where you misappropriate funds and use them for
your own benefit? The one where you threaten to sue people, and then
don't do it despite them begging for you to proceed? The one where
you make a "comfortable living" through "litigation." Which?

Post by Bill Reid
which SHOULD
be the foundation for all businesses and "capitalism" as a
whole, that when you divorce RESPONSIBILITY from AUTHORITY
you get chaos,

Oh yeah, that one! You have personal knowledge of how that works too,
how "smart and cool..."

Post by Bill Reid
not anything remotely resembling the "invisible
hands" that apologists for "capitalism" like to yammer about.
ANYBODY has the "authority" to post here, whether "homeless",
briefly un-incarcerated mentally-ill, ex-con, Chinese shoe spammer,
whatever, but accept NO "responsibility" to behave in a respectful
productive manner.

As if....

Post by Bill Reid
Unfortunately, my newsreader, and many other newsreaders, do
not support "killfiling" a post by the original server,

Gaw, what a cheap piece of crap newsreader you have!!!! (As if the
whole of newsgroups should cater to the moronic desires of a
tyrannical, narcissistic dildouche and his crappy newsreader.)

Post by Bill Reid
but this is
definitely
something that can be done at the "client" level, so if you have this
capability and are bothered by Chinese spammers and loonies
just "killfile" "googlegroups.com" and you're sailing clear seas
again...

Please do so, I know I'll miss you so much, but the whole wide world
web is just for you.... p-p-p-pafffff-fweeee!

Post by Bill Reid
OK, failing that, here's another idea: KILL Google(TM). No,
not "killfile" "googlegroups.com", not the "Usenet Death Penalty"
for "googlegroups.com", I MEAN KILL THE FRIGGIN' COMPANY
GOOGLE...DEAD!!!

The ultimate deathwish... What kind of maniac says something like
this and expects to be taken seriously?

Post by Bill Reid
Google(TM) STILL derives MOST of its revenue from those little
links they identify as "sponsored links" in your search results.
IF YOU DON'T CLICK ON THOSE LINKS, GOOGLE(TM) GOES
OUT OF BUSINESS (until they wise up and hide the "sponsored
links" in the sea of search results, which they've already started
doing a little bit as their "paid click rates" have gone down
recently).

Sounds like your cheesed because Google(TM) has started to come back
down to earth recently. So how much did you lose anyway?

Post by Bill Reid
You DON'T have to click on those links; I've almost never clicked
on them,

Almost? I have never on purpose...

Post by Bill Reid
and I use Google(TM) search all the time, and use it to
book hotels, airline tickets, etc.,

What bullshit!

Post by Bill Reid
BUT I CLICK ON AN IDENTICAL
UN-SPONSORED LINK RIGHT BELOW THE SPONSORED
LINK...THEY'RE THE SAME DAMN LINK, BUT GOOGLE(TM)
DOESN'T GET ANY MONEY FOR IT (or shouldn't)!!!
So here's what you do; send a complaint e-mail about whatever
it is in this group that you don't want to see that is coming from
Word is that they COMPLETELY ignore all mail sent to that
address (the same way Netscape used to ignore all bug-mail,
remember them?), but in addition to specifying the specific
types of posts that are ruining Usenet for you,

Like yours? Ok... ok...

Post by Bill Reid
make sure you
let them know that until THEY take RESPONSIBILITY for
the spam and threats and slander, you will do what you can
to PUT THE ENTIRE DAMN COMPANY OUT OF BUSINESS.

Kill 'em good Reidiot®!!!! Yahoo!!!!!

Post by Bill Reid
They almost certainly will STILL ignore it,

ya think?

Post by Bill Reid
but I always like
watching companies die anyway ("creative destruction") so
what the hell, let's kill 'em dead and make room for the next
flash-in-the-pan Internet company...and if they actually do
something, it will be fun to watch "Lowbrow" scramble for
another free way to entertain us with his idiocy...

Who the hell is "Lowbrow"? On second thought, forget it....

Post by Bill Reid
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 1022

Note how he keeps track of how many worthless posts he's made on this
group. That's a nice service to provide.

Post by Bill Reid
---end of archived post
William Ernest "Free Radical" Reid

---end of hysterical rant... Reidiot® the Demon Poster of Fleet
Street...

Bill Reid

2008-04-18 06:02:17 UTC

Oh, I can't decide which idiotic un-quotable "Icky-Whipped" message
not to respond to, this one, or the one he posted 32 minutes later in a
blind panic because he's all goofed up on his free Google(TM) Groups
"newsreader" and if he can't see his post immediately, he'll post
it eight more times as replies to random posts...as if anybody
cared in the first place...

Post by ichorwhip
Way to go Reidiot®, you just couldn't stand to let that youngster be
could you?

Yes, I deeply wounded the pride of the "youngster" "Harried
Bray-Lie"...

Oh yeah, and him too, not that it matters at all

It matters that you're a complete idiot who couldn't even tell
who I was responding to with your scary free Google(TM) Groups
library posting privileges...

Post by ichorwhip
Only an idiot would pay for something when it's not at all necessary.

Once again, your poverty is on full display, like that non-running
car parked in the weeds in front of your rusting trailer...ever get it
running?

Post by ichorwhip
Just think, if you weren't paying with your aluminum can money for
your stupid pointless service, you might be able to step up from
potted meat to vienna sausages...

Just as a reminder as to where we are in this, folks, I pay
a whole $6 a month for full Internet service including a real
newsfeed with about 10,000 newsgroups...but I never realized
until recently that would be financial burden to "people" like
our little "Quote Monkey(TM)"...

Yeah

Of course, Shirley you remember these two Stooges:

"I hope you die because you didn't like 'Dr. Zhivago'!!!"
"Good one, you really told him, Shemp, you really know how to talk film!!!"

Post by Bill Reid
It also follows my general management principle,

Which one? The one where you misappropriate funds and use them for
your own benefit?

What possible pleasure do you get from lying about stuff like that?
I mean, seriously, I just don't get it...but there's a lot of stuff about
racist American trailer trash I don't get...

Post by ichorwhip
The one where you threaten to sue people, and then
don't do it despite them begging for you to proceed?

Funny you should bring that up...I'm filing a complaint tomorrow
for libel per se against some Usenet miscreants, and just fired off
several "angry letters" to the various ISPs and of course Google(TM)
Groups, the homeland of the retarded anonymous cowards because
they allow them the brief illusion that they could be a "rebel"
without consequences.

This is where you prove yourself to be complete and utter
mongoloid trailer trash. NOBODY with an IQ or bank account
above Calista Flockhart's waist size "begs" to be sued.

But thanks for reminding me, I'll check the status of your
despicable racist slander against me and make a note on
my calendar for possible action...funny, today I was reviewing
the case law on Internet libel, and the judge for one of the cases,
where the judgement was about $875,000, said it was deliberately
set higher than it might reasonably have been, based on the
actual libel itself, because the defendant had repeatedly stated that
they would "say whatever they wanted for as long as they
wanted"...

I wonder what the judgement will be for somebody who BEGS
to waste EVERYBODY'S time (including those wacky irascible
Superior and Federal District Court judges)...I wonder if the fact
you like to sling the "N-word" around here will make it even
HIGHER (fingers crossed for a black judge)...

Post by ichorwhip
The one where
you make a "comfortable living" through "litigation."

What?

Post by ichorwhip
Which?

Huh?

Post by Bill Reid
Unfortunately, my newsreader, and many other newsreaders, do
not support "killfiling" a post by the original server,

Gaw, what a cheap piece of crap newsreader you have!!!!

Well, yeah, came with the computer, but I got like a $50
class-action lawsuit settlement because it was "forced" on
me by an "evil monopoly"!

Post by ichorwhip
(As if the
whole of newsgroups should cater to the moronic desires of a
tyrannical, narcissistic dildouche and his crappy newsreader.)

Actually, I believe the problem is it conforms to the original
"content transfer encoding" schemes when Usenet (and Unix
e-mail) were first invented...I think they wanted to indicate
that some stuff on Usenet should NOT be responded to, but
merely saved or printed, so they have a field like this in the
message header:

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Problem is, Google(TM) Groups (which is actually just the old
DejaNews web-site, if anybody remembers them) apparently
doesn't have a simple default posting procedure that sends the
post with the correct value for this field.

You wouldn't get this, because they only got the library
computer there in the Ozarks a few moons back, and you
never really got the hang of the new-fangled thing...

...and you also don't understand some simple general
principles of written communication...I remember back years
ago, working on a newspaper, and writers had to type their
"copy" on a very specific kind of paper for a very specific
reason, and it had to conform to a "style guide" for a
very specific reason, and the paper was always laid
out the same way for a very specific reason...but you
wouldn't understand what that very specific reason is,
you just know how to peck out the "N-word" and death
wishes on the library computer using Google(TM) Groups...as
close as you'll ever come to being a responsible disciplined
written communicator...

The ultimate deathwish... What kind of maniac says something like
this and expects to be taken seriously?

What, you think they're the "Empire" from "Star Wars"?

It might take a while to kill them though...they just reported blow-out
earnings and revenues and their stock is up $75 (about 18%) in after-hours
trading...but like "Luke Skywalker" I can hit a wamp-rat in my old
T-whatever oh just forget it, you're right, I'm nutz, "Darth Vader" always
wins in REAL LIFE...

Post by ichorwhip
Sounds like your cheesed because Google(TM) has started to come back
down to earth recently. So how much did you lose anyway?

Nothing directly or immediately, but without revealing any details
my overall financial condition IS impacted POSITIVELY by the success
of Google(TM), so actually I'm a little conflicted here...aside from the
fact that they are responsible for 95% of the spam and loonies on
Usenet, overall I'd prefer that they do OK...

Post by Bill Reid
You DON'T have to click on those links; I've almost never clicked
on them,

Almost? I have never on purpose...

Actually, I usually have always gone out of my way NOT to click...once
again, maybe I SHOULD click, because about every 10,000,000 paid
clicks puts like a buck in MY pocket...

Post by Bill Reid
and I use Google(TM) search all the time, and use it to
book hotels, airline tickets, etc.,

What bullshit!

Are you seriously this stupid? I mean, you're so friggin' dumb
I can't even follow what you're getting at...

Post by Bill Reid
Word is that they COMPLETELY ignore all mail sent to that
address (the same way Netscape used to ignore all bug-mail,
remember them?), but in addition to specifying the specific
types of posts that are ruining Usenet for you,

Like yours? Ok... ok...

I'm the good side of "The Force", you storm trooper...

Post by Bill Reid
make sure you
let them know that until THEY take RESPONSIBILITY for
the spam and threats and slander, you will do what you can
to PUT THE ENTIRE DAMN COMPANY OUT OF BUSINESS.

Kill 'em good Reidiot®!!!! Yahoo!!!!!

Whoops! I just sent some complaints about libel per se to
the address, and I completely spaced on the "threat" to put them
out of business! Oh well, probably doesn't matter one way or
the other, and makes me look a little less like a nut when they
don't read the mail in the first place...

Post by Bill Reid
They almost certainly will STILL ignore it,

ya think?

Is it just money that got you kicked off your ISP's news server?
I've personally had people's ISP accounts terminated, and know
several instances where a properly-worded email to the "abuse"
address solved the problem of an Internet pest...at least until
the next day, when they showed up posting from a new ISP...

At least when I got people kicked off, they STAYED kicked off,
but then their ISP was the LEAST of their problems...

Post by ichorwhip
Who the hell is "Lowbrow"? On second thought, forget it....

You might be interested to know he's actually just a little stupider
than you are, and maybe somewhat more of a racist...didn't think
that was possible, now didja?

---
William Ernest "Hammy Solo" Reid

ichorwhip

2008-04-19 00:48:26 UTC

What a surprise! Given a little attention Reidiot® just pulls out all
his boogery and retardedly-kept toys from his stupid-looking attic.
I'm just so overwhelmed and couldn't possibly waste enough time with
you without sending you a bill so here goes nothing....

Excerpt's from Reidiot®'s unhinging, another insane blitherfest of

Post by Bill Reid
Oh, I can't decide which idiotic un-quotable "Icky-Whipped" message
not to respond to, this one, or the one he posted 32 minutes later in a
blind panic because he's all goofed up on his free Google(TM) Groups
"newsreader" and if he can't see his post immediately, he'll post
it eight more times as replies to random posts...as if anybody
cared in the first place...

Nobody knows wtf you're talking about as I removed the duplicate post
last night right quick, my bad, did that with one of the features of
Gargle Groups too... works great for non-tards... and I could only
care less by trying really hard how your dumb newsreader sees it.

Post by ichorwhip
Just think, if you weren't paying with your aluminum can money for
your stupid pointless service, you might be able to step up from
potted meat to vienna sausages...

Your cheap-ass service is doodoo by your own admission, and then you
have the gall to try and foist it on others, feh! Any person with the
slightest amount of wherewithal has broadband these days anyways. How
do you explain that J. Paul Gettysburg?

Post by ichorwhip
Which one? The one where you misappropriate funds and use them for
your own benefit?

What possible pleasure do you get from lying about stuff like that?

Only it's not a lie because you stupidly told everybody you did it.
Harry remembers I'm sure since it was he you were farting around with
when you let it slip how much of a malfeaser you are. Are you gwine
to make me look it up?

Post by ichorwhip
The one where you threaten to sue people, and then
don't do it despite them begging for you to proceed?

Funny you should bring that up...I'm filing a complaint tomorrow
for libel per se against some Usenet miscreants,

Oh really? Sounds like more of your usual hogwash. What possible
pleasure could one get from claiming a bunch of dubious litigation on
Usenet and offering no proof whatsoever?

Post by Bill Reid
and just fired off
several "angry letters"

read: zestily insane stuff for the kook basket, right next to the
banana nut muffins.

Post by Bill Reid
to the various ISPs and of course Google(TM)
Groups, the homeland of the retarded anonymous cowards because
they allow them the brief illusion that they could be a "rebel"
without consequences.

A rebel? BWAHAHAHA!!!! Is that what you call someone who stands up
to and mocks the deluded rantings of a chronically insane and
embittered nobody empowered by their crummy keyboard? I explained to
you before that in order for you to have any case at all for libel,
you yourself have to be... shall we say... uncrazy?

Post by Bill Reid
This is where you prove yourself to be complete and utter
mongoloid trailer trash. NOBODY with an IQ or bank account
above Calista Flockhart's waist size "begs" to be sued.

It was only a manner of speech dildouche... I've dared you then, and
I'm double dog daring you now. It would take some time and effort on
my part, but my countersuit will take you apart piece by piece and
expose you for what you really are. I thought we decided that you
didn't want any part of that bluff boy... Now whatcha gonna do?
Oh let me guess, cook up another couple thousand words of enraged
lunacy?

Post by Bill Reid
But thanks for reminding me,

Sure thing...

Post by Bill Reid
I'll check the status of your
despicable racist slander

What's "racist slander" (based on your own racist attitudes) compared
to accusations of child molestation?

Post by Bill Reid
against me and make a note on
my calendar for possible action...funny, today I was reviewing
the case law on Internet libel,

Trying to find out how much in trouble you are no doubt.

Post by Bill Reid
and the judge for one of the cases,
where the judgement was about $875,000, said it was deliberately
set higher than it might reasonably have been, based on the
actual libel itself, because the defendant had repeatedly stated that
they would "say whatever they wanted for as long as they
wanted"...

That's what you do, and I oppose you whensoever I choose. Call it a
detached interest and pity, that's what I do for you. I'm only
playing along with your incredibly farfetched delusions in order to
try and help you to see that you are in fact insane and out of touch
with any sort of reality. Sometimes I think you already know, but
other times I think you've convinced yourself that you are actually
correct in your words and actions on Usenet. It suggests a cycling
pattern and a probable noncompliance with prescribed medications. The
only way you can begin to redeem yourself is to recognize that you
have a problem. Shirley you've heard this before...

Post by Bill Reid
and I use Google(TM) search all the time, and use it to
book hotels, airline tickets, etc.,

What bullshit!

Are you seriously this stupid? I mean, you're so friggin' dumb
I can't even follow what you're getting at...

No, you know exactly what I'm getting at.

Post by Bill Reid
I'm the good side of "The Force", you storm trooper...

Too funny!

Post by Bill Reid
Whoops! I just sent some complaints about libel per se to
the address, and I completely spaced on the "threat" to put them
out of business!

Oh dear... Oh dear...

Post by Bill Reid
Oh well, probably doesn't matter one way or
the other, and makes me look a little less like a nut when they
don't read the mail in the first place...

"Are you seriously this stupid? I mean, you're so friggin' dumb I
can't even follow what you're getting at..."

Post by Bill Reid
They almost certainly will STILL ignore it,

ya think?

Is it just money that got you kicked off your ISP's news server?

Wha? I don't use a "newsreader" because Googlegroups is just too
damned easy and convenient, and I could care less with what you want
me to use. I don't share your apoplectically fixated hysteria over
the faults Googlegroups has, as any newsreader has, because I have far
better things to do. There will always be something wrong somewhere
until they invent the Perfectnet... and then they won't let you in
because you're so flawed, so boohoohoo for you dildouche...

Post by Bill Reid
I've personally had people's ISP accounts terminated,

Yeah, right... Name one person.

Post by Bill Reid
and know
several instances where a properly-worded email to the "abuse"
address solved the problem of an Internet pest...

hmmmmm... How's about telling me how to word that letter now?
BWAHAHA!!!!

Post by Bill Reid
at least until
the next day, when they showed up posting from a new ISP...
At least when I got people kicked off, they STAYED kicked off,
but then their ISP was the LEAST of their problems...

Called the Men in Black on them didja? What a loon!

Post by ichorwhip
Who the hell is "Lowbrow"? On second thought, forget it....

You might be interested to know he's actually just a little stupider
than you are, and maybe somewhat more of a racist...didn't think
that was possible, now didja?

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-19 02:40:17 UTC

"ichorwhip" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:49dfb20c-3a86-4566-a235-***@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
What a surprise! Given a little attention Reidiot® just pulls out all
his boogery and retardedly-kept toys from his stupid-looking attic.
I'm just so overwhelmed and couldn't possibly waste enough time with
you without sending you a bill so here goes nothing....

Excerpt's from Reidiot®'s unhinging, another insane blitherfest of

Post by ichorwhip
Just think, if you weren't paying with your aluminum can money for
your stupid pointless service, you might be able to step up from
potted meat to vienna sausages...

Post by ichorwhip
Which one? The one where you misappropriate funds and use them for
your own benefit?

What possible pleasure do you get from lying about stuff like that?

Post by ichorwhip
The one where you threaten to sue people, and then
don't do it despite them begging for you to proceed?

Funny you should bring that up...I'm filing a complaint tomorrow
for libel per se against some Usenet miscreants,

Oh really? Sounds like more of your usual hogwash. What possible
pleasure could one get from claiming a bunch of dubious litigation on
Usenet and offering no proof whatsoever?

Post by Bill Reid
and just fired off
several "angry letters"

read: zestily insane stuff for the kook basket, right next to the
banana nut muffins.

Post by Bill Reid
This is where you prove yourself to be complete and utter
mongoloid trailer trash. NOBODY with an IQ or bank account
above Calista Flockhart's waist size "begs" to be sued.

Post by Bill Reid
But thanks for reminding me,

Sure thing...

Post by Bill Reid
I'll check the status of your
despicable racist slander

What's "racist slander" (based on your own racist attitudes) compared
to accusations of child molestation?

Post by Bill Reid
against me and make a note on
my calendar for possible action...funny, today I was reviewing
the case law on Internet libel,

Trying to find out how much in trouble you are no doubt.

Post by Bill Reid
and I use Google(TM) search all the time, and use it to
book hotels, airline tickets, etc.,

What bullshit!

Are you seriously this stupid? I mean, you're so friggin' dumb
I can't even follow what you're getting at...

No, you know exactly what I'm getting at.

Post by Bill Reid
I'm the good side of "The Force", you storm trooper...

Too funny!

Post by Bill Reid
Whoops! I just sent some complaints about libel per se to
the address, and I completely spaced on the "threat" to put them
out of business!

Oh dear... Oh dear...

Post by Bill Reid
Oh well, probably doesn't matter one way or
the other, and makes me look a little less like a nut when they
don't read the mail in the first place...

"Are you seriously this stupid? I mean, you're so friggin' dumb I
can't even follow what you're getting at..."

Post by Bill Reid
They almost certainly will STILL ignore it,

ya think?

Is it just money that got you kicked off your ISP's news server?

Post by Bill Reid
I've personally had people's ISP accounts terminated,

Yeah, right... Name one person.

Post by Bill Reid
and know
several instances where a properly-worded email to the "abuse"
address solved the problem of an Internet pest...

hmmmmm... How's about telling me how to word that letter now?
BWAHAHA!!!!

Called the Men in Black on them didja? What a loon!

Post by ichorwhip
Who the hell is "Lowbrow"? On second thought, forget it....

You might be interested to know he's actually just a little stupider
than you are, and maybe somewhat more of a racist...didn't think
that was possible, now didja?

I guess I'll add another charge of libel for all the racist crap
you've been laying on me too in my pending countersuit. When the
chips are down, we'll find out who the real racist is. I can't
wait!

"I'm Spartacus!"
i
"piop"'''

There is some definate cycling of Mr. Reid appearances on AMK...oh look a
full moon.
Break out the cuffs and belts and please have a syringe standing by, STAT.

dc

Bill Reid

2008-04-19 18:01:43 UTC

I like this action...Usenut "A" re-posts and entire post from Usenut "B",
which is of course completely unquoted because Usenut "B" is using
Google(TM) Groups incompetently from his library's "broadband" connection,
followed by his own moronic "contribution" to the discussion of Stanley
Kubrick movies, which would be impossible to distinguish from Usenut "B"'s
post due to the lack of quoting, EXCEPT by careful comparison of the
differences in the purported autobiographies of the respective Usenutz...

Kelpzoidzl <***@mastadon.net> wrote in message news:48095b95$0$9539$***@roadrunner.com...

<idiotically pointlessly re-post elided>

Post by Kelpzoidzl
There is some definate cycling of Mr. Reid appearances on AMK...oh look a
full moon.
Break out the cuffs and belts and please have a syringe standing by, STAT.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

So what was it that Usenut "A" said that he "used" to do, that he
"doesn't" do any more? "ORDERLY, REPORT TO SECTION G OF
THE MENTAL WARD!!!! BEDPAN OVERFLOW ALERT!!!!"

Also, for students of the disease, note another symptom of the
phoney "kill-file": the compulsion to respond to the the "kill-file
victim" by any means possible while insanely trying to maintain
the illusion of the all-important "plonk"...

I am in the mind of a geriatric drug-addled version of Jerry Lewis
in "The Disorderly Orderly" here...a disheveled white-haired tramp
that actually revulses the feces-covered inmates with a 0.5 "Nutty
Professor" buck tooth protusion level and constant pathetic
spit-spraying pleadings to management about, "Pleaththp
don't thfpffire me, efver sinthpth I wathpth a kid I juthtp wanted
to helpththp people!"...

---
William Ernest "Confessing I Enjoy Bad Jerry Lewis Films" Reid

Bill Reid

2008-04-19 17:10:45 UTC

This is such a dilemma...I'd love to point out all the idiocies in this
message, but then I'd have to manually quote it (ironic that the little
"Quote Monkey(TM)" can't quote his posts properly, innit?)...I guess
we'll just have to let him scamper off permenantly to the bozo bin with
all the other idiots I won't repsond to from Google(TM) Groups because
it just ain't worth the effort, since they're all retards anyway it's a
complete waste of time in the first place.

I'm sure that the delightful stupidity in his post is obvious to all the
non-morons here without my pointing each retarded nugget...WAIT
A SECOND, there AREN'T any non-morons here!!! Oh no...what
to do, what to do...

Maybe a selected few...let's try that...

Post by Bill Reid
Oh, I can't decide which idiotic un-quotable "Icky-Whipped" message
not to respond to,

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Man, could this guy be
any more stupid about Usenet, the medium he chooses to display
his idiocy!

Your idiotic repeated post is on hundreds of servers world-wide,
moron, and is permanently archived as a testament to your unfathomable
stupidity. Your intellectual AND financial superior, "Creepsapolooza",
can see it, as well as millions of others, if they were stupid enough
to waste the time to read this worthless group.

You're like every sub-double-digit IQ that stumbled their
way from AOL (back when THEY were the "Internet" flash-in-the-pan)
to Usenet and pecked out "hi, im knew tu thhis boord, wher did
mye last messsag go, i kant seee it..pls hlp"...

Post by ichorwhip
Which one? The one where you misappropriate funds and use them for
your own benefit?

What possible pleasure do you get from lying about stuff like that?

Only it's not a lie because you stupidly told everybody you did it.

I never said anything of the sort. You're a liar, in addition to being
an idiot.

Post by ichorwhip
Harry remembers

You mean "Elvira"? I wonder if "HIS" repeated posts under different
gender names signify an upcoming penectomy and surgical "birth
canal" construction? ALL YOU EFFERS ARE TOTAL FREAKS!!!

Post by ichorwhip
I'm sure since it was he you were farting around with
when you let it slip how much of a malfeaser you are.

I'm not sure "he" can even remember what it was that made him
such a hateful Usenet crank, some denial of tenure probably, leading
to a downward spiral of bathlessness and gender dismorphia and
driving him straight to Google(TM) Groups in the library to screech
out incessant unreadable tirades against the "system"...

Post by ichorwhip
Are you gwine
to make me look it up?

Your a liar and an idiot, do whatever you want, demonstrate some
more of those mad Google(TM) computer skills...maybe you could
put them on your "resume" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Post by ichorwhip
I explained to
you before that in order for you to have any case at all for libel,
you yourself have to be... shall we say... uncrazy?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

This is so funny, ALL retarded Usenet asswipes use the exact
same non-logic derived from their non-education of their non-brains,
but unless you've been stalking me again you wouldn't know why
this particular piece of idiocy is soooo funny to me...and even if I
pointed it out to you, you're too stupid and looney to understand it,
so why bother...

Post by Bill Reid
This is where you prove yourself to be complete and utter
mongoloid trailer trash. NOBODY with an IQ or bank account
above Calista Flockhart's waist size "begs" to be sued.

It was only a manner of speech dildouche... I've dared you then, and
I'm double dog daring you now.

What'd I say? Even when he's stupid, he's a moron...

Post by ichorwhip
It would take some time and effort on
my part,

POSTING A MESSAGE TO USENET DEFEATS YOU, YOU
CRETIN!!!

Post by ichorwhip
but my countersuit

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Once again, ALL Usenutz have the identical non-logic, use the
exact same language...it's like they were all whelped by the same
retarded mongrel toofless fat momma...

Post by ichorwhip
will take you apart piece by piece and
expose you for what you really are.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I may never respond to another one of your un-quotable posts,
but you better believe I'll READ them for the entertainment value of
the delightful unsurpassed idiocy like the above! Bravo, retard!

Post by ichorwhip
I thought we decided that you
didn't want any part of that bluff boy...

I am in the mind of "Rebel Without A Cause", the scene with
the knife "fight" at the observatory, except the guy threatening
James Dean has a pushed-in face, really bowed legs, is four
feet tall, slobbering, and has a life expectancy of 14...

Post by ichorwhip
Now whatcha gonna do?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Just continue to be glad I was born with the correct number
of chromosones, "Corky"!!!

Post by ichorwhip
Oh let me guess, cook up another couple thousand words of enraged
lunacy?

No, you're thinking of "Hairlip Brylcreemy"...or is it "Elivira" ("Glen
or Glenda")?

Post by ichorwhip
What's "racist slander" (based on your own racist attitudes) compared
to accusations of child molestation?

Uh, counselor, you don't have a case...oh wait, you're not a lawyer,
and you're so far down the food chain you've probably never even talked
to a lawyer...but that's what "Legal Aid" is for, to help the
"disadvantaged"
like you when you stupidly get yourselves in trouble...

Look, if you are serious about wanting to be sued, make it a little
easier for me. Under the requirements of "Section 230" and related
case law, I am required to request that you reveal your true identity
in the Internet medium in which you commited the offense, this
newsgroup in this case, prior to subpoenaing your ISP for the
information.

So why don't you go ahead and post your true name that you
can sued under and the address where the lawsuit may be served?
This would certainly indicate your confidence in your legal correctness
much more so than your wonderfully entertaining retarded brinksmanship...

(BTW, I'm not holding my breath here, I'm well aware that a
tough-talking, "N-word"-saying, copyright infringment-supporting,
foul-mouthed defiant libeler uses a fake name for EXACTLY
those reasons...and even feels a little safer posting from the
"safe" anonymous confines of Google(TM) Groups in the library.)

That's what you do, and I oppose you whensoever I choose.

Yes, you have valiantly defended the honor of "Dr. Zhivago" by
wishing death on those who seek to disparage it...but what does
THAT have to do with what I wrote? I was talking about libel
above, not giving a bad movie review...idiots ALWAYS get the
two confused...

Post by ichorwhip
Call it a
detached interest and pity, that's what I do for you. I'm only
playing along with your incredibly farfetched delusions in order to
try and help you to see that you are in fact insane and out of touch
with any sort of reality.

Blah, blah, blah...this is the "I only wish death on you and libel
you and stalk you to HELP you" crap...again, this is word-for-word
from the Usenut playbook...

Post by ichorwhip
Shirley you've heard this before...

As I've said, only about a thousand times! A hate-filled mongoloid
never stands so tall as when he stoops by standing on two chairs
to help a "normal"...

Post by Bill Reid
and I use Google(TM) search all the time, and use it to
book hotels, airline tickets, etc.,

What bullshit!

Are you seriously this stupid? I mean, you're so friggin' dumb
I can't even follow what you're getting at...

No, you know exactly what I'm getting at.

No I really don't...I'm not sure if this idiotic vulgar outburst is an
attempt to disparage my "computer skills", or what...but it doesn't
really matter, if you want to explain if fine (I'm sure it will be stupidly
funny), if not, that's fine too...

...actually, I do grow weary of this...I may be in a minority here,
but I actually HAVE wrestled with a mongoloid, so I when I say talking
to Usenutz is the verbal equivalent to that, I am making a concrete
analogy to the kind of weird chimp-like strength that retards have...and
of course you can NEVER "win"...

Post by Bill Reid
Is it just money that got you kicked off your ISP's news server?

Wha?

What I'm asking is: are you now so broke you can't even afford
Internet service, or did you actually get booted from your former
ISP for a "terms of service" violation, or some hillbilly version of
both?

Post by ichorwhip
I don't use a "newsreader" because Googlegroups is just too
damned easy and convenient,

No, it's not, as you have proven repeatedly in this very thread.
It was always a poor way to post to Usenet, and they are continually
making it even worse. If I have a newsreader (and just about
everybody does, because the evil monopoly puts it on all home
computers) and an ISP with a news server, that's what I use,
because it's MUCH easier and faster than Google(TM) Groups.

Post by ichorwhip
and I could care less with what you want
me to use.

Once again, the lowest among us is always the most defiant...

Look, there actually ARE some GOOD reasons to use a web-based
Usenet interface (I myownself posted for a while from DejaNews, which
was the company that Google(TM) bought that became the current
evermore crappy Google(TM) Groups), but you predictably and tellingly
have not been able to list a valid reason why YOU are doing it.

Post by Bill Reid
I've personally had people's ISP accounts terminated,

Yeah, right... Name one person.

You want their "screen name", or their true name and address,
like you're gonna give me because you are so unafraid of a lawsuit?

One thing I ALWAYS like to share with people I sue, and more
particularly their lawyers (if they can get one), is the names
of people I've sued before...you know, as "character references"...the
settlement usually comes about a week after that...

Post by Bill Reid
and know
several instances where a properly-worded email to the "abuse"
address solved the problem of an Internet pest...

hmmmmm... How's about telling me how to word that letter now?
BWAHAHA!!!!

Again, funny, I just gave these exact instructions a few months
ago...you're really missing out if you truly aren't stalking me anymore...

There ARE a few key points to keep in mind, but they require having
a mind to keep them in, so it would be a waste to repeat it for you...

Post by Bill Reid
At least when I got people kicked off, they STAYED kicked off,
but then their ISP was the LEAST of their problems...

Called the Men in Black on them didja?

I quite often use the local marshalls to serve the lawsuit, I think
they just wear their "marshall uniform", so basically one day you're
running your "brave" mouth like a retard "anonymously", the next
day you've got the cops knocking on your door...funny how that
tends to shut up foul-mouthed retards like you PERMANENTLY...

I said it before: you do NOT want to be sued, you're just too
stupid to understand the consequences of your actions...but will
understand it in a sickening flash if that day comes...

Post by Bill Reid
You might be interested to know he's actually just a little stupider
than you are, and maybe somewhat more of a racist...didn't think
that was possible, now didja?

I guess I'll add another charge of libel for all the racist crap
you've been laying on me too in my pending countersuit.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Will you call me the "N-word"
in your childish imaginary "countersuit", since you like to use
that word in this group and have professed great love for racist
movies?

Post by ichorwhip
When the
chips are down, we'll find out who the real racist is. I can't
wait!

What. A. Moron.

Post by ichorwhip
"I'm Spartacus!"

I'm sorry, I said your REAL name and address where you can be
served...I ain't hiring a centurion to throw the paperwork at the foot
of your cross...

---
William Ernest "Offense Attorney" Reid

ichorwhip

2008-04-19 23:57:13 UTC

On Apr 19, 12:10 pm, "Reidiot®" <***@happyhealthy.net> wrote:

<More excerpts, I have neither the time nor the inclination that this
rabid canine has to blabber endlessly on Usenet>

Post by Bill Reid
This is such a dilemma...I'd love to point out all the idiocies in this
message, but then I'd have to manually quote it (ironic that the little
"Quote Monkey(TM)" can't quote his posts properly, innit?)...I guess
we'll just have to let him scamper off permenantly to the bozo bin with
all the other idiots I won't repsond to from Google(TM) Groups because
it just ain't worth the effort, since they're all retards anyway it's a
complete waste of time in the first place.

And yet this gargling and foaming Reidiot® carries on for another ream
or so...You're like a perpetual Ronny Cox at the end of "Total
Recall"....

Post by Bill Reid
Your idiotic repeated post is on hundreds of servers world-wide,
moron, and is permanently archived as a testament to your unfathomable
stupidity.

Accidentally posting a duplicate is "unfathomable stupidity." Stark
raving maniacspeak... oh yeah, and a "personal insult" too.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Post by Bill Reid
Your intellectual AND financial superior, "Creepsapolooza",
can see it, as well as millions of others, if they were stupid enough
to waste the time to read this worthless group.

Most here post from Google I noticed and hardly anyone reads this
group largely because of insane morons like you. And if I'm
unfathomably stupid, it's because I bother to waste a little time on a
flea-bitten, rabid cur every once in a while.
You did notice that the "parade" of posters coming out to call me
stupid begins and ends with you right? Can someone else please chime
in and call me stupid so lil' Billy's hopes and dreams aren't so
crushed?

Post by Bill Reid
What possible pleasure do you get from lying about stuff like that?

Only it's not a lie because you stupidly told everybody you did it.

I never said anything of the sort. You're a liar, in addition to being
an idiot.

Right, I knew you'd deny it just like you deny what an insane lying
moron you are:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/browse_frm/thread/d3ca104fb6d22117/af17133847630e62?#af17133847630e62

Post 5 contains your admission of malfeasance/shady business
practices, whether it's true or part of another demented fantasy of
yours remains to be seen, but you know what I think. I'm not spelling
out anything else for you as you never accept anything anyways as it
seems to be a part of your er... "condition". The post above is only
for those curious or bored enough to want to look at it. I'm sure
you've already well agonized over what a fool you were to let some of
your corrupt actions (fantasies?) slip, bog knows what else could be
dredged up on you, and who begins to care ya big JOKE?

Post by ichorwhip
Harry remembers

You mean "Elvira"? I wonder if "HIS" repeated posts under different
gender names signify an upcoming penectomy and surgical "birth
canal" construction? ALL YOU EFFERS ARE TOTAL FREAKS!!!

I know who Harry is, and he knows who I am, but neither one of us or
anybody else on Usenet seems to know who you are, you lying
degenerate. I'm still convinced you aren't who you say you are, and
that you lead a very rich (sick) fantasy life on Usenet pretending to
be someone you clearly aren't and can never be. I'll just continue to
call you Reidiot®; that works for me.

Post by Bill Reid
I may never respond to another one of your un-quotable posts,

I'd bet the other way! But it does sound like you're getting all
"tuckered out" from trying to scare me and beat me into submission yet
again. It's always going to be a losing cause for you Reidiot®
because you are so vile, abusive and negatively-charged and a
pathetic, bitter loser in life. Haven't we been over this enough?
No? Never? Why can't you just leave me alone or ignore me anyways?
It's what's best for you. An egomaniacal vendetta, is my best guess,
for having ripped you so many new assholes you shit like you're a
collander.

Post by Bill Reid
but you better believe I'll READ them for the entertainment value of
the delightful unsurpassed idiocy like the above! Bravo, retard!

Whatever scaredy cat! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

Post by ichorwhip
What's "racist slander" (based on your own racist attitudes) compared
to accusations of child molestation?

Oh I have you in spades, and you know it ya wriggling lil'
centipede...

Post by Bill Reid
Look, if you are serious about wanting to be sued, make it a little
easier for me.

You'll never do it bluffer! You've been called on it repeatedly and
still the same tired Jack-high horseshit. You can't afford to be
exposed just like you can't afford to buy fresh bread....

Post by Bill Reid
Under the requirements of "Section 230" and related
case law, I am required to request that you reveal your true identity
in the Internet medium in which you commited the offense, this
newsgroup in this case, prior to subpoenaing your ISP for the
information.

My identity is known to my friends some of whom are included in this
group. Why not ask them? I'm not giving my true identity and address
to an insane phantom poster who clearly isn't who he says he is.
You're prolly a cripple and as harmful as a kitten, but then again, ya
never know what kind of dangerous stalking psychopath you might be
with his guns and knives and poisons and a rocket-powered wheelchair
etcetera....

Post by Bill Reid
So why don't you go ahead and post your true name that you
can sued under and the address where the lawsuit may be served?

What an idiot! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! One of the stupidest things yet
from you.

Post by Bill Reid
This would certainly indicate your confidence in your legal correctness
much more so than your wonderfully entertaining retarded brinksmanship...

I have asked you to do the same thing more than once, that is, prove
your "ever-threatened" veracity (although I don't want the address to
your ramshackle hovel), and you skirt and evade the issue always and
then try to turn the tables on me, which is never going to work. It's
just another of your maniacally repetitive fixations wherein you've
"heard" me this time literally "beg you to sue me" just like you think
I literally "want you dead" because you are cretinous moron who laughs
at Zhivago having a heart attack. Have you laughed yourself to death
yet? Oh good... I'm in the clear! Phew!

Post by ichorwhip
No, you know exactly what I'm getting at.

No I really don't...

Yes you really do po boy! Things you say often ring very false, and
you've given yourself away more times than I care to recall. Maybe
you're aware of it, maybe not, I'm trying not to care as it matters
not at all...

Post by Bill Reid
I said it before: you do NOT want to be sued, you're just too
stupid to understand the consequences of your actions...but will
understand it in a sickening flash if that day comes...

You're cutting into my "me" time too much now, so a "wreed whacker" to
your further boundless drivel.... As I've said all along, do you
worst vile creature, I'll be ready for you, but the smart money says
you're never coming. Threats and lies and insult are all you are and
all you ever will be. You don't scare me, you don't impress me, you
are less than nothing, begone!

"They never learn it seems."
i
"piop"

Bill Reid

2008-04-20 03:40:26 UTC

OK, I think after this I will completely cut you free, you are
a completely (net-)worthless idiot, and like the two or three
"regular" posters here there's just no point in "discussing"
anything with you since the only subject you are "experts" on
are the best recycling rates for the empties you fish from
the trash and the libraries that will let you sleep in them
the longest...it was a total waste of time back in "the good
old days" when you actually didn't have to post from the
library and your posts could be responded to, but remember,
I TOLD you years ago you'd be going downhill financially fast...

Post by Bill Reid
Your idiotic repeated post is on hundreds of servers world-wide,
moron, and is permanently archived as a testament to your unfathomable
stupidity.

Accidentally posting a duplicate is "unfathomable stupidity."

Thinking that your stupid repeated post can't be seen by
millions of people because YOU can't see it IS moronic beyond
belief...of course you snipped out your own idiotic statement
to that effect, another lie by "omission"...

Post by Bill Reid
Your intellectual AND financial superior, "Creepsapolooza",
can see it, as well as millions of others, if they were stupid enough
to waste the time to read this worthless group.

Most here post from Google I noticed and hardly anyone reads this
group largely because of insane morons like you.

Yup, the whole group is mostly just like a little "clique" of insane
homeless huddled shoulder-to-smelly-shoulder that no "normal" dares
approach. Of course, I hardly post here at all, as you well know,
since you welcomed me back warmly when I posted here for the
first time in about six months a couple months ago, so as usual for
whack jobs you're all over the maps in your "opinions" as well
as dead wrong about the reason for the decline of this group...if
it is due to insane morons, it would be the REGULAR posters
here (all three-four of them) that are scaring aways the "normals",
just like at the library...

Post by ichorwhip
You did notice that the "parade" of posters coming out to call me
stupid begins and ends with you right?

Nope, seen several posters do it, you must have just "forgotten".
You ARE a moron, you're just TOO stupid to admit it. Admitting
it MIGHT be the first step to digging yourself out of the hole you're
in, but at this point as your life continues to unravel you might want
to just call it pointless and hope for a better reincarnation...

Post by ichorwhip
Can someone else please chime
in and call me stupid so lil' Billy's hopes and dreams aren't so
crushed?

"Hi, I'm 'Keely Roma McFerguson', I'm an actual Irish pre-op
trans-gender on hormone therapy and not just another fugue-state
personality of 'Bill Reid', and I would just like to say YOU'RE AN
IDIOT!!!"

Post by Bill Reid
What possible pleasure do you get from lying about stuff like that?

Only it's not a lie because you stupidly told everybody you did it.

I never said anything of the sort. You're a liar, in addition to being
an idiot.

Right, I knew you'd deny it

Deny what? YOU SNIPPED OUT YOUR LIE, YOU FREAK!!!

Post by ichorwhip
just like you deny what an insane lying

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/browse_frm/thread/d3ca104f
b6d22117/af17133847630e62?#af17133847630e62

Post by ichorwhip
Post 5 contains your admission of malfeasance/shady business
practices, whether it's true or part of another demented fantasy of
yours remains to be seen, but you know what I think.

Yeah, I love that whole thread, it's hilarious. First, "Hair-Pie/E-Vie-Pie"
posts that Stanley Kubrick's reputation has been slandered because an
artist said he wanted to use his artwork in "A Clockwork Orange" for
free. I respond that Stanley's reputation is safe as far as I'm concerned,
just about everybody who makes films has done the same thing at some
time or another, including me.

Then, of course, the REAL looniness begins. The mixed-up Irish
she-male immediately recalibrates his moral compass faster than
he-she changes "his" pants for a dress, and claims that anybody
who asks for a discount or freebie is a "crook"! Then "Icky-Whipped"
joins in the "fun" of moral whirly-gig, and I can't figure out if I'm
being "had" or if these guys are truly that nutty...but I should have
known better, if the choice for the behavior of these freaks is between
insanity and clever chiding, it's always INSANITY!!!

Though this raises an interesting mental competency issue when
thinking about their numerous lies; do they actually have the mental
capacity to understand the difference between the truth and a lie?
Although for the purposes of a lawsuit, it doesn't matter, those
concepts only apply to the "compis mentis", state of the mind of
the actor, in CRIMINAL law...

Post by ichorwhip
I'm not spelling
out anything else for you as you never accept anything anyways as it
seems to be a part of your er... "condition".

How about we just sum you up as "INSANE CRAZY LIAR"?
Covers all the bases, fits all the facts...

Post by ichorwhip
The post above is only
for those curious or bored enough to want to look at it.

I don't know, I enjoyed the whole thread, made me laugh
all over again. Even mongoloids can be funny as they can
of fall all over each other and drool (again, I speak from
experience), so maybe you guys aren't TOTALLY worthless;
even the dimmest-witted of God's creatures are good for
at least a larf or two...

Post by ichorwhip
I'm sure
you've already well agonized over what a fool you were to let some of
your corrupt actions (fantasies?) slip,

You see, now that's kinda a giggle there, you "thinking" I'm in
"agony" over this...who DOES wipe your chin for you, "Corky"?

Post by ichorwhip
bog knows what else could be
dredged up on you,

It's all in the thread! You know, one time I called up my
credit card company, and had some charges and overtime
fees reversed, just by asking! COME AND GET ME COPPERS,
YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE, I TOOK BRAVERY LESSONS
FROM "ICKY-WHIPPED"!!!

Post by ichorwhip
and who begins to care ya big JOKE?

You do, freak! You looked up that inane insanity using Google(TM)
Advanced Groups Search...what a rich life you lead!

Post by ichorwhip
Harry remembers

You mean "Elvira"? I wonder if "HIS" repeated posts under different
gender names signify an upcoming penectomy and surgical "birth
canal" construction? ALL YOU EFFERS ARE TOTAL FREAKS!!!

I know who Harry is,

So do I...he's a freak who posts under names of two different genders!
And hasn't he denied it, while at the same time his IDENTICAL repeated
posts show up on my server just minutes apart with the two different
names?

Post by ichorwhip
and he knows who I am,

Nutcases of a feather! Tell me, what is going on with "his"
gender "issues"? I mean, what's up with that...I mean, what
the HELL is up with THAT?!!??!!

Post by ichorwhip
but neither one of us or
anybody else on Usenet seems to know who you are,

You've asked everybody else on "Usenet"? How can that
even be, since you're not ON Usenet, you're on "Google(TM)
Groups"?

Post by ichorwhip
you lying
degenerate.

Wait a second, what have I lied about? And frankly, for somebody
who hangs out with she-males, I'm not sure where that "degenerate"
thing is coming from...

Post by ichorwhip
I'm still convinced you aren't who you say you are,

I'VE NEVER REALLY SAID "WHO" I AM, YOU MORON,
EXCEPT THAT I'VE HONESTLY RELAYED SOME INCIDENTS
IN MY LIFE...WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU,
YOU THINK I'M ACTUALLY MICHAEL BAY USING A
GOOFY SCREEN NAME?

Post by ichorwhip
and
that you lead a very rich (sick) fantasy life on Usenet pretending to
be someone you clearly aren't and can never be.

I have NO idea what the hell you're babbling about...you still never
answered my question about what was "BS" about me using Google(TM)
search all the time, so I'll guess we'll never know...

Post by Bill Reid
I may never respond to another one of your un-quotable posts,

I'd bet the other way!

You win that bet! But not for long...

Post by ichorwhip
But it does sound like you're getting all
"tuckered out" from trying to scare me and beat me into submission yet
again.

You snipped out the pertinent analogy about wrestling with
mongoloids. I'm content to just let you be lead around the park
by a social worker in your little group of fellow retards, then
go back to your retard home which I pay for with my tax dollars...

Post by ichorwhip
Why can't you just leave me alone or ignore me anyways?

I don't actually remember saying anything about you. You
just felt the need to attack me because I pointed out your
butch-fem "friend" is a crashing bore of a fascist. He-she-it
is perfectly incapable of defending himself-herself-whatzit,
so didn't need your help in further failing to do it...

Post by ichorwhip
It's what's best for you. An egomaniacal vendetta, is my best guess,
for having ripped you so many new assholes you shit like you're a
collander.

A better "guess" would be: the bigger the fools you jerks appear
to be, the nuttier you get, and more you "brag" about "winning" some
imaginary "war". When you saw your admitted "peer" freak posting
under different gender names, you went even more beserk than
usual...as always, you can tell a lot about a person by the quality
of their "friends", riiiiiiiiiiiiiight?

Post by ichorwhip
Whatever scaredy cat! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Oh I have you in spades, and you know it ya wriggling lil'
centipede...

Even without the feminine hormones your "friend" is taking,
we can be quite assured you've never won a face-to-face fight
in your pathetic life...you talk like the prototypical punk of the
universe...

My identity is known to my friends

Yes, but if I subpoena people for this information, I'll be asking
non-cross-dressers, doncha know...

Post by ichorwhip
some of whom are included in this
group. Why not ask them?

See above. I think I'll focus on any and all ISPs and Google(TM)
Groups you've done "business" with, who at least will be able to
identify a specific static-IP address library computer, and go from
there...

Again, that was just a legal requirement, I CAN'T subpoena your
ISP in the US until I make this request (and I must meet certain
prima facie "summary judgement" tests as well). So for the purposes
of any possible lawsuit, I can use this post as your refusal to
provide the information, and that's the ONLY reason I asked (remember,
I told you that I also had a legal requirement to ask for a retraction
of your libel before I can file suit against you, and I also did THAT.)

Post by ichorwhip
I'm not giving my true identity and address
to an insane phantom poster who clearly isn't who he says he is.

"Madness!" - The Only Good David Lean Movie Ever Made

If I sue you, you won't have a choice in the matter...and just for
your information, you don't really have a choice in the matter in
ANY event, since I am nothing if not VERY resourceful...if you
think you can really "hide" from me, you're even stupider than
you have appeared all along...at any time, all the "information"
you are so desperately trying to conceal can be revealed to
all you are REALLY trying to hide it from...

Post by ichorwhip
You're prolly a cripple and as harmful as a kitten, but then again, ya
never know what kind of dangerous stalking psychopath you might be
with his guns and knives and poisons and a rocket-powered wheelchair
etcetera....

You're the only known stalker here, you know full well you stalked
me and even implied further stalking in this very post...do you do that
in "real life" as well?

Post by Bill Reid
So why don't you go ahead and post your true name that you
can sued under and the address where the lawsuit may be served?

What an idiot! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! One of the stupidest things yet
from you.

Like I said, merely a legal formality, I KNOW you don't want to
be "found out"...I'll just tuck this post away in my files for any future
legal action against you...

Post by Bill Reid
This would certainly indicate your confidence in your legal correctness
much more so than your wonderfully entertaining retarded

brinksmanship...

Post by ichorwhip
I have asked you to do the same thing more than once, that is, prove
your "ever-threatened" veracity (although I don't want the address to
your ramshackle hovel), and you skirt and evade the issue always and
then try to turn the tables on me, which is never going to work.

I don't get it, I honestly have no idea what you're yammering about...is
this the same thing as you wanting me to create a "FaceBook" page or
some such juvenile nonsense? What's the MATTER with you...oh,
that's right, I forgot...

Post by ichorwhip
It's
just another of your maniacally repetitive fixations wherein you've
"heard" me this time literally "beg you to sue me" just like you think
I literally "want you dead" because you are cretinous moron who laughs
at Zhivago having a heart attack.

You brought up the lawsuit yourself for no apparent reason except
to prove how bravely you can libel people and "get away with it"...likewise,
your straw man about a "death threat" is your own creation, I've always
said that you're just a creepy self-involved juvenile little asswipe for
wishing death on people because they don't like a movie, just like
all of your idiotic vulgarity and anonymous "bravery"...now when you
started stalking me, THAT'S when I began to think that you might
be even more demonstrably unhinged that I though previously, so
I DID begin to take certain actions to ensure a long and peaceful
life for myself if only at the expense of your worthless one...

Post by ichorwhip
Have you laughed yourself to death
yet? Oh good... I'm in the clear! Phew!

You'd better be careful what neighborhoods you show up
in without a purpose you can explain to the police...I've warned
other freaks like you that the cops here are total punks that
shoot first rather than tussle with a smelly homeless freak who
doesn't respond appropriately to "authority"...and WE like it
that way...

As I told you years ago, you seem to be entering "end game",
and if you really want to end your penniless misery, and can work
up the bus fare, we'll leave a street light on for you so the cops can
hit their target...again and again and again and again...

Post by ichorwhip
No, you know exactly what I'm getting at.

No I really don't...

Yes you really do po boy! Things you say often ring very false, and
you've given yourself away more times than I care to recall.

???

Post by ichorwhip
Maybe
you're aware of it, maybe not, I'm trying not to care as it matters
not at all...

Oh, OK, NOW it's all making sense!

Post by ichorwhip
You're cutting into my "me" time too much now,

Library closing?

Post by ichorwhip
As I've said all along, do you
worst vile creature, I'll be ready for you, but the smart money says
you're never coming.

Never coming where? Why is it so impossible for you to make
sense for even a paragraph?

Post by ichorwhip
Threats and lies and insult are all you are and
all you ever will be. You don't scare me, you don't impress me, you
are less than nothing, begone!

OK, I'll try to leave until you start begging me to sue you again which
proves how "tough" and "brave" you are...even if I DON'T respond or not
even read your idiotic posts (which I don't do for months on end), you
can rest assured that had I read them, my response would be:

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

(as funny as "Dr. Zhivago" dying!)

---
William Ernest "We'll Meet Again...If There Is No God" Reid

ichorwhip

2008-04-20 04:17:41 UTC

Post by Bill Reid
OK, I think after this I will completely cut you free,

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! See? Pay up suckers! What? Double or nothing?
Hmmmm... very tempting.

Post by Bill Reid
Of course, I hardly post here at all, as you well know,

Well you've more than made up for it here haven't you idiot?

Post by Bill Reid
I'VE NEVER REALLY SAID "WHO" I AM, YOU MORON,

Certainly not someone named "William Ernest Reid" Reidiot®" , case
closed......

Post by Bill Reid
I may never respond to another one of your un-quotable posts,

I'd bet the other way!

You win that bet! But not for long...

Oh you'll be back, it's just I'm kind of sickened by the lengths you
are insanely going to to not speak to me right now so my efforts are
curtailed on my own part to get you to squawking some more. All your
threats, insults and puke right back at ya YOU GIANT PATHETIC PHONY!

Still waiting for you to make your move,
i

ichorwhip

2008-04-20 06:39:01 UTC

Daaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnng! Get's mighty creepy in this here ol
lieberry so late at night!
Smells like fetid cheese and mildewed paste....

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-20 19:11:02 UTC

Post by ichorwhip
Daaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnng! Get's mighty creepy in this here ol
lieberry so late at night!
Smells like fetid cheese and mildewed paste....

Here, maybe this will help.

Boaz

2008-04-20 21:26:53 UTC

Daaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnng! Get's mighty creepy in this here ol
lieberry so late at night!
Smells like fetid cheese and mildewed paste....

Here, maybe this will help.
http://youtu.be/jtik5zN5m2g
dc

Yeeeeeeesshhhhh! I thought at first those were cat turds on the floor,
until I saw the cats eating them.

So, does this lady do yoga exercises in a green leotard amid tacky
erotic art? Does she have room to do any yoga with all those cats
around?

Boaz
("Naughty, naughty, naughty. You filthy old soomka.")

ichorwhip

2008-04-21 01:32:27 UTC

Daaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnng! Get's mighty creepy in this here ol
lieberry so late at night!
Smells like fetid cheese and mildewed paste....

Here, maybe this will help.
http://youtu.be/jtik5zN5m2g
dc

Yeeeeeeesshhhhh! I thought at first those were cat turds on the floor,
until I saw the cats eating them.
So, does this lady do yoga exercises in a green leotard amid tacky
erotic art? Does she have room to do any yoga with all those cats
around?
Boaz
("Naughty, naughty, naughty. You filthy old soomka.")

It's really appalling although she prolly feels likes she's doing
these cats a solid... I hate seeing pets miskept, but at least
they're alive.

"It's this Health Farm."
i
"piop"

Harry Bailey

2008-04-21 21:13:20 UTC

Daaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnng! Get's mighty creepy in this here ol
lieberry so late at night!
Smells like fetid cheese and mildewed paste....

Here, maybe this will help.
http://youtu.be/jtik5zN5m2g
dc

Yeeeeeeesshhhhh! I thought at first those were cat turds on the floor,
until I saw the cats eating them.
So, does this lady do yoga exercises in a green leotard amid tacky
erotic art? Does she have room to do any yoga with all those cats
around?
Boaz
("Naughty, naughty, naughty. You filthy old soomka.")

Alternatively, isn't it Hillary Clinton accidentally stumbling into a
room full of McCain supporters - and then appeasing them, calming them
down by feeding them some diversionary gossip turds about Obama?

Alas, not even the Cat Lady can save her now ... [so where's the
youtube video of Obama walking into a mosh pit of McCain supporters?]

ichorwhip

2008-04-21 01:28:46 UTC

Daaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnng! Get's mighty creepy in this here ol
lieberry so late at night!
Smells like fetid cheese and mildewed paste....

Here, maybe this will help.
http://youtu.be/jtik5zN5m2g
dc

Dang! That ladies house prolly smells worse than my cardboard box...
Gotta run... soup kitchen closes in 30 minutes....

Harry Bailey

2008-04-19 18:35:48 UTC

Post by ichorwhip
Way to go Reidiot®, you just couldn't stand to let that youngster be
could you?

Yes, I deeply wounded the pride of the "youngster" "Harried
Bray-Lie"...

As should be clear, his (that is, the Tortured Monkey in Hell's [TMH])
self-destructive modus operandi is always to derail all threads and
discussions, neurotically displacing or transfering them into the
implexed, implosive vortex of his ego-oedipal fantasy, and his
sociopathic pomposity - all by means of the 'insult' ... to engender
(cyber) social homicide.

Let us consider the nature of insult. I insult you; you take offense.
If I have insulted you effectively, you will take offense in spite of
your determination to rise above my petty jibes: the insult is
effective to the extent that it causes its target to feel offended in
spite of himself (yet another example of the 'objectively
subjective'**). Later you will curse yourself for responding so
hastily and angrily to what were, after all, only words. You will, if
you are exceptionally disciplined, own up to yourself (and/or others)
that your response was unworthy, that you should not have allowed
yourself to become besides yourself with fury. I will then insult you
again, making artful use of the humiliation I have already inflicted,
and if my aim is true you will again fly into a rage. I enjoy a power
over you that you do not wish to grant me, and would withhold from me
if you could.

Now, from my perspective as a skilled verbal abuser, my words do
indeed appear to have a causal power: I can make you feel bad, I can
provoke a reaction and deprive you of your equanimity. Of course I can
only do this because I know what will make you feel bad, because I
have some knowledge of your vulnerabilities, your affective triggers
(yo momma!). The early stages of verbal combat often involve a search
for those triggers, a series of more or less effective sallies. So
this causal power does not operate on an inert object, but on a
psychic system that cathects and binds stimuli precisely in order to
avoid being thrown out of equilibrium. If I keep plugging away with
the same old taunts, you may eventually become immune to them; but you
may do this by internalising the gibe, accepting its essential verity,
making it a persistent feature of your inner mapping of the world - in
a word, “ontologising” it. The insult loses its immediate power to
wound because it tells you nothing you don’t already “know”; but the
attendant humiliation is now permanent, a part of who you “are”. It
has been 'interpellated.'

****The well known example of the 'objectively subjective' is the joke
about the secular guy who has no time for silly superstitions and
magical relics yet still keeps a lucky horseshoe over his door,
explaining, "because I heard it works even if you don't believe!". It
is by means of such 'disavowed beliefs' that ideology takes hold
(takes 'control') of us: we go along with it in spite of our belief,
even though 'subjectively' we don't really 'believe.' Or,
"I don't really believe in 'remakes', they're totally fake and
moronic, etc, but I heard they're worth watching anyway!" "I'm not
influenced by advertising, even though I'm systematically manipulated
by it all the time." Etc.

Did you hear the one about the guy who thought he was a piece of
grain?

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-19 20:56:59 UTC

"Harry Bailey" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43f91beb-4934-4f8b-850d-

Did you hear the one about the guy who thought he was a piece of
grain?>>>>>

If that for or against?

dc

Harry Bailey

2008-04-19 21:08:55 UTC

Post by Kelpzoidzl
news:43f91beb-4934-4f8b-850d-
Did you hear the one about the guy who thought he was a piece of
grain?>>>>>
If that for or against?
dc

That depends on what the chickens like to eat in your nearest backyard.

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-19 23:47:39 UTC

Post by Kelpzoidzl
news:43f91beb-4934-4f8b-850d-
Did you hear the one about the guy who thought he was a piece of
grain?>>>>>
If that for or against?
dc

That depends on what the chickens like to eat in your nearest backyard.

The chickens around here are all Range Freaks not melee.

dc

Bill Reid

2008-04-19 21:45:26 UTC

"The common man must led, driven, PUSHED!" - The Fascist's Credo

Post by Harry Bailey
As should be clear, his (that is, the Tortured Monkey in Hell's [TMH])
self-destructive modus operandi is always to derail all threads and
discussions, neurotically displacing or transfering them into the
implexed, implosive vortex of his ego-oedipal fantasy, and his
sociopathic pomposity - all by means of the 'insult' ... to engender
(cyber) social homicide.

Yes, since you are referring to our little "Quote Monkey(TM)",
AKA "Icky-Whipped", the screen name he cowers behind when
posting vulgarity, DEATH WISHES, and libel...you MUST be referring
to "him", since the term "Quote Monkey(TM)" is clearly a piece of
capitalist running-dog "property", as are any and all other references to
posters as "Monkeys", "Chimps", "Baboons", and "Gary Dell'Abates".
I KNOW you would never knowingly infringe on property rights...

I also know you MUST be referring to "him", "Elvira, Mistress of
the Dork", because it is clear Usenet archive record that he uttered
these words in response to a post that merely stated the poster's
opinion that "Dr. Zhivago" was boring except for the unintentional
laughable stupidity:

"Personally I wish you'd laughed yourself into your
fucking grave with your infected worldview and very poor, convoluted
taste." - "Icky-Whipped" ("Quote Monkey(TM)", 3/12/2005

Now THAT'S "(cyber) social homicide"! Riiiiiiight....?

Post by Harry Bailey
Let us consider the nature of insult. I insult you; you take offense.

Let us consider the profundity of this:

"The truth hurts."

Let's say we have a fascist empty-headed bore that apparently
lives only to hijack a group dedicated to the discussion of Stanley
Kubrick films with constant political rants that contain a premise
that your "taste" in films represents some sort of "brain-washing"
by a corporate conspiracy that you are just too stupid to be
able to resist.

Somebody says: "I liked 'Fargo'" (and for the record, I liked
"Fargo", and think it is one of the most "rewatchable" films ever
made), the off-topic fascist proceeds to bang out about 15K
of drivel that implies that only a juvenile capitalist running puppy
could appreciate "Fargo" because it lacks sufficient "cultural"
and "artistic" integrity.

Naturally, some of the many "Fargo" fans who read this
hate-filled muddled crap make the mistake to disagree, respectfully
and politely. But a fascist is nothing but indefatiguable, just
like your classic Usenet "troll", and will follow up with many
more 15K steaming-pile posts "correcting" them on their
"bad taste".

In the instant thread, initiated by just such a fascist, one of
several resident fascists here (yes, there are several, of different
stripes, in fact just about the entire list of "frequent posters"
has clear-cut fascist intent), "he/she" has sought to "instruct" us
poor fools on the "politically correct" way to think about "remakes",
again completely off-topic, and insanely enough, launched into a
ridiculous tirade about, of all possible remakes, FRIGGIN' "KING
KONG", A MOVIE ABOUT SPECIAL EFFECTS MONSTERS AND
A GIANT APE TRYING TO RAPE A BLOND CHICK WITH HIS
SEVEN-FOOT PENIS. Amazingly enough, he actually accords
more "political correctness" to the original than the second
remake (maybe the original only featured a five-foot monkey
penis, reducing at least the size if not the intent of the
capitalist phallocentric theme).

Now, if somebody should point out this wannabe "Emperor"'s
lack of intellectual clothing and his clear fascist intent, well, what's
the saying again?

"The truth hurts."

Don't blame me, I'm just the "mule", smuggling into this
den of lies the most dangerous "drug" of all: the simple truth.

<giant non-sequitur lie by "Hair-he/Vampira" elided>

The truth is: I tell the truth. About movies, the world, and
the "people" that post here. Like a fascists, you are a liar,
and hate the truth, and you variously ignore it, evade it,
attack it, and disfigure it with the grafitti of your hate-filled
rhetoric.

Here's the truth that angers you so much: you a little fascist
empty-headed crank who will never gain even the slightest power
over society that you so desperately desire. In a lifetime of
failure, you have been reduced from whatever goals or aspirations
you may have had for your miserable life to shouting your political
slogans in a newsgroup generally populated by about three or four
other completely drug-addled hate-filled idiotic fascist losers.

Post by Harry Bailey
Did you hear the one about the guy who thought he was a piece of
grain?

Was he "Wheat", or "Ricin", or just poisoned himself by the
latter when manufacturing it in a flop-house with the hate-filled
goal of killing his "enemies"? Your words have clearly failed you,
not even the people who tolerate your off-topic crap are ready
to denounce their favorite movies to suit you, let alone give
up even a soupcon of their "ill-gotten wealth", so what's your
next plan for getting the revolution started?

Maybe it's time to stop worrying about "social homocide",
and take your cue from all those other fascists who actually
get some passing recognition in the popular press, and start
thinking along the lines of "suicide"...

---
William Ernest "Honesty Bomber" Reid

ichorwhip

2008-04-20 00:20:11 UTC

Post by ichorwhip
Way to go Reidiot®, you just couldn't stand to let that youngster be
could you?

Yes, I deeply wounded the pride of the "youngster" "Harried
Bray-Lie"...

As should be clear, his (that is, the Tortured Monkey in Hell's [TMH])
self-destructive modus operandi is always to derail all threads and
discussions, neurotically displacing or transfering them into the
implexed, implosive vortex of his ego-oedipal fantasy, and his
sociopathic pomposity - all by means of the 'insult' ... to engender
(cyber) social homicide.
Let us consider the nature of insult. I insult you; you take offense.
If I have insulted you effectively, you will take offense in spite of
your determination to rise above my petty jibes: the insult is
effective to the extent that it causes its target to feel offended in
spite of himself (yet another example of the 'objectively
subjective'**). Later you will curse yourself for responding so
hastily and angrily to what were, after all, only words. You will, if
you are exceptionally disciplined, own up to yourself (and/or others)
that your response was unworthy, that you should not have allowed
yourself to become besides yourself with fury. I will then insult you
again, making artful use of the humiliation I have already inflicted,
and if my aim is true you will again fly into a rage. I enjoy a power
over you that you do not wish to grant me, and would withhold from me
if you could.
Now, from my perspective as a skilled verbal abuser, my words do
indeed appear to have a causal power: I can make you feel bad, I can
provoke a reaction and deprive you of your equanimity. Of course I can
only do this because I know what will make you feel bad, because I
have some knowledge of your vulnerabilities, your affective triggers
(yo momma!). The early stages of verbal combat often involve a search
for those triggers, a series of more or less effective sallies. So
this causal power does not operate on an inert object, but on a
psychic system that cathects and binds stimuli precisely in order to
avoid being thrown out of equilibrium. If I keep plugging away with
the same old taunts, you may eventually become immune to them; but you
may do this by internalising the gibe, accepting its essential verity,
making it a persistent feature of your inner mapping of the world - in
a word, “ontologising” it. The insult loses its immediate power to
wound because it tells you nothing you don’t already “know”; but the
attendant humiliation is now permanent, a part of who you “are”. It
has been 'interpellated.'
****The well known example of the 'objectively subjective' is the joke
about the secular guy who has no time for silly superstitions and
magical relics yet still keeps a lucky horseshoe over his door,
explaining, "because I heard it works even if you don't believe!". It
is by means of such 'disavowed beliefs' that ideology takes hold
(takes 'control') of us: we go along with it in spite of our belief,
even though 'subjectively' we don't really 'believe.' Or,
"I don't really believe in 'remakes', they're totally fake and
moronic, etc, but I heard they're worth watching anyway!" "I'm not
influenced by advertising, even though I'm systematically manipulated
by it all the time." Etc.
Did you hear the one about the guy who thought he was a piece of
grain?

Interesting stuff, how good of you to make something useful (food for
thought) out of the total uselessness of Reidiot®'s thread derailure!

Harry Bailey

2008-04-21 03:48:37 UTC

Post by ichorwhip
Way to go Reidiot®, you just couldn't stand to let that youngster be
could you?

Yes, I deeply wounded the pride of the "youngster" "Harried
Bray-Lie"...

As should be clear, his (that is, the Tortured Monkey in Hell's [TMH])
self-destructive modus operandi is always to derail all threads and
discussions, neurotically displacing or transfering them into the
implexed, implosive vortex of his ego-oedipal fantasy, and his
sociopathic pomposity - all by means of the 'insult' ... to engender
(cyber) social homicide.
Let us consider the nature of insult. I insult you; you take offense.
If I have insulted you effectively, you will take offense in spite of
your determination to rise above my petty jibes: the insult is
effective to the extent that it causes its target to feel offended in
spite of himself (yet another example of the 'objectively
subjective'**). Later you will curse yourself for responding so
hastily and angrily to what were, after all, only words. You will, if
you are exceptionally disciplined, own up to yourself (and/or others)
that your response was unworthy, that you should not have allowed
yourself to become besides yourself with fury. I will then insult you
again, making artful use of the humiliation I have already inflicted,
and if my aim is true you will again fly into a rage. I enjoy a power
over you that you do not wish to grant me, and would withhold from me
if you could.
Now, from my perspective as a skilled verbal abuser, my words do
indeed appear to have a causal power: I can make you feel bad, I can
provoke a reaction and deprive you of your equanimity. Of course I can
only do this because I know what will make you feel bad, because I
have some knowledge of your vulnerabilities, your affective triggers
(yo momma!). The early stages of verbal combat often involve a search
for those triggers, a series of more or less effective sallies. So
this causal power does not operate on an inert object, but on a
psychic system that cathects and binds stimuli precisely in order to
avoid being thrown out of equilibrium. If I keep plugging away with
the same old taunts, you may eventually become immune to them; but you
may do this by internalising the gibe, accepting its essential verity,
making it a persistent feature of your inner mapping of the world - in
a word, “ontologising” it. The insult loses its immediate power to
wound because it tells you nothing you don’t already “know”; but the
attendant humiliation is now permanent, a part of who you “are”. It
has been 'interpellated.'
****The well known example of the 'objectively subjective' is the joke
about the secular guy who has no time for silly superstitions and
magical relics yet still keeps a lucky horseshoe over his door,
explaining, "because I heard it works even if you don't believe!". It
is by means of such 'disavowed beliefs' that ideology takes hold
(takes 'control') of us: we go along with it in spite of our belief,
even though 'subjectively' we don't really 'believe.' Or,
"I don't really believe in 'remakes', they're totally fake and
moronic, etc, but I heard they're worth watching anyway!" "I'm not
influenced by advertising, even though I'm systematically manipulated
by it all the time." Etc.
Did you hear the one about the guy who thought he was a piece of
grain?

Interesting stuff, how good of you to make something useful (food for
thought) out of the total uselessness of Reidiot®'s thread derailure!-

I'd say that the TMH works (is a wage slave) in the Kafkaesque hell
that is a Call Centre, using internet newsgroups/forums to 'get back'
at all those irate callers :-)
------

Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Charlie Brooker
Saturday March 1, 2008
The Guardian

Hello. Welcome to this week's Screen Burn. I'm afraid our writer is
busy at present, so you've been placed in a queue and will be dealt
with shortly. If you'd like to continue into the next paragraph, press
one now.
Thank you. Please continue to use your imaginary keypad while using
this service. To find out what programme is being discussed this week,
press two now.

Thank you. This week's column relates to Cutting Edge: Phone Rage
(Thu, 9pm, C4). To proceed straight to the article, press three now.

I'm sorry, five is not a valid request. To proceed to the article,
press three now.
Thank you. The voice you hear in your head while reading may be
recorded for training purposes.

Hello? It's me. Yes. I was going to talk about this week's Cutting
Edge. A journey into the dark heart of the call centre that somehow
manages to sum up everything that's wrong with our world.

It starts by introducing us to three hideously ugly average schmoes,
each of whom has been driven insane by call centres. They whinge to
camera for a bit, then we see them in action: being held in a queue,
arguing with the poor sod on the other end, sighing with despair, and
so on.

It's a joyless existence, made all the more depressing because it's so
easy to relate to.

One of them sorrowfully describes how he sometimes finds himself
venting his anger by shouting at the hapless lackey at the other end,
even though he knows it's pointless, and that by doing so he's simply
contributing to what he calls "the cyclical wheel of hate".

Then the cameras venture inside a call centre - for Powergen - and we
discover the staff are so used to being shouted at, they scarcely even
notice any more. Half their job seems to consist of simply letting the
customer scream for a bit to blow off steam. You roar yourself purple;
they sit and soak it up, like an anger sponge. The cyclical wheel of
hate is revolving in a vacuum.

Then we visit a different kind of call centre: a smiley one belonging
to First Direct. The thinking here is that the happier the staff, the
happier the customer. So the staff are forced to be happy.

They hold sumo wrestling tournaments in paddling pools full of foam
balls. They have to form teams with wacky names (like pub quiz teams)
and attach kerrrazy photos of themselves to the "team wall". The boss
says things like "Hey, who wants to win a Creme Egg? First one to get
the phrase 'that's tremendous' into their next call..."

And they're coached in "Above the Line Language", so they only ever
say things like "I'd love to" or "I'd be happy to" instead of "I
must".

It's the most terrifying, awful place I've ever seen, and it's the
size of the National Exhibition Centre, for Christ's sake. It's
madness. Any sane person working there would pray daily for a
massacre. As the gunmen burst in, firing indiscriminately, the first
genuine smile in six months would spread wide across your face, and
you'd leap, giggling, into the line of fire.

And just when you think things can't get any more tearjerking, we're
introduced to Mandisa, a black single mum in South Africa, who hopes
her new call centre job should make ends meet. Thing is, it's for a UK
firm, so first she has to attend an "Accent Reduction" course, which
knocks all the fun out of her voice, so she won't frighten the horses.

Then she's given a crash course in British culture, which involves
watching The Full Monty on DVD. Then she sits an exam. She passes!
She's excited! She goes to work, smiling broadly! And the British
phone up. Yeah, us.

And we sigh and we whine and we hang up and shout at her. Her smile
shrivels into oblivion. The cyclical wheel of hate turns again. And
somehow you know it won't ever, ever stop.
-------------------------------

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-17 08:17:18 UTC

Post by Bill Reid
I'm not 100% sure about his EARLIEST films, but he's definitely
focused on boring the crap out of us with monumentally-budgeted
snooze-fests ever since...don't even bring up "Lord of the Rings",
why somebody would even make a movie of that pointless garbage
in the first place is beyond me, but he managed to make it even
more soporific than the novels...quite the accomplishment, there...

Did you ever actually read the entire novel "The Lord of the Rings?"

Although the spirit is there and the FX and action is excellent, the film
(all three as one) falls short of the hardcore nature of the mystery,
emotions and depth in the novel (all three in one)

Anyone that would actually read that book and call it, "soporific," as in
inducing sleep.....indicates they fell asleep tryign to read it and then
gave up. I can however vouch for the first 125 pages of The Lord of the
Rings, that it is a hard task to get through that. But once you get to the
Council of Elrond does it begin to fall together and then Bilbo's "Birthday
Party," becomes the preface to the remainder of the books, which is, without
doubt one of the greatest novels of all time.

I started Lord of the Rings at least three times till I finally managed to
get past the first 125 pages (sometime in around 1976 at the age of 29 or
30,) The book was an incredibly, powerful book. It had a edge to it, the
film, although good in many ways, fails to match. The film has some
leadeness to it, but apparently it was and is well loved by young people.

Post by Harry Bailey
In King Kong, FX have replaced history. Or rather, 'history'
- now flattened out into a series of period signifiers - has itself
become a kind of special effect.

Kind of like "Cleopatra", huh?

The FX and drawn out actions scenes, in the Jackson King Kong is some
amazing stuff. Jack Black and Naomi Watts are excellent. It does lack the
creepy scariness and atmosphere of the original. The film grew on me after
around the third time I saw it, but it still lacks the edge of the original
and like Jackson's LOTR a little too sanitized, for my taste. Yet again
the young people--the new viewers liked it.

Far better then the 1976 remake.

Nothing like "Cleopatra," duh.

Post by Harry Bailey
(Technology substitutes not only for
history but for culture, too; in 2005, technological progress is the
only faith that remains to us.)

There is truth here. It is a major annoyance.

Post by Bill Reid
"Tonight we report on a growing trend: a big-budget movie was just
released that is historically inaccurate. We're sure it will be on DVD
in a matter of weeks, but remade in 3-D two years from now..."

High Tech is great but it has to be subservient to the story and the
characters.

Post by Harry Bailey
Even if the simulation were note-
perfect accurate, History, in the Marxist sense of struggle,
antagonism and contingency, would still be photoshopped out.

To much of a projection, the "marxist sense of struggle" has nothing to do
with it. Plain old "lacks the sense of struggle throughout history"
suffices.

Post by Bill Reid
"Animal House" kind of showed a "class struggle", and "Revenge
of the Nerds", too...

The struggle for useless sacasm and bitterness is notable in this reply.

Post by Harry Bailey
The
Depression is a stage-set, an inexplicable backdrop. This a museum
without History, the Past as Experience, Theme Park...

Some truth here.

Post by Bill Reid
Yes, they should have spent another hour explaining that the
Great Depression was caused by the greed of the 1920s Wall
Street tycoons...that would have livened the movie up...

The greedy and bitter, can never see themselves except in movies.

Some truth here too, although I don't necessarily think it matters. I
think it can be explained with less intellectualizing on it. Spielberg,
"Raiders of the Lost Ark," created a modern action film, tongue and cheek,
mold that has been repeated far too often.
Raiders succeed at it better because it is not a remake and did not have to
explore anything more then a old fashioned cliff hanger, adventure taken to
a new height.

Also, the Jackson. King Kong, T Rex battle and chase scene, with the
falling through the trees etc, although very well done was basically way too
much like Jurassic Parks 1 and 2.

Post by Bill Reid
Could you get those memories for me wholesale?

Put it on a Visa, bill it as a an business expense.

Post by Harry Bailey
Someone else's dream

This post is a nightmare of ennui...

And your posts are just riviting and lively.

Post by Harry Bailey
There's something homologous in the way that the film refuses to
linger in the memory. Walking out of the cinema, I found myself unable
to bring any images to mind.

After a few viewing the film does begin to entertain and gain some genuine
respect.

Post by Bill Reid
Were you drunk again? We've talked about this before...

No point here,

I had a similar reaction on the first viewing and when it made it to cable I
avoided it for quite a while. Last time I saw it I reevaluated it without
any comparison to the original and watched it as though I was ayoung kid who
had never even seen the original.

This is an aspect of the equation, to consider the reaction of younger
people seeing this for the first time who had never memorized the original,
made with them in mind and not so much made for the old fogies.

Post by Bill Reid
You HAD to have known you were going to "hate" the film, so why
did you even bother to see it? (Aside from getting to bore us with your
fey pseudo-intellectual complaints, of course.)

And where do you stand on the film? Have to read below to find out.....Does
it just exist so you can negate a post about it?

Again I mention the Spielberg effect. His action style in Raiders and
Jurassic has been copied way too much. It was an original modern style at
the time. Now it becomes trite and ho hum the 60th time you see a film that
uses the same styles.

Post by Bill Reid
I could actually explain this to you, but you probably would not be
able to understand, mainly because you are so consumed with your
own hate for everybody else on the planet you are incapable of thinking
about things rationally. So in the interim, I will just re-post (like a
remake!) my review of the remake of "King Kong" that I posted here

Okay so now Bill Ried will enlighten us with his superior critical skills.

Post by Bill Reid
Subject: Re: Any opinions on Kong? (King, not Major)
Date: Thursday, December 22, 2005
...
I haven't seen it but I'm not exactly rushing out because frankly "The
Lord of the Rings" was a trilogy of boredom, and only part of that was
due to the stupid books the movies were based on that were only read
by lifeless geeks who could somehow identify with deformed midgets,
no, probably the bigger problem is that Jackson is perhaps the
most overrated filmmaker in history who can turn $500 million of
budget into about 10 cents of entertainment, and true to form this
SECOND unneeded re-make of a classic is a friggin' lugubrious
3 HOURS LONG compared to a brisk 100 minutes for the original, and
apparently it takes 1 1/2 hours, almost as long as the entire first film,
to even see Kong--I mean, the original takes like three seconds to
establish that the Carl Denham character is looking for a leading
lady BAM! two seconds later he finds Ann Darrow fainting in
a soup line BAM! five seconds later Captain Jack Driscoll is
saying he don't like dames on boats and Ann says why not and
BAM! he's got his tongue jammed down her throat and BAM!
half a second later the natives have kidnapped her and the Chinese
cook is running around screaming ALL HANDS ON DECK!
ALL HANDS ON DECK! ALL HANDS ON DECK! and BAM!
a second later she's tied to a tree and BAM! KONG APPEARS!!!,
only 14.5 frickin' seconds into the movie--and what's the deal
with casting Jack friggin' Black as Carl Denham, there's no way
that beefboat can deliver a line like, "There's your angle there, boys,
Beauty and the Beast!" like the original guy, like Jackson, Black
is really overrated, more clever than actually funny, and nobody
really wants to see a clever fat guy, we like stupid fat guys like
Belushi-Candy-Farley, and why a skinny guy with a gigantic nose
as the guy who rescues Ann, and I have to agree with one wag
that the greatest special effect is casting a 37-year-old actress as
an ingenue, but frankly that doesn't bother me because I think
Naomi Watts is a peach, loved her in "Muholland Drive", but
is does strain credulity a tad, and why when Kong is fighting the
Tyranosaurus does it keep trying to bite little itty-bitty Ann when
a real dinosaur would be trying to bite the thing that was beating the
crap out of it, not to mention that our local obnoxious TV film critic
gave it a lukewarm review, and it really isn't doing all that great at the
box office, the publicists tried to pump it by saying it would do
"Titanic" business but that was just the same 10 million 14-year-old
girls seeing the movie 17 bazillion times and that ain't gonna happen
for "Kong".

All this and he slams a book and a movie he probably hadn't made it through
and has no clue about, and a film he hadn't seen.
Thats a great way to form opinions and this is such a revelation?

Believe it or not Reid, there are 14 year old girls and boys who loved
Titanic, LOTR and King King.

Post by Bill Reid
Those were my opinions on "King Kong" which were mine.
Thank you for reading them.
---
William Ernest "Pre-Historical" Reid

Never read it, never saw it, lots to slam, Reid.

dc

Bill Reid

2008-04-17 14:15:44 UTC

Hey, "Cralpsoidactyl", why not do one useful thing in your life and
tell all the other goobers in this worthless group how EXACTLY how
you managed to post from Google(TM) Groups so it was quoted
properly when I responded in my newsreader.

You must have just learned how to do it, since all your previous posts
were not quoted properly, so you should be able to give a simple step
by step process that would allow all the other people posting from the
library here to do it right, that is, if something hasn't impacted your
short-term memory and ability to form simple instructional sentences...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Did you ever actually read the entire novel "The Lord of the Rings?"

Watch folks, a common "Algoids" theme is coming up, his
"appreciation" of something is correlated to how many times
he failed to be able to stay awake over the course of several
decades...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Anyone that would actually read that book and call it, "soporific," as in
inducing sleep.....indicates they fell asleep tryign to read it and then
gave up. I can however vouch for the first 125 pages of The Lord of the
Rings, that it is a hard task to get through that.
I started Lord of the Rings at least three times till I finally managed to
get past the first 125 pages (sometime in around 1976 at the age of 29 or
30,)

Genius at work, since most 15-year-olds at the time read the whole
thing by 1970...just like my mom, who has a problem falling asleep
at movies, managed to stay awake during "Dr. Zhivago"...

Your apparent evaluation of a movie or book is akin to a ditch-digger
claiming that the greatest ditch he ever dug was the one in the hardest
ground that took the most work...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
The film has some
leadeness to it, but apparently it was and is well loved by young people.

And the young at intellect...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
The FX and drawn out actions scenes, in the Jackson King Kong is some
amazing stuff. Jack Black and Naomi Watts are excellent. It does lack the
creepy scariness and atmosphere of the original. The film grew on me after
around the third time I saw it, but it still lacks the edge of the original
and like Jackson's LOTR a little too sanitized, for my taste. Yet again
the young people--the new viewers liked it.

Another common theme emerges, "think of the children".

Well, you're right, unlike "Hairy PeeWee", I have absolutely no
problem with "young people" enjoying a special effects remake
of a 500-year-old movie. Let the babies have their bottles...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Far better then the 1976 remake.

People said the same thing about the 1976 remake. Not only
did they remake the movie, they apparently remade the popular
critical appreciation of the movie...

Post by Harry Bailey
(Technology substitutes not only for
history but for culture, too; in 2005, technological progress is the
only faith that remains to us.)

There is truth here. It is a major annoyance.

There is no truth there. He has no understanding of the word
"culture" except in the sense that the old Soviet Union used the
word.

High Tech is great but it has to be subservient to the story and the
characters.

This is why I'm sure you won't be able to tell the other broke-ass
losers here how to post from Google(TM) Groups. We were talking
about "King Kong", which ALWAYS was a piece of special effects
schlock with idiotic cardboard characters and a contrived plot, and
I made that point very clearly in my post.

But apparently you forgot it within about five minutes or so...

Post by Harry Bailey
The
Depression is a stage-set, an inexplicable backdrop. This a museum
without History, the Past as Experience, Theme Park...

Some truth here.

Yeah, about as much truth as "WestWorld"...that's why Crichton
is a friggin' millionaire, and you guys post stupidity from the library,
he knows how to take the very simple concepts that you struggle
to articulate and turn them into popular entertaining books and
movies.

Post by Bill Reid
Yes, they should have spent another hour explaining that the
Great Depression was caused by the greed of the 1920s Wall
Street tycoons...that would have livened the movie up...

The greedy and bitter, can never see themselves except in movies.

Yes, I'm sure that Gordon Gecko would have been a changed
man had he viewed an "improved" version of "Kong"...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Spielberg,
"Raiders of the Lost Ark," created a modern action film, tongue and cheek,
mold that has been repeated far too often.

Once was too much, in my opinion...an "action" film that put me
to sleep...it wasn't a "modern film" EXCEPT for the technical details
of the production, it very clearly was just an old-fashioned adventure
film in every way, and if you ever liked that kind of mindless stuff,
well, there's another one for you...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Raiders succeed at it better because it is not a remake and did not have to
explore anything more then a old fashioned cliff hanger, adventure taken to
a new height.

Took it to exactly the same "height" as before, just a little more
technically advanced...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Also, the Jackson. King Kong, T Rex battle and chase scene, with the
falling through the trees etc, although very well done was basically way too
much like Jurassic Parks 1 and 2.

Which were just like the original "King Kong", except with "better"
special effects! You know, I don't really blame you for not having a
point here, since the original poster didn't have one, and the whole
thread is gigantic waste of time just like his entire life...

Post by Bill Reid
Could you get those memories for me wholesale?

Put it on a Visa, bill it as a an business expense.

You think this is the real Reid?

Post by Bill Reid
This post is a nightmare of ennui...

And your posts are just riviting and lively.

Thank you, sir.

Post by Harry Bailey
There's something homologous in the way that the film refuses to
linger in the memory. Walking out of the cinema, I found myself unable
to bring any images to mind.

After a few viewing the film does begin to entertain and gain some genuine
respect.

Post by Bill Reid
Were you drunk again? We've talked about this before...

No point here,

Did you mean "no pot here", "Cannaboidzl"?

Post by Harry Bailey
It felt like there was nothing to talk
about, as if the film had instantly erased itself from the memory.

Again, his "evaluation" of a movie's quality is directly related to
how much work he had to do to actually watch it...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
This is an aspect of the equation, to consider the reaction of younger
people seeing this for the first time who had never memorized the original,
made with them in mind and not so much made for the old fogies.

There is no "equation". People are free to "like" a movie if they want,
other people are free to not "like" it, and people are free to make stupid
remakes if they want. THIS is a free country, unlike the old Soviet
Union where they instilled "their" idea of "culture" into you with a
gun pointed at your head...

And where do you stand on the film? Have to read below to find

out.....Does

Post by Kelpzoidzl
it just exist so you can negate a post about it?

Obviously not, idiot, once again you are way too wasted to even
understand what is written in plain English. I wasn't interested in
the remake of "King Kong" for the reasons stated, and HE was
only interested in it as another "example" for the endless parade
of muddled communist doctrine position papers he bores us
with...neither one of us HAD to see the movie, but at least I
might have been able to enjoy some of the surface appeal of
the special effects and action and the lovely Naomi Watts in
another crappy movie...

He copied the style himself! You really ARE missing out on my
theory of "film syntax and popular culture", but you'd never be able
to grasp it anyway so forget it...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Okay so now Bill Ried will enlighten us with his superior critical skills.

Who the hell is "Bill Ried"?

Post by Kelpzoidzl
All this and he slams a book and a movie he probably hadn't made it through
and has no clue about, and a film he hadn't seen.
Thats a great way to form opinions and this is such a revelation?

Everything and nothing is a "revelation" to the sufficiently addled
mind...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Believe it or not Reid, there are 14 year old girls and boys who loved
Titanic, LOTR and King King.

I don't just believe it, I KNOW it! So what's your point?

Post by Bill Reid
Those were my opinions on "King Kong" which were mine.
Thank you for reading them.

Never read it, never saw it, lots to slam, Reid.

I read your post, there was nothing there, so plenty to "slam"...

Are you telling me you aren't even a little curious about "Dollhouse"?
Who knows, there's a small chance it might even be good, but as usual,
since I haven't seen it since it hasn't been made yet, I'm assuming it
will suck...but I'll admit it if I'm "wrong"...

---
William Ernest "Also Hates Dance Club Re-Mixes" Reid

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-17 20:39:11 UTC

Post by Bill Reid
Hey, "Cralpsoidactyl", why not do one useful thing in your life and
tell all the other goobers in this worthless group how EXACTLY how
you managed to post from Google(TM) Groups so it was quoted
properly when I responded in my newsreader.

I never post from Google Groups. I do however sometimes read and copy and
paste FROM google groups into my newsreader, (Windows Mail) when I want to
reply to someone I have /plonked.

Since I swap hard drives quite a bit, often my plonking vanishes. I
currently have no plonks again. I also am not in any way obligated to post
in any particular style.

Post by Bill Reid
You must have just learned how to do it, since all your previous posts
were not quoted properly, so you should be able to give a simple step
by step process that would allow all the other people posting from the
library here to do it right, that is, if something hasn't impacted your
short-term memory and ability to form simple instructional sentences...

I don't care a whole lot if my posts are perfectly punctuated or edited
after I type them. Sometime I regret my typoes or incomplete sentences
written in a rush. I don't edit I don't spell check. I usually type in a
rush. I might correct a post and repost if I find I typoed "should" when I
meant "shouldn't" etc. Otherwise it shouldn't be too overly difficult to
understand what the hell I am saying.

I dislike long threads which repeat the same quote formatting ad infinitum.
So in other words f off Gollum

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Did you ever actually read the entire novel "The Lord of the Rings?"

Watch folks, a common "Algoids" theme is coming up, his
"appreciation" of something is correlated to how many times
he failed to be able to stay awake over the course of several
decades...

Reading ahead are we?

Post by Kelpzoidzl
get past the first 125 pages (sometime in around 1976 at the age of 29 or
30,)

Genius at work, since most 15-year-olds at the time read the whole
thing by 1970...just like my mom, who has a problem falling asleep
at movies, managed to stay awake during "Dr. Zhivago"...
Your apparent evaluation of a movie or book is akin to a ditch-digger
claiming that the greatest ditch he ever dug was the one in the hardest
ground that took the most work...

And still no answer as to whether you read the book, just some meaningless
drivel linked to some more attacks on Dr. Zhivago, just to make sure the mud
comes with you in yout troll travals.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
The film has some
leadeness to it, but apparently it was and is well loved by young people.

And the young at intellect...

As opposed to the "intellect" of a bitter, nasty troll?

Post by Kelpzoidzl
The FX and drawn out actions scenes, in the Jackson King Kong is some
amazing stuff. Jack Black and Naomi Watts are excellent. It does lack

the

Post by Kelpzoidzl
creepy scariness and atmosphere of the original. The film grew on me

after

Post by Kelpzoidzl
around the third time I saw it, but it still lacks the edge of the

original

Post by Kelpzoidzl
and like Jackson's LOTR a little too sanitized, for my taste. Yet again
the young people--the new viewers liked it.

Another common theme emerges, "think of the children".

Someone should, yes. I treasure the wonderment I found in some movies I
watched as a kid. Some people were even bitter as children and were unable
to experience wonderment. Some directors actually realize that if a film is
too dark, he will scare the kids too much, so they water down some of the
terror the film might generate in the youngest people. That is a
responsible thing to do, if you desire young kids to see their film.

Post by Bill Reid
Well, you're right, unlike "Hairy PeeWee", I have absolutely no
problem with "young people" enjoying a special effects remake
of a 500-year-old movie. Let the babies have their bottles...

Let's only hope you never have had any children

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Far better then the 1976 remake.

People said the same thing about the 1976 remake. Not only
did they remake the movie, they apparently remade the popular
critical appreciation of the movie...

The 1976 King Kong wasn't a terrible film at all, but I think the Jackson
film is a better remake. The original King Kong's atmosphere is absent in
either color version, which might even be an effect of transitioning from
B&W to color. At any rate there were new crops of young people seeing the
film who may have never seen the original because they avoid B&W films.

Post by Harry Bailey
(Technology substitutes not only for
history but for culture, too; in 2005, technological progress is the
only faith that remains to us.)

There is truth here. It is a major annoyance.

There is no truth there. He has no understanding of the word
"culture" except in the sense that the old Soviet Union used the
word.

Is that what the troll culture has to say on the subject?

High Tech is great but it has to be subservient to the story and the
characters.

This is why I'm sure you won't be able to tell the other broke-ass
losers here how to post from Google(TM) Groups. We were talking
about "King Kong", which ALWAYS was a piece of special effects
schlock with idiotic cardboard characters and a contrived plot, and
I made that point very clearly in my post.
But apparently you forgot it within about five minutes or so...

Whatever you think your posts are saying or accomplishing, you need to
reevalute them, because they say very little and are just bitter and
venomous

King Kong the original was ALSO seen by young people when it came out, who
experienced it's thrills and wonderment. Calling it "schlock," means you see
things through such jaded and bitter eyes you can't enjoy anything. Why you
are that way, you probably should try to figure out.

Post by Harry Bailey
The
Depression is a stage-set, an inexplicable backdrop. This a museum
without History, the Past as Experience, Theme Park...

Some truth here.

Some writers do have a knack at writing good, very salable pulp. Crichton
is one of them.
Are you jealous of them?

Post by Bill Reid
Yes, they should have spent another hour explaining that the
Great Depression was caused by the greed of the 1920s Wall
Street tycoons...that would have livened the movie up...

The greedy and bitter, can never see themselves except in movies.

Yes, I'm sure that Gordon Gecko would have been a changed
man had he viewed an "improved" version of "Kong"...

Gordon Gecko wasn't one of those film characters who manage to do a Scrooge,
tranformation.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Spielberg,
"Raiders of the Lost Ark," created a modern action film, tongue and cheek,
mold that has been repeated far too often.

Are you just a narcoleptic?

If you fell asleep in Raiders of the Lost Ark that would explain a lot.

My use of the word "modern" here is referring mostly to the technical level
of Raiders and the slick tongue and cheek pulp style it strove for. The
film was not deep in any way. It was just pure entertainment. Not a bad
thing.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Raiders succeed at it better because it is not a remake and did not have

Post by Kelpzoidzl
explore anything more then a old fashioned cliff hanger, adventure taken

Post by Kelpzoidzl
a new height.

Took it to exactly the same "height" as before, just a little more
technically advanced...

"a little more"??

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Also, the Jackson. King Kong, T Rex battle and chase scene, with the
falling through the trees etc, although very well done was basically way

too

Post by Kelpzoidzl
much like Jurassic Parks 1 and 2.

What point needs to be made beyond what I had said? Over analyzing it may
be unnecessay, but film like all other media does reflect the times and can
be written about analytically and metaphorically. In any case better
technology IS something to showcase. "This is Cinerama" had no point at
all, other then to thrill and razzle dazzle the audience. That is just as
valid an entertainment, until it is repeated over and over till it gets
stale. IN recnt times, film has relied way too much on the current High
Tech and THAT is a sign of the times.

Post by Bill Reid
Could you get those memories for me wholesale?

Put it on a Visa, bill it as a an business expense.

You think this is the real Reid?

Post by Bill Reid
This post is a nightmare of ennui...

And your posts are just riviting and lively.

Thank you, sir.

Don't thank me just yet.

Post by Harry Bailey
There's something homologous in the way that the film refuses to
linger in the memory. Walking out of the cinema, I found myself unable
to bring any images to mind.

After a few viewing the film does begin to entertain and gain some genuine
respect.

Post by Bill Reid
Were you drunk again? We've talked about this before...

No point here,

Did you mean "no pot here", "Cannaboidzl"?

No point here either.

Post by Harry Bailey
It felt like there was nothing to talk
about, as if the film had instantly erased itself from the memory.

I had a similar reaction on the first viewing and when it made it to
cable

Post by Kelpzoidzl
avoided it for quite a while. Last time I saw it I reevaluated it without
any comparison to the original and watched it as though I was a young kid

who

Post by Kelpzoidzl
had never even seen the original.

Again, his "evaluation" of a movie's quality is directly related to
how much work he had to do to actually watch it...

Thats just silly. A film does differ in impact according to one's own level
of tiredness on any given day. You are apparently always too tired to stay
awake. The whole idea that one may notice how their own momentary life state
on any given day, might effect ones appreciation for a film, seen under less
then fully focused circumstances, must go over your head.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
This is an aspect of the equation, to consider the reaction of younger
people seeing this for the first time who had never memorized the

original,

Post by Kelpzoidzl
made with them in mind and not so much made for the old fogies.

Duh.

And where do you stand on the film? Have to read below to find

out.....Does

Post by Kelpzoidzl
it just exist so you can negate a post about it?

You are one of those types of people that cannot do anything but
backchatting and are clearly incapable of making any points on your own.
Instead you simply comment on the posters styles like a low grade, nasty
troll.

that

Post by Kelpzoidzl
uses the same styles.

He copied the style himself! You really ARE missing out on my
theory of "film syntax and popular culture", but you'd never be able
to grasp it anyway so forget it...

Oh you posted a theory of film syntax? Must have missed it in between the
rabid attacks on anyone and everything.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Okay so now Bill Ried will enlighten us with his superior critical skills.

Who the hell is "Bill Ried"?

Who the hell cares if its reid or ried. or reed. ya i make typos so what?

Post by Kelpzoidzl
All this and he slams a book and a movie he probably hadn't made it

through

Post by Kelpzoidzl
and has no clue about, and a film he hadn't seen.
Thats a great way to form opinions and this is such a revelation?

Everything and nothing is a "revelation" to the sufficiently addled
mind...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Believe it or not Reid, there are 14 year old girls and boys who loved
Titanic, LOTR and King King.

I don't just believe it, I KNOW it! So what's your point?

You dinl;t ever read LOTRs did you Reid? Did you ever see Jackson's King
Kong?

What the hell are you really trying to say? That your bitte and cyncial
approach to life is superior?

Post by Bill Reid
Those were my opinions on "King Kong" which were mine.
Thank you for reading them.

Never read it, never saw it, lots to slam, Reid.

I read your post, there was nothing there, so plenty to "slam"...

Great conversationalist.

Post by Bill Reid
Are you telling me you aren't even a little curious about "Dollhouse"?
Who knows, there's a small chance it might even be good, but as usual,
since I haven't seen it since it hasn't been made yet, I'm assuming it
will suck...but I'll admit it if I'm "wrong"...

Okay you do finally try to make a point of some kind here, but what could
that be? That you assume the worst at all times?
If they made another version of Hamlet, yes I'd be curious to see it.

are you taking about "A Doll's House" and its many remakes?

Post by Bill Reid
---
William Ernest "Also Hates Dance Club Re-Mixes" Reid

What exactly DO you like Wreed?

dc

ichorwhip

2008-04-18 02:17:11 UTC

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I dislike long threads which repeat the same quote formatting ad infinitum.
So in other words f off Gollum

LOL!!! See? Even a weedkiller like cralprhoidzl can be funny
sometimes.... "F off Gollum"

Post by Kelpzoidzl
And still no answer as to whether you read the book, just some meaningless
drivel linked to some more attacks on Dr. Zhivago, just to make sure the mud
comes with you in yout troll travals.

"yout troll travals...." Must be some J.R.R.R.R. Token shit...
Anyway, Reidiot® is quite incapable of answering a straightforward
question. I always have to trick him into it, kind of like covering a
doggy pill in peanutbutter...

Let's only hope you never have had any children

And hopefully never will if that apple not falling far from the tree
crap is true... Maybe that's why he's so flunking bitter, his balls
were ripped off so he could not contaminate the rest of the
universe... just a theory...

Post by Bill Reid
Which were just like the original "King Kong", except with "better"
special effects! You know, I don't really blame you for not having a
point here, since the original poster didn't have one, and the whole
thread is gigantic waste of time just like his entire life...

A faceless "nameless" person, whom he has obviously never met, whole
life's a waste... Does that sound bitter or is it just me?

Post by Bill Reid
William Ernest "Also Hates Dance Club Re-Mixes" Reid

What exactly DO you like Wreed?

He likes "Charlene" and Buffy and Naomi T Watts. He also loves Bob
Oliver and Mike Hunt....

Indeed Reidiot® lacks the courage to answer that question directly,
but if you ever pay attention to his tiresome snarkcasm much, every
once in a while he'll let slip some of the wonky shit that does cheese
his burger, and it's always very telling and hilarious.

Bill Reid

2008-04-18 06:02:20 UTC

I never post from Google Groups. I do however sometimes read and copy and
paste FROM google groups into my newsreader, (Windows Mail) when I want to
reply to someone I have /plonked.

Oh, that's right, I forgot...mainly because YOU'RE COMPLETELY
INSANE, AND I CAN'T UNDERSTAND LOONS EVEN THOUGH I
CAN CATALOG AND EVEN PREDICT THEIR WHACKY BEHAVIOR!!!

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Since I swap hard drives quite a bit, often my plonking vanishes. I
currently have no plonks again.

Geez, what a waste of a life...for a second there, I almost thought
you'd be able to do something for another human being, but you're too
busy "plonking" people, then running to Google(TM) Groups to
breathlessly read what they write that irritates you so much you
"plonked" them, then running back to your ISP to post your response
to the post you "plonked" in the first place...

In other words, you're a supremely self-involved weird-o...and thus,
the archetypical poster here...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I also am not in any way obligated to post
in any particular style.

Coherent might be nice, but I can't MAKE you do it...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Otherwise it shouldn't be too overly difficult to
understand what the hell I am saying.

Oh yeah, like all the frequent posters here you don't have
much to say, but say it a WHOLE lot...you're the guy with
the shifting monomanias and worships acid and Buddhism
and Kubrick was an acid-head Buddhist and everything is an
acid-head Buddhist thing including "Ben Hur", "Lawrence
of Arabia", and "How The West Was Won"...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
What exactly DO you like Wreed?

Well, I've said MANY times that "2001" is my favorite movie,
followed by "Dr. Strangelove", "A Clockwork Orange", "Paths
of Glory" is a great film, "The Killing" is a good interesting
crime noir, and I've mentioned MANY other works and artists
and actors whose work I admire.

Unfortunately, this means nothing here, because I was told
by some 90-year-old acid-head who cleans bedpans for a living
that I didn't REALLY like "2001" at all, because I wasn't a 50-year-old
acid-head when I saw it...and that's pretty much how it goes here
in this little group of self-involved, hate-filled, idiotic miserable
misfit losers...if you aren't EXACTLY the same kind of self-involved,
hate-filled, idiotic miserable misfit loser as they are (which is
impossible for a person with the normal number of chromosones),
THEY NEVER HEAR A WORD YOU SAY, AND THEY JUST
TALK PAST EACH OTHER AND OCCASIONALLY WISH
DEATH ON PEOPLE AND SAY THE "N-WORD"...

---
William Ernest "Never Saw A Movie I Didn't Watch" Reid

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-18 12:02:32 UTC

I never post from Google Groups. I do however sometimes read and copy and
paste FROM google groups into my newsreader, (Windows Mail) when I want

Post by Kelpzoidzl
reply to someone I have /plonked.

Oh, that's right, I forgot...mainly because YOU'RE COMPLETELY
INSANE, AND I CAN'T UNDERSTAND LOONS EVEN THOUGH I
CAN CATALOG AND EVEN PREDICT THEIR WHACKY BEHAVIOR!!!

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Since I swap hard drives quite a bit, often my plonking vanishes. I
currently have no plonks again.

Geez, what a waste of a life...for a second there, I almost thought
you'd be able to do something for another human being, but you're too
busy "plonking" people, then running to Google(TM) Groups to
breathlessly read what they write that irritates you so much you
"plonked" them, then running back to your ISP to post your response
to the post you "plonked" in the first place...
In other words, you're a supremely self-involved weird-o...and thus,
the archetypical poster here...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I also am not in any way obligated to post
in any particular style.

Coherent might be nice, but I can't MAKE you do it...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Otherwise it shouldn't be too overly difficult to
understand what the hell I am saying.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
What exactly DO you like Wreed?

Well, I've said MANY times that "2001" is my favorite movie,
followed by "Dr. Strangelove", "A Clockwork Orange", "Paths
of Glory" is a great film, "The Killing" is a good interesting
crime noir, and I've mentioned MANY other works and artists
and actors whose work I admire.
Unfortunately, this means nothing here, because I was told
by some 90-year-old acid-head who cleans bedpans for a living
that I didn't REALLY like "2001" at all, because I wasn't a 50-year-old
acid-head when I saw it...and that's pretty much how it goes here
in this little group of self-involved, hate-filled, idiotic miserable
misfit losers...if you aren't EXACTLY the same kind of self-involved,
hate-filled, idiotic miserable misfit loser as they are (which is
impossible for a person with the normal number of chromosones),
THEY NEVER HEAR A WORD YOU SAY, AND THEY JUST
TALK PAST EACH OTHER AND OCCASIONALLY WISH
DEATH ON PEOPLE AND SAY THE "N-WORD"...
---
William Ernest "Never Saw A Movie I Didn't Watch" Reid

Reid, you are a very foolish and bitter person. You are just a caps lock
troll type. Its absurd to read how you brag about suing people for
libel....its such a joke. Imagine some judge reviewing your posting
history. There is plenty of nastiness on this group and plenty of times i
find myself having to defend myself from moronic insults and stupidity, but
seriously, if you imagine for a moment that you aren't the nastiest and most
virulent and libelous poster on this group, as well as the least interesting
(and that is saying quite a bit), then you really need to get some
help...because you are completly delusional.

I honestly can't find any redeeming qualities in your posts. I only
remember ONE post you've ever made that was attempting to deal with any
Kubrick or Film content at all, in a nonvirulent way and that was quite a
while ago. Even Ichorwhip posts some non-virulent content fairly commonly,
amidst his insults and gang turf ramblings, pseudoexistential-affectations
and colloquial "prollies." It is clear you can never get enthusiastic about
anything because you hate everything.

I am always amazed by the incessent nastiness on Usenet and of all places---
a Stanley Kubrick Newsgroup---??---which one would think would exhibit some
semblance of a polite conversational tone, despite differing opinions. One
would hope for some semblance of normalcy or confluence.

One can always count on you to attack everyone and anything in any thread
you choose to enter. And never do you ever provide any type of counter
argument that includes any content. It is normal for people to defend
themselves once they have been attacked. It has to do with who throws the
stones first and starts with the personal attacks.

Each of your replies and paragraphs above are virtually meaningless. So

Post by Bill Reid
Oh, that's right, I forgot...mainly because YOU'RE COMPLETELY
INSANE, AND I CAN'T UNDERSTAND LOONS EVEN THOUGH I
CAN CATALOG AND EVEN PREDICT THEIR WHACKY BEHAVIOR!!!

This is troll speak Reid. Caps and all.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Since I swap hard drives quite a bit, often my plonking vanishes. I
currently have no plonks again.

Plonking people that are just acting nasty is because nonsense arguments are
pointless. I don't enjoy attacking others or defending myself from nonsense
and personal attacks. I admit I have a link to AMK on my browser tool bar
and look to see what the mood is and if there is any normal conversation
going on. I would just rather not see it all in my Windows
mail/newsreader. So yes, I sometime feel compelled to respond. I will see
a reply on a thread in my newsreader that quotes someone I have plonked and
if there is something in the post that is interesting I will go back to
GoogleAMK and read it and then I have to cut and paste if I want to respond.
I have had Ichowhip plonked alot and Harry plonked at times when he is stuck
in the psychology, anti buddhist or naive and incomplete ideas about
entheogens and I nearly always have you plonked. Right now I have no one
plonked, because as I said I just reinstalled on a new C drive.

The reason I change hard drives so often is because I am a composer and a
freelance video and 3D animator/editor, So I can fill up a 500gig harddrive
pretty fast. I am also a technical consultant so doing frequent hard drive
changes is nothing for me.

I despise nasty conversation but at the same time I have this natural
hopefulness, that people might change their nastiness. I also study
nastiness and nuttiness and did so clinically for 20 years till, I could
stomach it no longer around the year 2000, when I changed to the third
occupation I've had in my 60 years---but I am still always searching for the
underlying cause of the nastiness and nuttiness in the world--quietly
seeking and pondering the cures for it, long ago discarding the traditional
understanding and failed theories employed by my previous occupation Its
just my nature. So it's not a contradiction to me to be plonking the
nastiness, rather then getting too caught up in it, and maybe sinking to
it's level, since i am only human. But ya I usually come back at it later
but then I'll put you on extinction when I feel like it.

I am an enthusiastic person by nature. I have loved great films all my
life. They are entertainment as well. They are movies not life or death
issues. I was 10 years old when I first saw The Killing on a day I had
stayed home from school and saw it on TV. I was a confirmed Sk fan ever
since. That makes me a long time fan of his doesn't it. I also saw Bride
on the River Kwai when I was 10 years old, in the theaters and so I became
a huge David Lean fan as well. I was 9 when I saw The Ten Commandments in
NYC, and after my family moved back to Hollywood, 12 when I saw Ben Hur and
13 when I saw Spartacus. Movies are a kids thing really, kids are
generally not as hardened and uptight and set in their ways. Some people
though are always bitter by nature.

I was a latecomer to reading the LOTR since I didnt read it till I was
30--being more into hard scifi and not being much on fantasy stuff. I am
also a latecomer fan to Buffy, but I think all my likes are predicated on
the same basic like and dislikes, inspirations and interests I've had all my
life and some of my biases dissolved over the years as I realized that
Ass-umptions aren't always correct. Watching Buffy was almost a fluke for
me, being mainly a result of being laid up with a back injury and having a
client who kept talking my ear off about how I needed to buy the DVDs and
because I always had a thing for hot cheerleaders and have a good sense of
humor for off the wall hilarity.

AMK is a fan site not a place for stuffiness. I have never seen Sk as a
stuffy, nasty or smug person so I find it bizarre that so-called "fans" of
SK, can get so ugly in their dialogues or so overly smug in their theories
and projections. Sometime theorizing and speculating can be fun as well. as
lomg as the virulaence is held in check. Either way people should just be
able to converse without being utterly nasty, paranoid and suspicious
pinheads.

I avoid overthinking about movies theoretically and tend to stick to my gut
level feelings, reactions and experience, however I am entirely conversant
with any type of theoretical word salad one wants to throw at me, but being
a Buddhist with a deep comprehension of the underlying nature of theory
versus actual, I know how theory can just become babble and mental
masturbation and I try to convey that to others in plain talk--except when
I feel I have to mention and define sanskrit terms or quote from ancient
writings on the outside chance someone cares to study it in relation to the
topic.

In this case, you are a troll and I am wasting my time. You have no ability
to rein yourself in do you?

So I hope that cleared up some thing for you Mr. Reid-----you silly troll.
My prescription for you is to learn to rein yourself in. You need a yoke.

dc

Bill Reid

2008-04-18 14:43:55 UTC

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Reid, you are a very foolish and bitter person.

Personal attack.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
You are just a caps lock
troll type.

Personal attack.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Its absurd to read how you brag about suing people for
libel....its such a joke.

Non-sequitur, topic not discussed in post.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Imagine some judge reviewing your posting
history.

IBID, plus uninformed speculation about the legal process.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
There is plenty of nastiness on this group and plenty of times i
find myself having to defend myself from moronic insults and stupidity, but
seriously, if you imagine for a moment that you aren't the nastiest and most
virulent and libelous poster on this group, as well as the least interesting
(and that is saying quite a bit), then you really need to get some
help...because you are completly delusional.

All of the above in one gigantic run-on sentence.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I honestly can't find any redeeming qualities in your posts.

Personal opinion, at best.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I only
remember ONE post you've ever made that was attempting to deal with any
Kubrick or Film content at all, in a nonvirulent way and that was quite a
while ago.

Complete and total lie. You are a liar. I will not accept your advanced
age and a failing memory as an excuse for what I believe is a deliberate
lie.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Even Ichorwhip posts some non-virulent content fairly commonly,
amidst his insults and gang turf ramblings, pseudoexistential-affectations
and colloquial "prollies."

This is merely an extension of your previous lie where you are
without request rating the merit of the various posters here, for
the purpose of attacking a single poster with lies.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
It is clear you can never get enthusiastic about
anything because you hate everything.

This is a lie. The very post you are responding to contained the

Post by Bill Reid
Well, I've said MANY times that "2001" is my favorite movie,
followed by "Dr. Strangelove", "A Clockwork Orange", "Paths
of Glory" is a great film, "The Killing" is a good interesting
crime noir, and I've mentioned MANY other works and artists
and actors whose work I admire.

So you are a complete and total liar. I am painfully aware of the
effects of senile dementia on people, but I reject the idea that you
"forgot" what I wrote in the post you responded to. You are nothing
more than a complete and total liar.

But remember, I PERFECTLY predicted your lie, based on nothing
more than your past behavior, again in the post you are responding

Post by Bill Reid
Unfortunately, this means nothing here, because I was told
by some 90-year-old acid-head who cleans bedpans for a living
that I didn't REALLY like "2001" at all, because I wasn't a 50-year-old
acid-head when I saw it...and that's pretty much how it goes here
in this little group of self-involved, hate-filled, idiotic miserable
misfit losers...

So again, I merely speak the simple truth, express my enthusiasm
for some movies, books, etc., others not so much, and am attacked
by self-involved hate-filled liars.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I am always amazed by the incessent nastiness on Usenet and of all places---
a Stanley Kubrick Newsgroup---??---which one would think would exhibit some
semblance of a polite conversational tone, despite differing opinions.

The first step to make this group a better place would be for you to
leave it. You've been persistently off-topic, and have repeatedly attacked
posters here with lies, as well as accusing, without convincing evidence,
that Stanley Kubrick committed drug offenses, as well as making
statements about his religious beliefs that are similarly poorly-supported.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
One
would hope for some semblance of normalcy or confluence.

As always with self-involved hate-filled people, your sense of
"normalcy" exists only internally in what you have "decided" is
the "truth", and conflicts with actual reality and the commonly
accepted norms of social behavior. The result of this is that
you are despised for your lies and abusive behavior in this group
by most of the people that post here, and have actually been
unable to post to other groups, such as alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer,
because of your anti-social tendencies.

The problem is, you consistently fail to recognize YOUR
problems; rather you project them onto others.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
One can always count on you to attack everyone and anything in any thread
you choose to enter.

A lie, and projection per above.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
And never do you ever provide any type of counter
argument that includes any content.

Another lie.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
It is normal for people to defend
themselves once they have been attacked.

That's why I do it. Remember, I had another self-involved hate-filled
idiotic weirdo wish death on me merely because I said "Dr. Zhivago"
was boring and laughably stupid.

But I didn't so much as "defend myself" as do what I personally
know is a dangerous thing to do with ANY group of people: speak
the truth, plainly and without attenuation.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
It has to do with who throws the
stones first and starts with the personal attacks.

Exactly. See above.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Each of your replies and paragraphs above are virtually meaningless.

Another lie. My replies not only are the TRUTH, they PREDICT
the TRUTH TO COME. Remember, I predicted that you would lie
about me "hating everything", and sure enough, you did exactly
that.

In MY world, which the REAL world, I place a great deal of
importance to being able to predict behavior, going back to
formal education in college. Since you apparently lack not
only insight, but the ability to classify and analyze behavior,
you have chosen to be a slave to your own impulses, and
all of your small interactions with people, largely confined
to Usenet, are you acting out mindlessly based on those
unanalyzed impulses.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
So

Post by Bill Reid
Oh, that's right, I forgot...mainly because YOU'RE COMPLETELY
INSANE, AND I CAN'T UNDERSTAND LOONS EVEN THOUGH I
CAN CATALOG AND EVEN PREDICT THEIR WHACKY BEHAVIOR!!!

Exactly. I rest my case. I predicted you would lie, and you lied.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
This is troll speak Reid. Caps and all.

Editorial emphasis, that's all. I predicted you would lie, and you lied.
Even with the emphasis, you are unable to objectively realize your own
impulses and behavior. You'll never admit the simple truth: you are
a constant liar, a liar who constantly lies about other people.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Since I swap hard drives quite a bit, often my plonking vanishes. I
currently have no plonks again.

Nobody cares about your "plonks". Why do "people" think that
other people would be interested in their "plonks"? Again, I can't
"understand" this behavior, in the sense of "empathizing" with it,
I can only catalog it and predict it will continue. I have observed
this self-involved obsession with "kill-files" among many "people"
on Usenet, and have many times predicted behavior related to
this impulse, such as the classic case here of going out of your
way to announce that you've put somebody in a "kill-file", then
reading their posts anyway.

At some point in time, with behavior that self-contradictory, I
feel justified in calling the "actor" a LOON (emphasis added),
or some other appellation to that effect. It is NOT rational
behavior.

But again, for the trained psychologist that I am, I can predict

Post by Bill Reid
Geez, what a waste of a life...for a second there, I almost thought
you'd be able to do something for another human being, but you're too
busy "plonking" people, then running to Google(TM) Groups to
breathlessly read what they write that irritates you so much you
"plonked" them, then running back to your ISP to post your response
to the post you "plonked" in the first place...

...and on and on and on, nobody cares who you have or have not
"plonked" or what you do with your imaginary drives or anything like
that. This is a group for discussing the movies of Stanley Kubrick,
not revealing your mental illness...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I despise nasty conversation but at the same time I have this natural
hopefulness, that people might change their nastiness.

I would think that Buddhism would offer some help for you
personally in this, or maybe try true Christianity and learn how
to "turn the other cheek"...in any event, you COULD just let
it go and not provoke it...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I also study
nastiness and nuttiness and did so clinically for 20 years till,

Way to trot out the technical terms, "nastiness and nuttiness",
now I know you're a for-real psychologist...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I could
stomach it no longer around the year 2000,

Funny, this seems to conflict with other stories you've told about
your employment status...but I'm gonna do you a gigantic favor and
not dredge up the proof that you are misrepresenting (read: lying about)
your employment history. I know THAT kind of truth REALLY gets
people CRAZY who are habitual liars, then they start screaming
about stalking, etc.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
when I changed to the third
occupation I've had in my 60 years---but I am still always searching for the
underlying cause of the nastiness and nuttiness in the world--quietly
seeking and pondering the cures for it, long ago discarding the traditional
understanding and failed theories employed by my previous occupation

You have no self-insight or insight into anybody else. If this has
been your life's work, your life has been a miserable failure (as if
we couldn't have figured that out before).

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Its
just my nature.

Your nature is to be a self-involved liar who hates people who have
different "opinions" as you.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I am an enthusiastic person by nature.

IBID.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
In this case, you are a troll and I am wasting my time.

What'd I tell you?

Post by Kelpzoidzl
You have no ability
to rein yourself in do you?

PKB...TO THE MAX!!!

Post by Kelpzoidzl
So I hope that cleared up some thing for you Mr. Reid-----you silly troll.

Personal attack, and a non-sequitur. I clearly am NOT confused by
ANYTHING here. You, on the other hand, are a habitual liar, and
understand nothing, least of all your own destructive impulses.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
My prescription for you is to learn to rein yourself in. You need a yoke.

I don't need to do anything, nor do you...but like all self-involved
hate-filled losers, you revert to fascist commands after your string
of lies...

---
William Ernest "I'm Making A Movie About AMK: 'The Kill-Filing'" Reid

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-18 17:55:29 UTC

"Bill Reid" <***@happyhealthy.net> wrote in message news:Ls2Oj.108322$***@bgtnsc05-

<snip>

Post by Kelpzoidzl
My prescription for you is to learn to rein yourself in. You need a yoke.

I don't need to do anything, nor do you...but like all self-involved
hate-filled losers, you revert to fascist commands after your string
of lies...
---
William Ernest "I'm Making A Movie About AMK: 'The Kill-Filing'" Reid

LOL. ...Fascist (lol).....What the hell is the point Reid? What possible
satisfaction can you get from being so nutty? Get thee to a nuttery.

Guess I'll have to plonk you again and dirty up my Windows Newsreader Junk
box.

dc

Bill Reid

2008-04-18 23:53:41 UTC

Post by Kelpzoidzl
<snip>

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! What a punk!!!!!

Post by Kelpzoidzl
My prescription for you is to learn to rein yourself in. You need a yoke.

I don't need to do anything, nor do you...but like all self-involved
hate-filled losers, you revert to fascist commands after your string
of lies...
---
William Ernest "I'm Making A Movie About AMK: 'The Kill-Filing'" Reid

LOL. ...Fascist (lol).....What the hell is the point Reid? What possible
satisfaction can you get from being so nutty? Get thee to a nuttery.
Guess I'll have to plonk you again and dirty up my Windows Newsreader Junk
box.

I guess every day is "opposites day" for "Crapsaweedall". When
he says "plonk", he means "read and hang on every word".

This is, as I've said before, the best of all possible worlds for me.
While he is pretending not to read my posts, I can point out the simple
truth about him, without his idiotic lies to pollute my veracity. Some
of my favorite Usenutz are the fools with the phony "kill-files", because
I can just picture them sitting there reading my posts with steam
spouting from their ears for the three seconds before they break
down and claim "a crashed hard drive" or whatever lie they use to
conceal their lie about "plonking"...it ain't much, but it IS funny!

Post by Kelpzoidzl
dc

---
William Ernest "dc = dumb crap" Reid

ichorwhip

2008-04-18 01:41:30 UTC

Post by ichorwhip
Way to go Reidiot®, you just couldn't stand to let that youngster be
could you?

Yes, I deeply wounded the pride of the "youngster" "Harried
Bray-Lie"...

Post by ichorwhip
It's one thing to criticize someone's mediocre and verbose
writing and thoughts (which weren't too far off the mark actually),

Don't hate me because you know I'm right about everything...

I don't hate you, I pity you, and you're far from infallible you
megalomaniacal fool.

Post by ichorwhip
but you had to get personally insulting and offer nothing constructive
as you have venomous and vacuuous commentary down to a fart...

You're just mad because you think "King Kong" should have
been remade into a reality TV show: "Survivor: Skull Island"...

For the record, I didn't like Jackson's "Kink Konk" worth a damn...

Post by ichorwhip
Also I don't believe for a second
that you've ever read any of "The Lord of the Rings" despite your
self-contradictory vitriole...

Which just proves that I'm smart and cool...

Post by Bill Reid
Since you have requested it by your annoying presence on Usenet,

Since I have "requested it..." I shall now receive a Reidioticulous®

Post by Bill Reid
similar to "MI5" nutcases and spammers, I will now re-post my call
for a boycott of Google(TM) for allowing morons like you to befoul my

"Jesus wept!" Too bad that you and your stupid newsreader are
incompatible with Googlegroups(TM). Nobody cares ya sidetracker! But
let's pick out the really crazy stuff for fun anyways!!!

Post by Bill Reid
Remember, I've repeatedly set out the timeline for the ultimate
demise of this group, and we're right on schedule.

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury".... note how this repugnant fool
assumes that anyone would ever want to remember a thing he says. Mark
that Exhibit F...

Yeah, that's you! The same old shitake....

I didn't REALLY want to "know" any of it you delusional ghoul.

Post by Bill Reid
In a larger sense, Usenet itself is just a manifestation of the
old theory of "The Tragedy Of The Commons" (the idea that
"communism" can NEVER "work"),

But as to the alternative.... Hey Reidiot®!, Nietzsche just called
and said he wanted his moustache back...

Post by Bill Reid
which SHOULD
be the foundation for all businesses and "capitalism" as a
whole, that when you divorce RESPONSIBILITY from AUTHORITY
you get chaos,

Oh yeah, that one! You have personal knowledge of how that works too,
how "smart and cool..."

As if....

Post by Bill Reid
Unfortunately, my newsreader, and many other newsreaders, do
not support "killfiling" a post by the original server,

Gaw, what a cheap piece of crap newsreader you have!!!! (As if the
whole of newsgroups should cater to the moronic desires of a
tyrannical, narcissistic dildouche and his crappy newsreader.)

Please do so, I know I'll miss you so much, but the whole wide world
web is just for you.... p-p-p-pafffff-fweeee!

The ultimate deathwish... What kind of maniac says something like
this and expects to be taken seriously?

Sounds like your cheesed because Google(TM) has started to come back
down to earth recently. So how much did you lose anyway?

Post by Bill Reid
You DON'T have to click on those links; I've almost never clicked
on them,

Almost? I have never on purpose...

Post by Bill Reid
and I use Google(TM) search all the time, and use it to
book hotels, airline tickets, etc.,

What bullshit!

Like yours? Ok... ok...

Post by Bill Reid
make sure you
let them know that until THEY take RESPONSIBILITY for
the spam and threats and slander, you will do what you can
to PUT THE ENTIRE DAMN COMPANY OUT OF BUSINESS.

Kill 'em good Reidiot®!!!! Yahoo!!!!!

Post by Bill Reid
They almost certainly will STILL ignore it,

ya think?

Who the hell is "Lowbrow"? On second thought, forget it....

Post by Bill Reid
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 1022

Note how he keeps track of how many worthless posts he's made on this
group. That's a nice service to provide.

Post by Bill Reid
---end of archived post
William Ernest "Free Radical" Reid

---end of hysterical rant... Reidiot® the Demon Poster of Fleet
Street...

marika

2008-04-22 01:46:29 UTC

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Did you ever actually read the entire novel "The Lord of the Rings?"
Although the spirit is there and the FX and action is excellent, the film
(all three as one) falls short of the hardcore nature of the mystery,
emotions and depth in the novel (all three in one)

idiot, it's the eyes

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Anyone that would actually read that book and callit, "soporific," as in
inducing sleep.....indicates they fell asleep tryign to readitand then
gave up.

the other wouldn't give you the info in time

mk5000

"You are the bold expression of all your parents' flaws / Makes you
pause."--stephen malkmus

kelpzoidzl

2015-04-09 05:09:06 UTC

Blast Offffff!

Another one rom the vaults.

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-10 21:44:53 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
... and Mel Gibson's A Clockwork Orange ... !!!!!!!! And the Farrelly
Brothers' Citizen Kane!!!!
Yeah, I bet you've a deep unconscious desire to see such 'remakes' (if
they were to be made, of course :-)).
But such re-make insanity is not beyond the bounds of possibility any
more in our 'end of history' era (the future, increasingly now, just a
cheap-thrill, consumerist, twisted permutation of all that already
exists, the future as already past, our lost futures the only thing to
be nostalgic about), indeed, it's increasingly likely (we've already
had Scott's banana-chocolate-advert Lolita remake), and presently we
Rosemary's Baby (produced by Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes)
Suspiria (by Italian production company First Sun)
The Seven Samurai (produced by the Weinsteins; this one really kicks
the biscuit: script by [break out the cyanide tabs] John Fusco (Young
Guns I & II, Hidalgo) and you can check it for yourself here: [http://
www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3282&Itemid=99].
It's been 'modernized' to soldiers taking on an evil druglord, natch.
CGI explosions a-plenty.)
Straw Dogs (by Director Rod Lurie of "Resurrecting The Champ" & "The
Contender")
Rififi (directed by Harold Baker and starring master of subtlety Al
Pacino)
A Tale of Two Sisters (to be called "The Uninvited" directed by the
Guard brothers)
The Long Good Friday (reimagined by Paul WS Anderson of Resident Evil/
Alien Vs Predator fame)
There's no end to it, to this juggernaut of reappropriating banal,
twisted and deflationary versions of past cultural achievements (and
you can bet your bottom dollar that these guys are the first to
complain about today's 'lack of cinematic innovation' while
simultaneously up to their eyeballs in militantly shutting down all
possibilities for any such innovation). And it's all so fucking
TEDIOUS and amnesiac (even with remakes of fairly mainstream movies -
I mean, who even already remembers the remakes of Planet of the Apes
or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, despite their runaway box-
office "success"?).
What's even worse is that when highly respected and established
directors ('auteur' film-makers, or at least those with some track
record of having a consistent vision, philosophy, or set of themes
manifested in their previous work) fall into this trap, their future
becomes increasingly bleak and disappointing: consider Scorsese after
his remake of Cape Fear [and his current Rolling Stones shite; he
might as well be making a doc glorifying the 'magic' of Coca-fucking-
Cola]; consider Soderberg after his CGI remake of Solaris; consider
the Coens after [and before, it should be said] their remake of The
Ladykillers; consider Gus van Sant after his remake of Psycho;
consider Brian de Palma's remake of The Black Dahlia; and on and on
and on.
Haneke's remake of Funny Games is pretensious, over-laboured SHITE
(though you won't think so if you haven't seen his original from a
decade ago); but we can go back further: Hitchcock, perhaps the first
director to remake his own movies (The 39 Steps, etc), could never
surpass the originals, even though he only remade them, as he himself
then cynically reasoned, for the Hollywood-US market in order to
increase his movie-making muscle there (and his loot).
And none of this is even to begin to address those film-makers who are
desperate, not just to appropriate/bask in the narcissistic glory of
another's past achievements by 'remaking' their work, but to even
Spielberg 'finishing' Kubrick's AI (well, we've had a million mad
threads hereabouts on THAT topic already); Tykwer 'finishing'
Kieslowski's Heaven; and an abandoned Kurosawa project currently being
'finished' by some pompous gobshite.
Like Peter Finch in Network, "I'm mad, I'm mad as hell - and I'm not
going to take it any more!!". Instead, I think I'll go and 'do' a
remake of Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space (shot and edited 'in-
camera' on an iPhone, of course); I mean, there's just gotta be a lil'
market niche for remakes of failed movies that are bound to keep the
capitalist suits box-office happy-dappy!
So then, seriously, what's your fave 'remake'?
And what film is really so lousy (the ONLY justification for ever
remaking anything), that it's crying out for a remake (but never will
be, precisely for that very reason)?

Some movies they can remake all they want, but messing around with classics,
like Rosemary's Baby---thats way off base.

There has to be a line not to cross. If a film is being updated to new
technology---that is one thing, i.e., turning 2001 into a holographically
displayed movie---for instance, or making a film that is an homage of the
original might be ok., ---but doing a actual remake of the great, classic
films is evil.

dc

Wordsmith

2008-04-10 23:30:53 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
... and Mel Gibson's A Clockwork Orange ... !!!!!!!! And the Farrelly
Brothers' Citizen Kane!!!!
Yeah, I bet you've a deep unconscious desire to see such 'remakes' (if
they were to be made, of course :-)).
But such re-make insanity is not beyond the bounds of possibility any
more in our 'end of history' era (the future, increasingly now, just a
cheap-thrill, consumerist, twisted permutation of all that already
exists, the future as already past, our lost futures the only thing to
be nostalgic about), indeed, it's increasingly likely (we've already
had Scott's banana-chocolate-advert Lolita remake), and presently we
Rosemary's Baby (produced by Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes)
Suspiria (by Italian production company First Sun)
The Seven Samurai (produced by the Weinsteins; this one really kicks
the biscuit: script by [break out the cyanide tabs] John Fusco (Young
Guns I & II, Hidalgo) and you can check it for yourself here: [http://
www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3282&Itemid=99].
It's been 'modernized' to soldiers taking on an evil druglord, natch.
CGI explosions a-plenty.)
Straw Dogs (by Director Rod Lurie of "Resurrecting The Champ" & "The
Contender")
Rififi (directed by Harold Baker and starring master of subtlety Al
Pacino)
A Tale of Two Sisters (to be called "The Uninvited" directed by the
Guard brothers)
The Long Good Friday (reimagined by Paul WS Anderson of Resident Evil/
Alien Vs Predator fame)
There's no end to it, to this juggernaut of reappropriating banal,
twisted and deflationary versions of past cultural achievements (and
you can bet your bottom dollar that these guys are the first to
complain about today's 'lack of cinematic innovation' while
simultaneously up to their eyeballs in militantly shutting down all
possibilities for any such innovation). And it's all so fucking
TEDIOUS and amnesiac (even with remakes of fairly mainstream movies -
I mean, who even already remembers the remakes of Planet of the Apes
or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, despite their runaway box-
office "success"?).
What's even worse is that when highly respected and established
directors ('auteur' film-makers, or at least those with some track
record of having a consistent vision, philosophy, or set of themes
manifested in their previous work) fall into this trap, their future
becomes increasingly bleak and disappointing: consider Scorsese after
his remake of Cape Fear [and his current Rolling Stones shite; he
might as well be making a doc glorifying the 'magic' of Coca-fucking-
Cola]; consider Soderberg after his CGI remake of Solaris; consider
the Coens after [and before, it should be said] their remake of The
Ladykillers; consider Gus van Sant after his remake of Psycho;
consider Brian de Palma's remake of The Black Dahlia; and on and on
and on.
Haneke's remake of Funny Games is pretensious, over-laboured SHITE
(though you won't think so if you haven't seen his original from a
decade ago); but we can go back further: Hitchcock, perhaps the first
director to remake his own movies (The 39 Steps, etc), could never
surpass the originals, even though he only remade them, as he himself
then cynically reasoned, for the Hollywood-US market in order to
increase his movie-making muscle there (and his loot).
And none of this is even to begin to address those film-makers who are
desperate, not just to appropriate/bask in the narcissistic glory of
another's past achievements by 'remaking' their work, but to even
Spielberg 'finishing' Kubrick's AI (well, we've had a million mad
threads hereabouts on THAT topic already); Tykwer 'finishing'
Kieslowski's Heaven; and an abandoned Kurosawa project currently being
'finished' by some pompous gobshite.
Like Peter Finch in Network, "I'm mad, I'm mad as hell - and I'm not
going to take it any more!!". Instead, I think I'll go and 'do' a
remake of Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space (shot and edited 'in-
camera' on an iPhone, of course); I mean, there's just gotta be a lil'
market niche for remakes of failed movies that are bound to keep the
capitalist suits box-office happy-dappy!
So then, seriously, what's your fave 'remake'?
And what film is really so lousy (the ONLY justification for ever
remaking anything), that it's crying out for a remake (but never will
be, precisely for that very reason)?

Some movies they can remake all they want, but messing around with classics,
like Rosemary's Baby---thats way off base.
There has to be a line not to cross. If a film is being updated to new
technology---that is one thing, i.e., turning 2001 into a holographically
displayed movie---for instance, or making a film that is an homage of the
original might be ok., ---but doing a actual remake of the great, classic
films is evil.
dc

Lumet tried it on *The Wiz*. It flopped.

W : )

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-11 00:56:05 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
... and Mel Gibson's A Clockwork Orange ... !!!!!!!! And the Farrelly
Brothers' Citizen Kane!!!!
Yeah, I bet you've a deep unconscious desire to see such 'remakes' (if
they were to be made, of course :-)).
But such re-make insanity is not beyond the bounds of possibility any
more in our 'end of history' era (the future, increasingly now, just a
cheap-thrill, consumerist, twisted permutation of all that already
exists, the future as already past, our lost futures the only thing to
be nostalgic about), indeed, it's increasingly likely (we've already
had Scott's banana-chocolate-advert Lolita remake), and presently we
Rosemary's Baby (produced by Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes)
Suspiria (by Italian production company First Sun)
The Seven Samurai (produced by the Weinsteins; this one really kicks
the biscuit: script by [break out the cyanide tabs] John Fusco (Young
Guns I & II, Hidalgo) and you can check it for yourself here: [http://
www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3282&Itemid=99].
It's been 'modernized' to soldiers taking on an evil druglord, natch.
CGI explosions a-plenty.)
Straw Dogs (by Director Rod Lurie of "Resurrecting The Champ" & "The
Contender")
Rififi (directed by Harold Baker and starring master of subtlety Al
Pacino)
A Tale of Two Sisters (to be called "The Uninvited" directed by the
Guard brothers)
The Long Good Friday (reimagined by Paul WS Anderson of Resident Evil/
Alien Vs Predator fame)
There's no end to it, to this juggernaut of reappropriating banal,
twisted and deflationary versions of past cultural achievements (and
you can bet your bottom dollar that these guys are the first to
complain about today's 'lack of cinematic innovation' while
simultaneously up to their eyeballs in militantly shutting down all
possibilities for any such innovation). And it's all so fucking
TEDIOUS and amnesiac (even with remakes of fairly mainstream movies -
I mean, who even already remembers the remakes of Planet of the Apes
or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, despite their runaway box-
office "success"?).
What's even worse is that when highly respected and established
directors ('auteur' film-makers, or at least those with some track
record of having a consistent vision, philosophy, or set of themes
manifested in their previous work) fall into this trap, their future
becomes increasingly bleak and disappointing: consider Scorsese after
his remake of Cape Fear [and his current Rolling Stones shite; he
might as well be making a doc glorifying the 'magic' of Coca-fucking-
Cola]; consider Soderberg after his CGI remake of Solaris; consider
the Coens after [and before, it should be said] their remake of The
Ladykillers; consider Gus van Sant after his remake of Psycho;
consider Brian de Palma's remake of The Black Dahlia; and on and on
and on.
Haneke's remake of Funny Games is pretensious, over-laboured SHITE
(though you won't think so if you haven't seen his original from a
decade ago); but we can go back further: Hitchcock, perhaps the first
director to remake his own movies (The 39 Steps, etc), could never
surpass the originals, even though he only remade them, as he himself
then cynically reasoned, for the Hollywood-US market in order to
increase his movie-making muscle there (and his loot).
And none of this is even to begin to address those film-makers who are
desperate, not just to appropriate/bask in the narcissistic glory of
another's past achievements by 'remaking' their work, but to even
Spielberg 'finishing' Kubrick's AI (well, we've had a million mad
threads hereabouts on THAT topic already); Tykwer 'finishing'
Kieslowski's Heaven; and an abandoned Kurosawa project currently being
'finished' by some pompous gobshite.
Like Peter Finch in Network, "I'm mad, I'm mad as hell - and I'm not
going to take it any more!!". Instead, I think I'll go and 'do' a
remake of Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space (shot and edited 'in-
camera' on an iPhone, of course); I mean, there's just gotta be a lil'
market niche for remakes of failed movies that are bound to keep the
capitalist suits box-office happy-dappy!
So then, seriously, what's your fave 'remake'?
And what film is really so lousy (the ONLY justification for ever
remaking anything), that it's crying out for a remake (but never will
be, precisely for that very reason)?

Some movies they can remake all they want, but messing around with classics,
like Rosemary's Baby---thats way off base.
There has to be a line not to cross. If a film is being updated to new
technology---that is one thing, i.e., turning 2001 into a holographically
displayed movie---for instance, or making a film that is an homage of the
original might be ok., ---but doing a actual remake of the great, classic
films is evil.
dc

Lumet tried it on *The Wiz*. It flopped.

W : )

And there was no reason to remake Solaris.

So Michael Bay is remaking The Birds too? Are we sure this isn't from some
April Fools day web page?

If it's serious then Michael Bay needs the ultimate persecutions and
humiliation.

I can understand remaking very old films that could benefit from new
technology like King Kong... but at least it wasn't Pulpized. Michael Bay
will Pulpize all of this stuff. Not a reason in the universe to remake The
Birds or Rosemary's Baby. The 2001 remake has to be a joke right?

He has to be stopped.

dc

ichorwhip

2008-04-11 01:26:32 UTC

On Apr 9, 8:33 pm, Harry Bailey <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip to the chase>

Post by Harry Bailey
So then, seriously, what's your fave 'remake'?
And what film is really so lousy (the ONLY justification for ever
remaking anything), that it's crying out for a remake (but never will
be, precisely for that very reason)?

My favorite remake is Kurosawa's "Ran." Never has "King Lear" been so
good on film eh? Even Shakespeare would be agog! ;-)

One of the first "modern" remakes to come along and cause a lot of
hubbub was 78's "Invasion the Body Snatchers" as many will recall.
It's not that it's a terrible film, Philip Kaufman just seemed to
ignore Siegel's classic '56 version and everything that made it
outstanding and utterly terrifying. So in a sense, Kaufman's version
isn't truly a remake, but more of a shallow rendition with "cooler"
special effects and name actors and some grim wit. "Do you know what
this is? It's a rat turd."

This brings to mind a remake that I like (in a guilty pleasure way) in
Carpenter's "The Thing." Again shlock and shock were substituted for
substance, but it was a sort of fun ride. Howard Hawks had already
passed by the time it came out, so at least he didn't have to suffer
any of the indignities.

Then there's "The Man Who Knew Too Much", but it shouldn't count as
Hitchcock "remade" his own film by making it much different than the
original. He was quoted as liking the new version better fwiw.
Apparently Van Sant didn't get that at all when he made the only
absolute, frame-for-frame remake, that of "Psycho", which just happens
to be very high on my list of movies that I wished I'd never seen, a
total waste of time, money and effort.

One film that I'd like to see remade because it's for shit is the
highly disappointing "Gods and Generals." In fact, why not just give
us a bio-pic of Stonewall Jackson that's not just pretentious, stiff
and fake crapola?

It seems to be a lack of good new ideas that fuels the remake
syndrome. Even Steve Martin has to admit he's dried up some by
signing on as Inspector Clouseau eh? Anyway, there's no end in sight
as long as people keep paying for it. The Classics are deader than
fried chicken to the average movie-goer and what a pity. Nothing is
sacred, for if it's black and white you can't see the blood well
enough....

"And then, what do you know, soon our dear old friend, the red, red
vino on tap. The same in all places like it's put out by the same big
firm, began to flow. It was beautiful. It's funny how the colours of
the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on a screen."
i
"piop"

2008-04-11 12:20:21 UTC

Post by ichorwhip
One of the first "modern" remakes to come along and cause a lot of
hubbub was 78's "Invasion the Body Snatchers" as many will recall.
It's not that it's a terrible film, Philip Kaufman just seemed to
ignore Siegel's classic '56 version and everything that made it
outstanding and utterly terrifying. So in a sense, Kaufman's version
isn't truly a remake, but more of a shallow rendition with "cooler"
special effects and name actors and some grim wit. "Do you know what
this is? It's a rat turd."

Which reminds me, "Invasion of the Body Snatches" was remade last year
with Nicole Kidman.

Harry Bailey

2008-04-11 18:49:43 UTC

Which reminds me, "Invasion of the Body Snatches" was remade last year
with Nicole Kidman.

And not forgetting the Abel Ferrara version in the 1990s starring none
other than Sgt Hartman/Ermey as the ring leader of the 'pod people'
while taking over a military base to oversee their further expansion:
clearly aimed at a teenage audience, a pair of teenagers 'save the
day'.

The difference with Kaufman's version relative to Siegel's (and
Ferraro's) perhaps, and presumably in an attempt to make the film more
terrifying, is the denouement: the pod-people win, they take over the
world. But whereas the original film was released against a background
of Cold War paranoia (the pod-people as 'red under every bed' commie
conspiracy), the Kaufman one was made during the era of detente, the
beginning of the end of the Cold War, so its bearings don't resonate,
it lacks all credibility (unless he's making some vague reference to
the triumph of zombie-consumer capitalism). Ferrara, on the other
hand, was critiquing the growth of the war economy and the continuing
rise of the military-industrial-entertainment complex (though he
completely shoots himself in the foot by having that same war economy
eliminate the pod-ermies and re-establish the MIC status quo).

[pod-ermies - Ermey's 'pod-armies'; I like that!]

Harry Bailey

2008-04-11 18:52:29 UTC

Which reminds me, "Invasion of the Body Snatches" was remade last year
with Nicole Kidman.

Harry Bailey

2008-04-11 21:24:44 UTC

Post by ichorwhip
This brings to mind a remake that I like (in a guilty pleasure way) in
Carpenter's "The Thing." Again shlock and shock were substituted for
substance, but it was a sort of fun ride. Howard Hawks had already
passed by the time it came out, so at least he didn't have to suffer
any of the indignities.

You spoke too soon: a remake of Carpenter's The Thing is itself
currently being planned!

Here's a list of 38 planned remakes, most of which have not already
been mentioned. No longer a seemingly quirky abberration, remakes are
now the hegemonic norm.
-------
The Shadow
Presumably this a reboot of the hilarious-but-iffy Alec Baldwin non-
franchise of the mid-90s. Sam Raimi is producing, and the project is
at the screenplay stage right now. Expect a release no sooner than
2010.

Battle Royale
The brilliant, brilliant, brilliant Asian movie is getting a Western
remake. Producer Neal H Moritz is currently attached to the project,
which has been optioned but not yet got much further. It didn't help
that New Line was linked with funding the film, and the same New Line
got swallowed up by Warner Bros totally the other week.

Starfighter
A planned remake of the 1984 movie The Last Starfighter, which remains
popular today. Nick Castle is currently attached to direct the project
(he did the original as well, although his biggest hit as director is
the 1993 kids' movie Dennis). We fear this one may get lost in
development hell. Hope not.

The Evil Dead
Sam Raimi is attached to the remake of one of his most loved films,
with both he and Bruce Campbell on producing duties. Set for release
at some point next year, they'll have to get their skates on, as
there's no sign of cameras being turned on just yet.

Knight Rider
Forget the recent TV rebooting, the Weinstein Company has the option
to produce a feature film, and the original creator of Knight Rider -
Glen A Larson - is hard at work on the screenplay. Expect a release
around 2010/11. If the new TV version doesn't kill the franchise stone
dead, of course...

Conan The Barbarian
The script is still being written for the remake of one of Arnie's
best-ever roles. It's a fair bet that Arnie won't be returning, but
Sahara scribes Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer are
beavering away on the screenplay. Production may yet start this year,
apparently.

Logan's Run
Uber-producer Joel Silver is pushing this long-mooted remake, which
has director Joseph Kosinski attached (whose name is also being linked
with the new Tron film). Logan's Run is believed to be first in line,
though, and a 2010 release is being mooted.

Death Wish
Sylvester Stallone is set to step into the role made famous by Charles
Bronson in a remake of Michael Winner's violent original. Stallone is
set to write, produce and star, and production is planned to start at
some point this year.

The Taking Of Pelham 123
Tony Scott is directing, and Denzel Washington and John Travolta are
starring in a remake of the brilliant 1974 Walter Matthau original.
David Koepp has written the screenplay, and the film will be released
in the Autumn of 2009.

Fahrenheit 451
Frank Darabont - he of Shawshank Redemption and The Mist fame - has
been linked with a fresh take on the Ray Bradbury book for a while. It
seems he's getting closer to honing a script too for him to direct,
but it's still not ready, so no idea of release date. Tom Hanks had
been mooted to star.

Friday The 13th
Marcus Nispel - director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake - has
inked his name on the dotted to helm the remake of the original Friday
The 13th movie. It's a great solution: run out of sequels, start at
the beginning! It's in pre-production now for a 2009 release.

Last House On The Left
A remake of the brutal 70s Wes Craven movie, this time it's relative-
newcomer Dennis Illiadis in the director's chair. The cast is rumoured
to feature Liv Tyler, along with Monica Potter, Garret Dillahunt and
Tony Goldwyn. It's due to start filming next month,

Hellraiser
They've given up making sequels, so now they're remaking the 80s
original. No sign of Doug Bradley as Pinhead, but Clive Barker has
been involved with the script, and Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury
will be making their English language directorial debuts with the
project.

Tron
Will it be a sequel? Will it be a remake? Will they call it a
'reimagining'? All these questions and more are set to be answered, as
three decades on, Tron will be heading back to the big screen in
2010.

Clash of the Titans
The 1981 film is being remade, and Stephen Norrington has - after not
being seen behind a camera since League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen -
agreed to direct. He did the original Blade, too. Lawrence Kasdan has
been penning the script, and the film is in pre-production for a 2010
release.

Akira
A live action version of the iconic anime film of the same name, the
adaptation is believe to be being handled in two parts, and Leonardo
DiCaprio has been linked with the project. It's still at the scripting
stage, although director Ruairi Robinson is attached to helm.

The Birds
How depressing. Hitchcock's awesome thriller is getting the remake
treatment, with Martin 'Casino Royale' Campbell rumoured to be
directing, and Naomi Watts linked with the project too. It has a
release date of July 2009.

Frankenweenie
Tim Burton's terrific early short film is being brought to the big
screen by... Tim Burton! There's logic there, somewhere. December 2009
is the targeted release time.

A Nightmare On Elm Street
Hurray! That 'reimagining' word is being used to describe the now-in-
the-pre-production stages new Elm Street movie. Michael Bay produces,
but doesn't direct. Thank goodness.

Westworld
The terrific forerunner to Jurassic Park - also penned by Michael
Crichton - Westworld has long been mooted for a remake. Billy Ray, who
directed Breach and Shattered Glass, is the latest writer to take a
stab at the theme-park-attraction-goes-out-of-control concept.

The Warriors
Director Tony Scott - once he's finished on The Taking Of Pelham 123 -
remains attached to the proposed remake of Walter Hill's 1979 classic
tale of rival gangs on a mission that takes them across a dangerous
city. It's still in the writing stages, and may be held up in
development hell for some time yet.

Piranha
Alexandra Aja, who enjoyed success with his remake of The Hills Have
Eyes, is directing a potentially 3D version of Joe Dante's terrific
original. A 2009 release date has been eyed up.

Escape From New York
Another John Carpenter classic is getting remade, and Terminator 3
director Jonathan Mostow - with Ken Nolan - is taking a stab at the
script. No word if he's going to direct, but a 2009 release is
mooted.

Meatballs
Another 80s comedy getting a remake, Meatballs has - oh dear - Big
Momma's House 2 (not even the original!) director John Whitesell
attached to it. And no sign of Bill Murray, either. Never a good
thing.

Howard Stern's Porkys
A remake of Bob Clark's bawdy early 80s comedy, this is still in the
planning stages with US shock-jock lending his name to the project and
the title. It's planned to have it ready for 2009. Expect an array of
shitty sequels if it hits.

The Lives Of Others
The stunning German film is getting an American remake, with Anthony
Minghella attached to produce, but not direct. It's only been optioned
so far, so 2010 would be the earliest you see it. Our advice? See the
original. It's genuinely stunning.

Short Circuit
Number Five is, er, still alive, with original screenwriters coming
back for the reboot of the 80s original. No news of a finished script,
director or shooting date, though.

Straw Dogs
Rod Lurie - the man who directed The Contender - is scripting and
directing the remake of the Dustin Hoffman-starring original. It's
only been optioned thus far, and so the planned 2009 release date may
be optimistic.

1984
Tim Robbins is apparently hunting for the money for a new big screen
adaptation of George Orwell's classic and never-more-relevant novel.
He's not having much luck though, we're led to believe.

Red Sonja
Roy Thomas (Conan The Destroyer) has been drafted in to write a
screenplay for a new Red Sonja film, although don't expect Arnie to be
in it. Nor should you expect it soon.

The Dirty Dozen
Alias veteran Josh Applebaum has the unenviable task of coming up with
a suitable script for the remake of the original classic. 2010 is the
earliest it'll be released.

Footloose
Surely not? The 80s musical could be coming back to life if director
Kenny Ortega has anything to do with it. That said, given he directed
High School Musical and its spin-offs, he'd probably be allowed to do
anything he wanted in Hollywood right now. Sigh. Footloose has thus
far been optioned, and may go before the camera this year.

Dune
Frank Herbert's source material is set to be mined again, for a new
movie due out in 2010. Peter Berg, who directed the brilliant Friday
Night Lights movie, is waving the megaphone, but further details are
still sketchy.

The Thing
A remake of the 1982 classic, that's got Battlestar Galactica producer
Ronald D Moore attached to it. That said, it's being described as a
companion rather than a remake. Hmmmm. No word on it going before the
cameras yet.

Near Dark
Kathryn Bigelow's 1987 vampire flick enters the remake chamber, with
music video director Samuel Bayer making his debut in the directors'
chair on the film. Cast has yet to be announced, but it appears that
Bigelow has had a hand in the screenplay.

The Swarm
This is more like it! Lots of bees! Frank Schaetzing's book is
plundered again for the big screen, with Silence Of The Lambs adapter
Ted Tally on scripting duties. No director or cast yet, though.

Fame
Alan Parker's 1980 musical is being remade by MGM, who originally had
a Christmas 2008 release date inked in. Andy Finkman - who directed
The Game Plan and She's The Man - is down to direct, though, and the
project will no doubt move forward shortly.

The Witches
Roald Dahl's book has already been filmed with Anjelica Huston in the
leading role, but Guillermo Del Toro is toying with the idea of having
a stab himself. No start date has been announced for the project,
though.

Bill Reid

2008-04-12 00:01:43 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
Howard Stern's Porkys
A remake of Bob Clark's bawdy early 80s comedy, this is still in the
planning stages with US shock-jock lending his name to the project and
the title. It's planned to have it ready for 2009. Expect an array of
shitty sequels if it hits.

Howie started talking about how he optioned the rights to "Porkys"
back around 1997...do the math, this is just one of dozens of TV
shows and movies he's said he was going to do for almost 15 years
now, none have actually even gotten close to production...wait, you
mean you actually saw "Howard Stern: The High School Years" on
network TV? If so, his threat to sue Chris Rock for "stealing" his
idea for "Everybody Hates Chris" might make sense...

Post by Harry Bailey
The Birds
How depressing. Hitchcock's awesome thriller is getting the remake
treatment, with Martin 'Casino Royale' Campbell rumoured to be
directing, and Naomi Watts linked with the project too. It has a
release date of July 2009.

If they cast Naomi Watts in the lead female role, this would be a
case of going backwards on technology...Hitchcock daringly used
a plastic audioanimatronic robot for the role in the original...

Post by Harry Bailey
Straw Dogs
Rod Lurie - the man who directed The Contender - is scripting and
directing the remake of the Dustin Hoffman-starring original. It's
only been optioned thus far, and so the planned 2009 release date may
be optimistic.

I think they could improve upon the original if they broke more
windows by throwing rats through them...with modern technology,
they should be able to break more than twice the original 187
windows in the three-room cottage...

---
William Ernest "Re-Made In The Biblical Sense" Reid

Don Stockbauer

2008-04-18 04:14:33 UTC

If they cast Naomi Watts in the lead female role, this would be a
case of going backwards on technology...Hitchcock daringly used
a plastic audioanimatronic robot for the role in the original...

I think they could improve upon the original if they broke more
windows by throwing rats through them...with modern technology,
they should be able to break more than twice the original 187
windows in the three-room cottage...
---
William Ernest "Re-Made In The Biblical Sense" Reid

As evidenced by this group, movies rot your brain.

Bill Reid

2008-04-12 00:01:51 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
So then, seriously, what's your fave 'remake'?

"Fail Safe" was a crappy re-do of "Dr. Strangelove"..."The
Shining" was an inferior remake of "The Innocents"..."Full
Metal Jacket" was a poor remake of "Paths of Glory"..."Memento"
was an interesting "reimagining" of "The Killing"..."Eyes Wide Shut"
was not as good as the original, "Showgirls"...

Post by Harry Bailey
And what film is really so lousy (the ONLY justification for ever
remaking anything), that it's crying out for a remake (but never will
be, precisely for that very reason)?

I'd like to see "Dr. Zhivago" remade, but set in a desert like
"Lawrence of Arabia", except they could paint the sand white
and have a giant electric penguin to alleviate the crushing boredom
of the original...

Post by ichorwhip
My favorite remake is Kurosawa's "Ran." Never has "King Lear" been so
good on film eh? Even Shakespeare would be agog! ;-)

Mine was "The Magnificent Seven"...I particularly liked the way
the little guy sneaked into the enemy camp like a stealthy Toyota
production worker...

Post by ichorwhip
One of the first "modern" remakes to come along and cause a lot of
hubbub was 78's "Invasion the Body Snatchers" as many will recall.

Well, I always remember the completely unneeded remake of
"Ben Hur" in 1959...like "Psycho", it featured an almost shot-for-shot
rip-off of the original chariot race, minus only the pipe organ stylings
of the widow Johnson...

---
William Ernest "Often Copied, Never Deprecated" Reid

blue

2008-04-21 17:10:27 UTC

Post by ichorwhip
<snip to the chase>

I actually like Kaufman's version as much as the original. It's scarier
and it's sense of menace and hopelessness is more pronouced. It has one
of the best endings to a horror film ever (And that's not easy to do).

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-21 19:07:18 UTC

Post by blue

Post by ichorwhip
<snip to the chase>

I actually like Kaufman's version as much as the original. It's scarier
and it's sense of menace and hopelessness is more pronouced. It has one of
the best endings to a horror film ever (And that's not easy to do).

I liked it too. Had some memorable scenes. The original Body Snatchers was
very creepy, especially seeing it as a kid. I wonder if younger people at
the time, seeing the Kaufman film as their first exposure to the Body
Snatchers, would be equally as creeped out?

Although the Seigal film is a classic, I don't think it should be among
films I'd put in a "sacrosanct from remakes" columns. But This most recent
remake of it--The Invasion---is all fail. If a remake is to be made of some
classic B movie--at least make it better--or a mini series, otherwise please
don't bother.

dc

Brian Siano

2008-04-11 19:25:12 UTC

What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

Harry Bailey

2008-04-11 21:05:25 UTC

What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

I was presuming that at least some of the posters here retain an
appreciation of sarcasm. Perhaps I appeared to be a little too
'literal' or perhaps this is a bit of a Slow day for you, Brian.

Nobody, to my knowledge, is currently planning to remake 2001, or ACO,
or Citizen Kane. That does not mean that such remakes won't happen
(and, very likely, very soon); rather, with the now well-established
and (culturally) fatalistic re-make obsession ("the future is past")
quickly becoming the dominant one, it is reasonable to conclude that
it is only a matter of time ...

Brian Siano

2008-04-14 14:05:46 UTC

What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

I was presuming that at least some of the posters here retain an
appreciation of sarcasm. Perhaps I appeared to be a little too
'literal' or perhaps this is a bit of a Slow day for you, Brian.

Actually, I figured you for one of those brain-damage cases that turns
up here every so often.

That's because people will always remake movies, and they will even
remake good ones. And on occasion, a remake will be an improvement over
the original. David Cronenberg and Charles Edward Pogue turned _The Fly_
into a genuine classic, and as for _The Three Musketeers_, I'd hate to
have to settle for the Errol Flynn version when Richard Lester's 1973
remake is available.

So, I figured that your comments about remakes were just posturing
hysteria, and thought I'd send up a polite signal that maybe you weren't
rowing with both oars in the pond.

Sorry you're not very good at this sarcasm thing, kid.

Harry Bailey

2008-04-14 19:39:25 UTC

What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

I was presuming that at least some of the posters here retain an
appreciation of sarcasm. Perhaps I appeared to be a little too
'literal' or perhaps this is a bit of a Slow day for you, Brian.

Actually, I figured you for one of those brain-damage cases that turns
up here every so often.

So not only are you slow, but you like to look in the mirror a lot
(you've had a grand total of 4 posts here in the past two-plus years,
Brian, all as manically trivial as your latest).

Wordsmith

2008-04-11 22:39:29 UTC

What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

"I can always tell when he's had a few. He gets sarcastic."

W : )

2008-04-11 23:05:01 UTC

Last night I watched Mamet's "The Winslow Boy" which was pretty great
for a remake. I haven't seen the original 1940's flick, but I doubt it
was as good as Mamet's.

Bailey posted a long list, but aside from "Straw Dogs", "The Lives of
Others" (and arguably "Birds"), I have no problem with those remakes.
They're mostly mediocre, though I love "The Thing" (both versions) and
"The Warriors".

Harry Bailey

2008-04-11 23:44:21 UTC

Post by MP
Last night I watched Mamet's "The Winslow Boy" which was pretty great
for a remake. I haven't seen the original 1940's flick, but I doubt it
was as good as Mamet's.
Bailey posted a long list, but aside from "Straw Dogs", "The Lives of
Others" (and arguably "Birds"), I have no problem with those remakes.
They're mostly mediocre, though I love "The Thing" (both versions) and
"The Warriors".

It isn't a question of whether anyone has 'personal problems' with any
particular remake, it is a question of what the widespread practice
says about contemporary culture and its structural malaise. If someone
uncritically 'buys into' that (depthless) culture then they have no
basis for questioning any 'particular' remake whatsoever (apart from
the frivolous "Well like, I didn't enjoy it"), whatever its iconic
status, whether it's Soderberg's Solaris or a possible future remake
of 2001 etc.

Why, then, should one complain about a Rosemary's Baby remake any more
than a Porky's remake, given that both such remakes are likely to be
equally culturally pointless, deflationary, amnesiac, and schlerotic?

In fact, judging from the almost militant way in which both
Soderberg's Solaris and Spielberg's AI were defended, justified, and
rationalised throughout the mainstream media (and hereabouts), it's
ominously clear that the response to a possible future remake of 2001
(whether it's Michael Bay or anyone else) would rapidly move from
initial disgust to cosy acceptance.

Brian Siano

2008-04-14 14:06:30 UTC

It isn't a question of whether anyone has 'personal problems' with any
particular remake, it is a question of what the widespread practice
says about contemporary culture and its structural malaise.

It doesn't say anything like that. We've always had remakes.

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-14 20:02:59 UTC

It isn't a question of whether anyone has 'personal problems' with any
particular remake, it is a question of what the widespread practice
says about contemporary culture and its structural malaise.

It doesn't say anything like that. We've always had remakes.

I don't think it is hard to tell what films really need remakes. "Prom
Night," the biggest BO of this past weekend only exists to make money. And
crap that is crap to begin with, might be an improvement but is it really
needed?

After movie making was developing the technical end of things, from silent
films, black and white to tinted films then full color, to talkies and then
then wider screens, it was natural to do remakes of classic films or
stories. The 1925 silent Ben Hur, for instance, was a very successful film,
but later the media of film itself has changed drastically. Remaking titles
from silent films into a modern film is very desirable.

The Tim Burton, Planet of the Apes was crap. The original film was already
a modern enough film technically and it was a classic. What other reason
other then money would they do a remake? Clearly there was no improvement in
the film, despite some updated CGI. John Carpenters "The Thing" was a
modern film, while the earlier "The Thing," was an inept and low budget
film to begin with, so remaking that was a good thing. Without a doubt,
there are older films that are masterpieces in their own right, so if
someone is going to remake what is already a great film. there I would hope
that there is a good reason, for remaking it.

The many (nine of them) Hunchbacks of Notre Dame show techncial
progresssions, but still in my mind, none of them have even begun to do
justice to the Novel, and none of the later versions, touch the 1939
version. (Charles Laughton) as a standalone film. The most obvious problem
is that all the versions, including the 1939 version and even the TV movies
are way too short to do justice to the novel.

Now that we have this film-media progresssion from mini series to Cable
Series and from lower budget TV to higher budget TV that has evolved to
become more inline with film production values, a REAL version of the
mastepiece novel could be an amazing thing. The novel is so deep and
labyrinthine, to do it justice and be faithful to the book, would take a
whole season or more of installments. The same would be true of all the
truly great classic and timeless novels. Then what we have is a real
attempt to do justice to a great novel.

In the meantime remakes of crap, that are themselves crap with better
production values and bigger budgets, are churned out. No wonder the film
business is going downhill and Cable TV is going uphill.

Beyond all of this argument is the fact that some films should remain
sacrosanct, where remaking it is generally considered to be despicable
exploitation and a slap in the face of film history. What possible reason
(beside to make money) could there be to remake Rosemary's Baby or The
Birds?---unless it was to take these stories into 3D Holographic
projections? By the time that technology appears, there will also be the
technology to take great modern films, even Kubrick or Lean films, for
example, and digitially convert them to Holograpahic projection, but there
would be no reason to actually remake them unless it was from a novel that
required many hours to do justice to. Not all classic novels, need to be
expanded to a many hour series. Dr. Zhivago, the novel does not need a long
version. Some 3 hour films already did justice to the novel. A 10 hour Dr.
Zhivago or Barry Lyndon would be a real snooze fest, but a 30-40 hour War
and Peace or Brother Karamazov done with very high production values, could
be amazing as well as a permanent record of the Novel, projected into film.
Do people need to read or see War and Peace? Depends if you want the world
to be a vegetable planet or not? Make more "Prom Nights" to ensure new
generations of people on a vegetable planet.

If filmmakers want to do a homage to a particular director by doing sequels
that is one thing, but to remake classic films that were already made with
modern quality, then it's just a slap in the face to artists. Stealing
ideas of great Sci-Fi novels is also a slap in the face to the Sci-Fi
greats. Some creep in the Hollywood machine, reads a book and thinks he can
bypass the original stories by a great writers and make a similar story,
with little artistic concern, should be tarred and feathered.

Maybe I am old-fashioned to expect a respect from artists and media, shown
to great artists, whether writers or filmmakers. Maybe I am old fashioned
to also see film as a way to make the greatest classics accessible to a
usually throwaway culture.

None of the above, is in any way negating an original film from a visionary
filmmaker, which is as rare nowadays as to almost be non-existent.

dc

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-14 20:30:30 UTC

It isn't a question of whether anyone has 'personal problems' with any
particular remake, it is a question of what the widespread practice
says about contemporary culture and its structural malaise.

It doesn't say anything like that. We've always had remakes.

I don't think it is hard to tell what films really need remakes. "Prom
Night," the biggest BO of this past weekend only exists to make money.
And crap that is crap to begin with, might be an improvement but is it
really needed?
After movie making was developing the technical end of things, from
silent films, black and white to tinted films then full color, to talkies
and then then wider screens, it was natural to do remakes of classic films
or stories. The 1925 silent Ben Hur, for instance, was a very successful
film, but later the media of film itself has changed drastically. Remaking
titles from silent films into a modern film is very desirable.
The Tim Burton, Planet of the Apes was crap. The original film was
already a modern enough film technically and it was a classic. What
other reason other then money would they do a remake? Clearly there was no
improvement in the film, despite some updated CGI. John Carpenters "The
Thing" was a modern film, while the earlier "The Thing," was an inept and
low budget film to begin with, so remaking that was a good thing. Without
a doubt, there are older films that are masterpieces in their own right,
so if someone is going to remake what is already a great film. there I
would hope that there is a good reason, for remaking it.
The many (nine of them) Hunchbacks of Notre Dame show techncial
progresssions, but still in my mind, none of them have even begun to do
justice to the Novel, and none of the later versions, touch the 1939
version. (Charles Laughton) as a standalone film. The most obvious
problem is that all the versions, including the 1939 version and even the
TV movies are way too short to do justice to the novel.
Now that we have this film-media progresssion from mini series to Cable
Series and from lower budget TV to higher budget TV that has evolved to
become more inline with film production values, a REAL version of the
mastepiece novel could be an amazing thing. The novel is so deep and
labyrinthine, to do it justice and be faithful to the book, would take a
whole season or more of installments. The same would be true of all the
truly great classic and timeless novels. Then what we have is a real
attempt to do justice to a great novel.
In the meantime remakes of crap, that are themselves crap with better
production values and bigger budgets, are churned out. No wonder the
film business is going downhill and Cable TV is going uphill.
Beyond all of this argument is the fact that some films should remain
sacrosanct, where remaking it is generally considered to be despicable
exploitation and a slap in the face of film history. What possible
reason (beside to make money) could there be to remake Rosemary's Baby or
The Birds?---unless it was to take these stories into 3D Holographic
projections? By the time that technology appears, there will also be the
technology to take great modern films, even Kubrick or Lean films, for
example, and digitially convert them to Holograpahic projection, but there
would be no reason to actually remake them unless it was from a novel that
required many hours to do justice to. Not all classic novels, need to be
expanded to a many hour series. Dr. Zhivago, the novel does not need a
long version. Some 3 hour films already did justice to the novel. A 10
hour Dr. Zhivago or Barry Lyndon would be a real snooze fest, but a 30-40
hour War and Peace or Brother Karamazov done with very high production
values, could be amazing as well as a permanent record of the Novel,
projected into film. Do people need to read or see War and Peace? Depends
if you want the world to be a vegetable planet or not? Make more "Prom
Nights" to ensure new generations of people on a vegetable planet.
If filmmakers want to do a homage to a particular director by doing
sequels that is one thing, but to remake classic films that were already
made with modern quality, then it's just a slap in the face to artists.
Stealing ideas of great Sci-Fi novels is also a slap in the face to the
Sci-Fi greats. Some creep in the Hollywood machine, reads a book and
thinks he can bypass the original stories by a great writers and make a
similar story, with little artistic concern, should be tarred and
feathered.
Maybe I am old-fashioned to expect a respect from artists and media, shown
to great artists, whether writers or filmmakers. Maybe I am old
fashioned to also see film as a way to make the greatest classics
accessible to a usually throwaway culture.
None of the above, is in any way negating an original film from a
visionary filmmaker, which is as rare nowadays as to almost be
non-existent.
dc

I should add a mention of the many versions of Les Miserable as one more
example of a classic, labyrinthine novel that would need a couple seasons of
a highest end qualkity, Cable series to do it justice. There have been some
good films, but none of them even slightly approach the novel---they are all
drastic abridgements. The last one, in 1998 was very well made technically
and very good all around, but again it was such a sliver-abridgement of the
novel, that is fails miserably as a rendering of the book.

And with all the cash that changes hands in Hollywood, and they still
haven't made the the musical, Les Miserables--itself a singular
masterpiece----into a film????---well thats just crazy all around. Funnel
some of that Prom Night Money to something real, K? thx.

Wikipedia says:

"Although numerous films of the Les Misérables story have been made, no
adaptation of the musical has yet been produced. A film adaptation of the
musical has been in development, on and off, since the late 1980s. Alan
Parker was reported to be attached to the adaptation at an early stage.[15]
In 1992, Cameron Mackintosh announced that the movie would be directed by
Bruce Beresford and co-produced by Tri-Star Pictures,[16] but this project
was abandoned some time later. After several years in development hell
interest was renewed in late 2005,[17] though as of 2008, no concrete
details have come to light."

Excuse me Hollywood., but can you f..... yourself? If anything needs to be
made into a great film it would be this musical, and not just a simulated
stage show---as a full-on 4.5 hour epic musical film this property could
make more money then a hundred Prom nights, then a real version of the book
on Cable would be watched by everyone. people might actually be better off
learning something.

".........no concrete details have come to light."

dc

Brian Siano

2008-04-14 20:47:05 UTC

It isn't a question of whether anyone has 'personal problems' with any
particular remake, it is a question of what the widespread practice
says about contemporary culture and its structural malaise.

It doesn't say anything like that. We've always had remakes.

But to address Harry Bailey's idiotic comment, "it is a question of what
the widespread practice says about contemporary culture and its
structural malaise." Filmmakers doing remakes of earlier films says
nothing about contemporary culture of "structural malaise" or whatever
pseudoscholarly terms people use to create the illusion of insight.

In this case, it's a matter of someone raising a useless alarm (hacks
are remaking the classics! Or they might do it someday!) about something
whose impact on our lives is, essentially, trivial. Let's say Michael
Bay _was_ to remake _2001_: well, whup de doo, he'd do it, he'd waste a
lot of money, there _might_ be someone out there who actually likes it,
and those of us with taste will always have the Kubrick original to enjoy.

And there are loads of other, original films we can enjoy as well.

That's why I see Harry Bailey's hysteria as a silly, worthless expense
of energy and attention.

Harry Bailey

2008-04-14 21:53:58 UTC

It isn't a question of whether anyone has 'personal problems' with any
particular remake, it is a question of what the widespread practice
says about contemporary culture and its structural malaise.

It doesn't say anything like that. We've always had remakes.

But you haven't even begun to address the 'idiotic' comment, you've
simply made a bland, ignorant, and anti-intellectual ASSERTION that
confirms your peculiar adherence to a combination of blank, short-
circuited pseudo-empiricism and wilfully frantic, dogmatic
indifference to both history and contemporary culture.

Post by Brian Siano
In this case, it's a matter of someone raising a useless alarm (hacks
are remaking the classics! Or they might do it someday!) about something
whose impact on our lives is, essentially, trivial.

Such films are a SYMPTOM of those increasingly trivial lives.

Post by Brian Siano
Let's say Michael
Bay _was_ to remake _2001_: well, whup de doo, he'd do it, he'd waste a
lot of money, there _might_ be someone out there who actually likes it,
and those of us with taste will always have the Kubrick original to enjoy.

So you're indifferent to any possible 2001 remake, however odious,
(though it didn't stop you from disrupting/trolling this thread,
parading your premature literalness) because people of 'taste' will
have the original! You're not actually engaging with the issue being
discussed here, the quite unprecedented obsession with remakes (and
sequels/prequels/reworkings, and not just confined to film, but
everywhere), but attempting to cynically dismiss all such discussion
as 'pseudo' while uncritically resigning yourself to the remake
pathology in order to normalise it, to falsely dehistoricise it, to
accept it (even support it) in a dismissive "so what?" consumerist
nihilism. And if, as you claim above, the impact of remakes is
'trivial', then why are you so eager to defend and 'rationalise' such
a widespread cultural pathology (while opening slandering those who
critique it)?

Post by Brian Siano
That's why I see Harry Bailey's hysteria as a silly, worthless expense
of energy and attention.

It is your unexamined, blindly naive defence of remake hysteria that
is 'silly', and it is this vast remake culture that constitutes a
'worthless expense of energy and attention'.

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-15 02:23:36 UTC

It isn't a question of whether anyone has 'personal problems' with any
particular remake, it is a question of what the widespread practice
says about contemporary culture and its structural malaise.

It doesn't say anything like that. We've always had remakes.

But to address Harry Bailey's idiotic comment, "it is a question of what
the widespread practice says about contemporary culture and its structural
malaise." Filmmakers doing remakes of earlier films says nothing about
contemporary culture of "structural malaise" or whatever pseudoscholarly
terms people use to create the illusion of insight.
In this case, it's a matter of someone raising a useless alarm (hacks are
remaking the classics! Or they might do it someday!) about something whose
impact on our lives is, essentially, trivial. Let's say Michael Bay _was_
to remake _2001_: well, whup de doo, he'd do it, he'd waste a lot of
money, there _might_ be someone out there who actually likes it, and those
of us with taste will always have the Kubrick original to enjoy.

Imagine hearing people say, "Oh that new one was so much better---this new
version made sense and they got rid of that stupid giant baby thing and
that dumb time tunnel that looked like when I sniffed glue and replaced it
with a cool battle. And the music was so much better! I loved that Mariah
Carey song, "Let me share your space suit, baby."

dc

Post by Brian Siano
And there are loads of other, original films we can enjoy as well.
That's why I see Harry Bailey's hysteria as a silly, worthless expense of
energy and attention.

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-15 02:52:45 UTC

It isn't a question of whether anyone has 'personal problems' with any
particular remake, it is a question of what the widespread practice
says about contemporary culture and its structural malaise.

It doesn't say anything like that. We've always had remakes.

But to address Harry Bailey's idiotic comment, "it is a question of what
the widespread practice says about contemporary culture and its structural
malaise." Filmmakers doing remakes of earlier films says nothing about
contemporary culture of "structural malaise" or whatever pseudoscholarly
terms people use to create the illusion of insight.
In this case, it's a matter of someone raising a useless alarm (hacks are
remaking the classics! Or they might do it someday!) about something whose
impact on our lives is, essentially, trivial. Let's say Michael Bay _was_
to remake _2001_: well, whup de doo, he'd do it, he'd waste a lot of
money, there _might_ be someone out there who actually likes it, and those
of us with taste will always have the Kubrick original to enjoy.
And there are loads of other, original films we can enjoy as well.
That's why I see Harry Bailey's hysteria as a silly, worthless expense of
energy and attention.

I kind of picture

dc:)

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-15 03:04:35 UTC

It isn't a question of whether anyone has 'personal problems' with any
particular remake, it is a question of what the widespread practice
says about contemporary culture and its structural malaise.

It doesn't say anything like that. We've always had remakes.

But to address Harry Bailey's idiotic comment, "it is a question of what
the widespread practice says about contemporary culture and its
structural malaise." Filmmakers doing remakes of earlier films says
nothing about contemporary culture of "structural malaise" or whatever
pseudoscholarly terms people use to create the illusion of insight.
In this case, it's a matter of someone raising a useless alarm (hacks are
remaking the classics! Or they might do it someday!) about something
whose impact on our lives is, essentially, trivial. Let's say Michael Bay
_was_ to remake _2001_: well, whup de doo, he'd do it, he'd waste a lot
of money, there _might_ be someone out there who actually likes it, and
those of us with taste will always have the Kubrick original to enjoy.
And there are loads of other, original films we can enjoy as well.
That's why I see Harry Bailey's hysteria as a silly, worthless expense of
energy and attention.

I kind of picture
http://youtu.be/8ozcflgtU_k
dc:)

But I have to agree with his hate of inappropriate remakes.

dc

e***@webtv.net

2008-04-15 05:50:23 UTC

Get ready for the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" starring
Keanu Reeves as Klaatu...I wish I was kidding, but sadly, I'm not...the
things I've heard so far, do not sound promising...

Gavin

"So, I'm sitting there hearing HAL say, "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I
can't do that...", and I'm thinkin, Damn!, I knew we should have gone
with a Mac..." David Bowman, 2001

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-15 17:02:27 UTC

Post by e***@webtv.net
Get ready for the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" starring
Keanu Reeves as Klaatu...I wish I was kidding, but sadly, I'm not...the
things I've heard so far, do not sound promising...
Gavin
"So, I'm sitting there hearing HAL say, "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I
can't do that...", and I'm thinkin, Damn!, I knew we should have gone
with a Mac..." David Bowman, 2001

How dumb to redo that when you have a huge amount of great Sci-Fi novels to
make into films. Jennifer Connely is in it too so and she is usually smart
about choosing scripts, so this one may be okay---but why???? When you
could be spending all that money doing Heinlein or Clarke or Asimov, or
Zelazny, or Haldeman, Niven or Pournelle. or Pohl or Bear, or Baxter, or
Brin, or Simak, or Brunner, or Sturgeon, or Farmer,

Is Hollywood so scared of failure and lacking in vision or wanting to tell
stories they haven't told before---I guess? This case is borderline as to
whether a remake could be acceptable, but why???

The original Day the Earth Stood Still was written by the old sci fi writer
Harry Bates, who was an early editor of "Astounding Science Fiction,"
magazine. Hollywood used to be smarter.

dc

Harry Bailey

2008-04-17 22:23:44 UTC

It's already wrapped. But now wait for something else: Casablanca,
starring Madonna as guess who, and set in present-day ... IRAQ! Where,
the green zone? with Lee Ermey as Rick? And who will give him the
'letters of transit', Adam Sandler? Maybe they'll be 'letters of
adoption' instead, her search for a little Shiite kid while dodging
all the RPGs aimed at her ass. And WHO will the 'nazis' be? Arnie as
Petraus? And with alcohol everyone's favourite tipple in the original,
and with alcohol 'not permitted' in Muslim-law Baghdad, where will
they find a 'gin joint'?). The horror ...

Post by e***@webtv.net
Gavin
"So, I'm sitting there hearing HAL say, "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I
can't do that...", and I'm thinkin, Damn!, I knew we should have gone
with a Mac..." David Bowman, 2001

How dumb to redo that when you have a huge amount of great Sci-Fi novels to
make into films. Jennifer Connely is in it too so and she is usually smart
about choosing scripts, so this one may be okay---but why???? When you
could be spending all that money doing Heinlein or Clarke or Asimov, or
Zelazny, or Haldeman, Niven or Pournelle. or Pohl or Bear, or Baxter, or
Brin, or Simak, or Brunner, or Sturgeon, or Farmer,
Is Hollywood so scared of failure and lacking in vision or wanting to tell
stories they haven't told before---I guess? This case is borderline as to
whether a remake could be acceptable, but why???

Yeah, 'scared of failure', or a fear of the future, is certainly a
part of it (Hollywood is also acutely aware of what has happened to
the establishment music industry over the last decade with the rise of
the net music download). And fear is the complement of the current
fixation on memory (or replicant memory, and the safety of reassuring
remakes), the thought, how will things be remembered?, functioning
though, not as a catalyst to originality (much less greatness) but as
a cue to be ultra-cautious. And it should be clear that we can connect
this fear with wider trends in contemporary society. Far from being
the creative carnival of unrestrained libidinal innovation that some
of its defenders want it to be, current (g)liberal capitalism is
locked into the production of commodities (and cultural products) that
are barely different from one another. 00s capitalism is very
different from the capitalism that, for instance, existed in the early
70s (you only have to compare today's films with those of the early
seventies to instantly confirm this).

"The issue back then [in the 1970s] was capitalism's increasing
capacity to consume and metabolize any apparently 'subversive region',
convert any Outside into a commodified interiority. Capitalism's
problem now is a consequence of that very success; if it has colonized
everything, then there is no longer any Outside for it to vampirize,
and it is reduced to cloning the already-existing successful models,
producing diminishing returns. In this way, the spreading of Business
Ontology into all areas of the culture and into every level of the
psyche - the demand that every single activity must justify itself in
terms of economic utility - is disastrous for capitalism itself; it
fails to recognize that the most ostensibly useless and non-productive
activity may be what generates the 'entrepreneurial leaps' without
which it is caught in stagnant reiteration."

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-17 23:39:46 UTC

How dumb to redo that when you have a huge amount of great Sci-Fi novels to
make into films. Jennifer Connely is in it too so and she is usually smart
about choosing scripts, so this one may be okay---but why???? When you
could be spending all that money doing Heinlein or Clarke or Asimov, or
Zelazny, or Haldeman, Niven or Pournelle. or Pohl or Bear, or Baxter, or
Brin, or Simak, or Brunner, or Sturgeon, or Farmer,
Is Hollywood so scared of failure and lacking in vision or wanting to tell
stories they haven't told before---I guess? This case is borderline as to
whether a remake could be acceptable, but why???

Harry Bailey

2008-04-12 00:09:21 UTC

What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

"I can always tell when he's had a few. He gets sarcastic."
W : )

As it was Brian's (and seemingly your) failure to recognise the
sarcasm, perhaps you've had a lot more than a few ... especially when
it was clearly spelled out above "IF they were to be made, of
course :-))".

You're just trolling, seeking out vacuous and inflammatory point-
scoring., the very disease that destroyed this newsgroup.

Wordsmith

2008-04-12 05:14:24 UTC

What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

"I can always tell when he's had a few. He gets sarcastic."
W : )

As it was Brian's (and seemingly your) failure to recognise the
sarcasm, perhaps you've had a lot more than a few ... especially when
it was clearly spelled out above "IF they were to be made, of
course :-))".
You're just trolling, seeking out vacuous and inflammatory point-
scoring., the very disease that destroyed this newsgroup.

That "seemingly" is a nice touch, Padraig. Very nice.

W : )

Harry Bailey

2008-04-12 17:31:57 UTC

What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

"I can always tell when he's had a few. He gets sarcastic."
W : )

As it was Brian's (and seemingly your) failure to recognise the
sarcasm, perhaps you've had a lot more than a few ... especially when
it was clearly spelled out above "IF they were to be made, of
course :-))".
You're just trolling, seeking out vacuous and inflammatory point-
scoring., the very disease that destroyed this newsgroup.

That "seemingly" is a nice touch, Padraig. Very nice.
W : )-

Thanks for that most illuminating response. I'll be sure to guarantee
it enters into the distinguished annals of AMK scholarship as a most
intriguing snippit of 'remake' gossip.

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-12 18:43:00 UTC

What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

"I can always tell when he's had a few. He gets sarcastic."
W : )

As it was Brian's (and seemingly your) failure to recognise the
sarcasm, perhaps you've had a lot more than a few ... especially when
it was clearly spelled out above "IF they were to be made, of
course :-))".
You're just trolling, seeking out vacuous and inflammatory point-
scoring., the very disease that destroyed this newsgroup.

That "seemingly" is a nice touch, Padraig. Very nice.
W : )-

Thanks for that most illuminating response. I'll be sure to guarantee
it enters into the distinguished annals of AMK scholarship as a most
intriguing snippit of 'remake' gossip.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Hmmm. Well just had news that one of my daughters, was just cast to be in a
big remake. This one being the third version coming out next year.

I guess it provides work in the business, to make remakes, but really can't
they be more creative?

There is a huge body of great books from great writers, including classics,
dramas, historical dramas, and the best Sci-Fi writers, to never reach the
Big Screen. Instead they rip off ideas from books, retitle them, and make
garbage most of the time.

The lists of great novels, never made into films is huge and the list of
films poorly ripping off ideas from novels, is huge.

dc

Boaz

2008-04-12 19:57:01 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
Thanks for that most illuminating response. I'll be sure to guarantee
it enters into the distinguished annals of AMK scholarship as a most
intriguing snippit of 'remake' gossip.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hmmm. Well just had news that one of my daughters, was just cast to be in a
big remake. This one being the third version coming out next year.

Congratulations. Not a "Buffy" movie, is it?

Post by Harry Bailey
I guess it provides work in the business, to make remakes, but really can't
they be more creative?
There is a huge body of great books from great writers, including classics,
dramas, historical dramas, and the best Sci-Fi writers, to never reach the
Big Screen. Instead they rip off ideas from books, retitle them, and make
garbage most of the time.
The lists of great novels, never made into films is huge and the list of
films poorly ripping off ideas from novels, is huge.

You sound like some of my high school English teachers, who only
seemed to think films were made from novels and plays. At least that's
all they ever bitched about in our classes, as if the only obligation
for filmmakers is to adapt someone else's literary work into a film
and not conceive an original story for the purpose of being made into
a film. Granted, there is some truth to what you say about filmmakers
ripping off novels for their own material (though I would like to see
you post some examples), but let's put a few things into perspective
here. "Citizen Kane," as one example, was an original screenplay. I
don't care if Welles and Mankiewicz used Hearst's life as the basis of
their script; the screenplay was otherwise built from the ground up.
The same could be said for "2001: A Space Odyssey." Despite "The
Sentinel" being the launch point, Kubrick and Clarke still had to
create an original story from the ground up to fit with around the one
point in the short story of finding an object on the moon that was
left by others millions of years before.

Even though T.E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" was used as
research material for "Lawrence of Arabia," anyone who has read the
book will know that the book itself could not be filmed as is, and an
original screen story structure had to be created, pretty much from
the ground up. That is not as easy a task as one would think. It is
unfortunate that producer Sam Spiegel claimed the script was an
adaptation and not an original; by having the Academy put it in the
Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar category was not only incorrect, it
ended up losing to Horton Foote's adaptation of "To Kill a
Mockingbird," a script that stayed very close to its literary source.

Other examples of original screenplays are "Butch Cassidy and the
Sundance Kid," "The Wild Bunch," "Back to the Future," everything
Ingmar Bergman wrote, just about everything Fellini did; all of Woody
Allen's films are original screenplays, most of the films made by
Michael Powell and Emeric Pressberger, "The Third Man," Altman's
"Nashville," "Three Women" and "A Wedding" are among the original
script that great director made into films.

Anyway, it is usually the complaints of the armchair critic who
doesn't seem to grasp how difficult it is to actually put a film
together, from the screenplay on up. If one could read a book and
"imagine" it as a movie, then everyone could make a film and it would
be easy. But it isn't. And many literary adaptations basically suck as
films because some books just don't translate well.

We've discussed many times here as to the whys and wherefores Kubrick
chose to adapt novels into films rather than write original
screenplays ("2001" being the closest to an exception), but even then
Kubrick wasn't so much trying to make a film version of someone else's
novel as he was using the novel as raw material to make a Stanley
Kubrick film.

Boaz
("Think I'm gonna steal your ideas and sell 'em to Hollywood?")

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-13 00:12:05 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
Thanks for that most illuminating response. I'll be sure to guarantee
it enters into the distinguished annals of AMK scholarship as a most
intriguing snippit of 'remake' gossip.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hmmm. Well just had news that one of my daughters, was just cast to be in
a
big remake. This one being the third version coming out next year.

Congratulations. Not a "Buffy" movie, is it?

Post by Harry Bailey
I guess it provides work in the business, to make remakes, but really
can't
they be more creative?
There is a huge body of great books from great writers, including classics,
dramas, historical dramas, and the best Sci-Fi writers, to never reach the
Big Screen. Instead they rip off ideas from books, retitle them, and make
garbage most of the time.
The lists of great novels, never made into films is huge and the list of
films poorly ripping off ideas from novels, is huge.

Post by Boaz
Granted, there is some truth to what you say about filmmakers

ripping off novels for their own material (though I would like to see
you post some examples),<<<<<<<<<<<

I am not going to make a list here, but generally I am referring to films
that would be particulary suitable for todays new technology. Look at the
body of Sci-Fi films. So many of them are crap. Why waste time and money
on bad stories when you have such a huge batch of great Sci-Fi novels to
make films of.

Look at Robert Heinlein, or Clarke's writing, that have never made it to
film---that many people read. So many of the ideas have been used in mostly
poor, movies. Look at all the Classic novels that have yet to have make it
to film.

Post by Boaz
but let's put a few things into perspective

here. "Citizen Kane," as one example, was an original screenplay. I
don't care if Welles and Mankiewicz used Hearst's life as the basis of
their script; the screenplay was otherwise built from the ground
up.<<<<<<<<<<

Great original films are just as valid as great novels, but "great" films
are a tiny minority of the films made today, while there is a large supply
of Great novels. making endless remakes and stealing ideas to make mediocre
films is very annoying.

I am not complaining about great original movies. I am conplaining about
all the constant flow of rubbish or subpar movies, with some central idea
ripped off from the cultural memes that evolved from all those great
novels. They are cheapskates making these films that dont want to pay for a
book or make an expensive movie as most great books require, when they can
get boxoffice with crap.

Post by Boaz
The same could be said for "2001: A Space Odyssey." Despite "The

Sentinel" being the launch point, Kubrick and Clarke still had to
create an original story from the ground up to fit with around the one
point in the short story of finding an object on the moon that was
left by others millions of years before.

Even though T.E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" was used as
research material for "Lawrence of Arabia," anyone who has read the
book will know that the book itself could not be filmed as is, and an
original screen story structure had to be created, pretty much from
the ground up. That is not as easy a task as one would think. It is
unfortunate that producer Sam Spiegel claimed the script was an
adaptation and not an original; by having the Academy put it in the
Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar category was not only incorrect, it
ended up losing to Horton Foote's adaptation of "To Kill a
Mockingbird," a script that stayed very close to its literary
source.<<<<<<<<<<<<

So both of them are great scripts and great films coming from great books or
adapted historically from a famous book.

Post by Boaz
Other examples of original screenplays are "Butch Cassidy and the

Sundance Kid," "The Wild Bunch," "Back to the Future," everything
Ingmar Bergman wrote, just about everything Fellini did; all of Woody
Allen's films are original screenplays, most of the films made by
Michael Powell and Emeric Pressberger, "The Third Man," Altman's
"Nashville," "Three Women" and "A Wedding" are among the original
script that great director made into films>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Many of the greatest films came from great novels. Some original scripts
have been equally as great or even better. Some original scripts of
historical topics, are based on historical records and much research.

Post by Boaz
Anyway, it is usually the complaints of the armchair critic who

doesn't seem to grasp how difficult it is to actually put a film
together, from the screenplay on up. If one could read a book and
"imagine" it as a movie, then everyone could make a film and it would
be easy. But it isn't. And many literary adaptations basically suck as
films because some books just don't translate well.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And some people who perfectly grasp "how to actually put a film together,"
will also complain that Hollywood is pumping out tons of crap films. The
obstacle is the money game. That's what's hard. The greed. The machine.
.... the willingness to rob books of ideas and to cut corners in making a
film, that is calculated to make it's money back and make a profit---where.
great stories, ideas and art is the last concern.

Post by Boaz
We've discussed many times here as to the whys and wherefores
Kubrick

chose to adapt novels into films rather than write original
screenplays ("2001" being the closest to an exception), but even then
Kubrick wasn't so much trying to make a film version of someone else's
novel as he was using the novel as raw material to make a Stanley
Kubrick film.>>>>>>>>>>>

Boaz
("Think I'm gonna steal your ideas and sell 'em to
Hollywood?")<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And of course Kubrick was one of a kind and so was Lean and Wyler and a
handful of other great filmmakers.

The excuse that a book is "not suitable to be a movie," is not true
anymore. With the advent of the mini-series and the development of
3D/CGI.....there is NO excuse anymore, not to do the greatest novels.
certainly it's no excuse for stealing ideas and not honoring the great
writer's stories.

dc

Boaz

2008-04-13 01:45:36 UTC

Post by Kelpzoidzl
There is a huge body of great books from great writers, including classics,
dramas, historical dramas, and the best Sci-Fi writers, to never reach the
Big Screen. Instead they rip off ideas from books, retitle them, and make
garbage most of the time.
The lists of great novels, never made into films is huge and the list of
films poorly ripping off ideas from novels, is huge.

Oh, gee, that's a relief! I can sleep much better tonight.

Post by Boaz
Granted, there is some truth to what you say about filmmakers

That's hardly a good sales pitch to make to studio executives in order
to sell them on financing an adaptation of any book by the "giants" of
science fiction literature. One has to be not only more persuasive,
one has to be shrewd and something of a conniver as well.

Post by Boaz
Look at Robert Heinlein, or Clarke's writing, that have never made it to
film---that many people read. So many of the ideas have been used in mostly
poor, movies. Look at all the Classic novels that have yet to have make it
to film.

If you recall, about five years ago Beacon Entertainment purchased the
rights to Clarke's "Childhood's End," with Kimberly Pierce signed on
to direct the film, and with Universal picking up some of the
production costs in return to have distribution rights. Well, Pierce
went on to make "Stop-Loss" and Beacon Entertainment (and its
founders) are nowhere to be seen or heard from. Back in 1991 or '92,
Fred Roos or Gray Frederickson bought the rights to Philip K. Dick's
"The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch." I re-read the novel as soon
as I read the news in Variety. I saw no problems involving special
effects being done to the action and setting described in the novel
(and this is the same time "Terminator 2" came out, which proved that
point well). Well, that's been over sixteen to seventeen years, and
nothing has come of that either.

Back in 1971, Warner Bros. purchased the rights to Heinlein's
"Stranger in a Strange Land." I don't know if any director was
attached then, but Lewis John Carlino had written a screenplay. We're
still waiting for that one to get the green light.

These novels, as well as the other works by the authors you've brought
up now and then, might be considered "too cerebral" for teenage boys
(the largest demographic for films right now) who go to the movies to
watch things "blow up real good." Even "Total Recall" was marred by a
third act that resorted to dumb-shit violence, even though the rest of
it kept the spirit of Dick's source novel and was enjoyable as a
result.

Post by Boaz
but let's put a few things into perspective

Again, what great novels are you referring to? Do you not think every
studio executive gets a galley of every novel that is about to be
published? Most of them read these novels long before they hit the
bookstores. "The Godfather" is but one example of having been snatched
up by Paramount before it was ever published.

If you are referring to the "great novels" that most of us had to read
in high school and college English class, lotsa luck. Try selling them
to people who know only corporate law, accounting and have MBAs. Go
ahead; try to sell them. These guys have read the great novels too, or
they are familiar enough with them to know what is being pitched to
them.

Post by Boaz
I am not complaining about great original movies. I am conplaining about
all the constant flow of rubbish or subpar movies, with some central idea
ripped off from the cultural memes that evolved from all those great
novels.

Such as? Some examples would help put into focus your argument.
Otherwise, all I can say is that everyone has at one time or another
used allusions to other literary works when creating their own
literary work, opera, musical, play or film.

Post by Boaz
They are cheapskates making these films that dont want to pay for a
book or make an expensive movie as most great books require, when they can
get boxoffice with crap.

Post by Boaz
The same could be said for "2001: A Space Odyssey." Despite
"The

Sentinel" being the launch point, Kubrick and Clarke still had to
create an original story from the ground up to fit with around the one
point in the short story of finding an object on the moon that was
left by others millions of years before.
Even though T.E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" was used as
research material for "Lawrence of Arabia," anyone who has read the
book will know that the book itself could not be filmed as is, and an
original screen story structure had to be created, pretty much from
the ground up. That is not as easy a task as one would think. It is
unfortunate that producer Sam Spiegel claimed the script was an
adaptation and not an original; by having the Academy put it in the
Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar category was not only incorrect, it
ended up losing to Horton Foote's adaptation of "To Kill a
Mockingbird," a script that stayed very close to its literary
source.<<<<<<<<<<<<
So both of them are great scripts and great films coming from great books or
adapted historically from a famous book.

Post by Boaz
Other examples of original screenplays are "Butch Cassidy and the

Name one film based on a classic novel that has had as much influence
on cinema as "2001: A Space Odyssey," or "Citizen Kane," or "La
Strada," or "The Seventh Seal," or "The 400 Blows," or "On the
Waterfront," just to name a few here. If a film is taken from a novel
and ends up being influential it is because the source novel (or
story) was not a truly great work of literature, but it had story
elements that attracted the director, who could then take those
elements and make them work cinematically. Generally, a great novel
doesn't work on film because those elements of the author's literary
style is what is engaging to the reader, and is generally lost in the
translation to the screen. "The Searchers" is a great film, but the
novel it is based on is not exactly something studied in school or
admired for the author's dynamic writing style. Nor was "Psycho." When
people think of Thackeray they think of "Vanity Fair," not "Barry
Lyndon." "The Godfather" had a good premise, characters and story, but
it was larded with trashy elements right out of Harold Robbins. The
film was what Puzo later said his novel should have been. "The
Shining" was a pretty "pulpy" novel, overwritten and sensationalistic.
Kubrick's film is superior to it in many ways. It isn't likely that
anyone would remember the pulp novel "Clean Break" if James Harris
hadn't found it in a bookstore, and he and Kubrick hadn't made "The
Killing" from it.

You get a few exceptions, such as "The Grapes of Wrath," but John Ford
made a great visual work, emphasizing the characters' faces rather
than focus on the details better suited from reading the book (and
having the great instincts to cast the right actors). "Greed" (from
"McTeague") and "The Magnificent Ambersons" were also exceptions, but
they also suffered from having the films taken away from the directors
by the studio heads, and the butchery done to them diminished their
greatness.

Post by Boaz
Some original scripts
have been equally as great or even better. Some original scripts of
historical topics, are based on historical records and much research.

Is it too difficult to provide examples of these "some" things you
keep bringing up, like some bad spicy lunch?

Post by Boaz
Anyway, it is usually the complaints of the armchair critic who

Yes, I know I do that on occasion, I confess, but I try to keep such
complaints on AMK down to a minimum. I can't always help myself. ;-)

<snip comments here that I stated more clearly above, as well as more
nonsense>

Post by Boaz
The excuse that a book is "not suitable to be a movie," is not true
anymore. With the advent of the mini-series and the development of
3D/CGI.....there is NO excuse anymore, not to do the greatest novels.

Post by Boaz
certainly it's no excuse for stealing ideas and not honoring the great
writer's stories.

Here is my suggestion to anyone here who wants to TRULY honor the
great writers of the world: read their books or stories. If a film is
derived from any one of those books (though Bog knows which ones DC
Comics is referring to) then they should be appreciated for what they
are: a film, which should stand on its own and be viewed and commented
upon for its own merits. Comparing films to the original literary
source is the worst (and laziest) form of film criticism.

Reading a great novel is a wonderful experience on its own. Don't wait
for the film, and don't expect a film. Just enjoy the book.

We now return to the real world, while DC Comics returns to his
alternate universe.

Boaz
("You mean like going to the pictures?" "Something like that.")

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-13 02:47:33 UTC

Oh, gee, that's a relief! I can sleep much better tonight.

Post by Boaz
Granted, there is some truth to what you say about filmmakers

Post by Boaz
Look at Robert Heinlein, or Clarke's writing, that have never made it to
film---that many people read. So many of the ideas have been used in
mostly
poor, movies. Look at all the Classic novels that have yet to have make it
to film.

Post by Boaz
Back in 1971, Warner Bros. purchased the rights to Heinlein's

"Stranger in a Strange Land." I don't know if any director was
attached then, but Lewis John Carlino had written a screenplay. We're
still waiting for that one to get the green light.

These novels, as well as the other works by the authors you've brought
up now and then, might be considered "too cerebral" for teenage boys
(the largest demographic for films right now) who go to the movies to
watch things "blow up real good." Even "Total Recall" was marred by a
third act that resorted to dumb-shit violence, even though the rest of
it kept the spirit of Dick's source novel and was enjoyable as a
result.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So whoever is considering these things "too cerebral" needs to have their
head examined.

Post by Boaz
but let's put a few things into perspective

Again, what great novels are you referring to? Do you not think every
studio executive gets a galley of every novel that is about to be
published? Most of them read these novels long before they hit the
bookstores. "The Godfather" is but one example of having been snatched
up by Paramount before it was ever published.<<<<<<<<<<<

The list would be too long.....but instead of all the remakes (the ones not
necessary) and the ripoff pulp, they could apply all that time and money to
great books.
There are plenty of classics that have never made the big screen. Does it
matter if it's been rejected already as "too cerebral" or "too whatever"?

Post by Boaz
If you are referring to the "great novels" that most of us had to read

in high school and college English class, lotsa luck. Try selling them
to people who know only corporate law, accounting and have MBAs. Go
ahead; try to sell them. These guys have read the great novels too, or
they are familiar enough with them to know what is being pitched to
them.<<<<<<<<<<<<

I fully grasp the gridlock and the abominable atmosphere in the film
financing systems. Yes it's those people's fault ultimately---but it's also
their whores that are to blame---the ones who could make better moives if
they choose to, but instead agree to remake movies of great filmmakers.

I am not complaining about great original movies. I am conplaining about

Post by Boaz
all the constant flow of rubbish or subpar movies, with some central idea
ripped off from the cultural memes that evolved from all those great
novels.

Such as? Some examples would help put into focus your
argument<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

At least 90 percent of what exists at the movie theater today? Go to Yahoo
and look at the list of all movies currently showing. Mostly all mediocrity
that critics and filmgoers think are mediocre. And of that 10% msot of those
are just good or very good, but not great.

Hard to blame consumers though. They are starved for good entertainment.
Luckily we have Cable Series happening and they are getting netter and
better. I hope they end up using budgets that allow the best levels of film
production.

Post by Boaz
Otherwise, all I can say is that everyone has at one time or another

used allusions to other literary works when creating their own
literary work, opera, musical, play or film.

Post by Boaz
They are cheapskates making these films that dont want to pay for a
book or make an expensive movie as most great books require, when they can
get boxoffice with crap.

Take a look around, away from your own comfortable surroundings, and
see that we are in the the throes of a recession. The economy is going
down the toilet. We are five years into a war that shouldn't have
taken place to begin with. The the majority of people going to movies
right now are young people, who spend their allowances, or have
disposable incomes, and they want to see the crap. They stay away from
the films that deal with Iraq. They don't want to see a film that
forces them to think. And the studios, thinking of only the bottom
line, goes right along with that and continues to green-light dumb-
shit comedies and chick flicks and blow-'em-up action films; anything
to bring people into theaters. They couldn't give two shits about any
great work of literature, or classic science fiction literature, if
they think it won't bring money in for them. They are scared, and they
would rather "play it safe" with what's already been successful.
"2001"? That's a 40 year old movie? The audience going to see films
today weren't even born then!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I can't disagree with any of that.
But what is your point? That it's okay to make crap? I don't get it?
Ofcourse the economy sucks and of course they don;t care about classics
etc.....thats obvious.
But to assume people wouldn't pay to see them is absurd. People are fed
crap but they would love to have some banquets.

Cable TV series is a whole new venue that has barely even started. This
insistence on less then 2 hours films based on popcorn and number of
showtimes is strangling the business.

Post by Boaz
The same could be said for "2001: A Space Odyssey." Despite
"The

Sentinel" being the launch point, Kubrick and Clarke still had to
create an original story from the ground up to fit with around the one
point in the short story of finding an object on the moon that was
left by others millions of years before.
Even though T.E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" was used as
research material for "Lawrence of Arabia," anyone who has read the
book will know that the book itself could not be filmed as is, and an
original screen story structure had to be created, pretty much from
the ground up. That is not as easy a task as one would think. It is
unfortunate that producer Sam Spiegel claimed the script was an
adaptation and not an original; by having the Academy put it in the
Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar category was not only incorrect, it
ended up losing to Horton Foote's adaptation of "To Kill a
Mockingbird," a script that stayed very close to its literary
source.<<<<<<<<<<<<
So both of them are great scripts and great films coming from great books or
adapted historically from a famous book.

But you still don't get it. A screenplay had to be constructed in
order to take the elements from "Seven Pillars" and make it work as a
film, and it had to pretty much be constructed from the ground
up.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Oh I don't get it? Get what? That a screenplay is an equally valid kind of
writing and there is crap and good stuff? I'm not arguing that films
shouldn't be made from the ground up, but this does not mean you can't use
great books as the material and be at least mostly faithful to a book or
adapted history. People are stuck on this less then 2 hour thing.

Post by Boaz
Other examples of original screenplays are "Butch Cassidy and the

Name one film based on a classic novel that has had as much influence
on cinema as "2001: A Space Odyssey," or "Citizen Kane," or "La
Strada," or "The Seventh Seal," or "The 400 Blows," or "On the
Waterfront," just to name a few here.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ben Hur. Won the most academy awards. You are mixing and matching the
arguments here.

Now name one of these incessant pulp films that influences anything other
then popcorn sales?

Many classic films have been made but many more classics have never been
made, or never done justice to.

It wouldn;t hurt to educate the public about classics. They don;t all have
to be as influential as 2001 or Citizen Kane.

in terms of Sci-Fi, it is absolutely amazing how fews Sci Fi classics have
been made into films. This is a very easy concept to get.

Post by Boaz
If a film is taken from a novel

and ends up being influential it is because the source novel (or
story) was not a truly great work of literature, but it had story
elements that attracted the director, who could then take those
elements and make them work cinematically. Generally, a great novel
doesn't work on film because those elements of the author's literary
style is what is engaging to the reader, and is generally lost in the
translation to the screen. "The Searchers" is a great film, but the
novel it is based on is not exactly something studied in school or
admired for the author's dynamic writing style. Nor was "Psycho." When
people think of Thackeray they think of "Vanity Fair," not "Barry
Lyndon." "The Godfather" had a good premise, characters and story, but
it was larded with trashy elements right out of Harold Robbins. The
film was what Puzo later said his novel should have been. "The
Shining" was a pretty "pulpy" novel, overwritten and sensationalistic.
Kubrick's film is superior to it in many ways. It isn't likely that
anyone would remember the pulp novel "Clean Break" if James Harris
hadn't found it in a bookstore, and he and Kubrick hadn't made "The
Killing" from it.

You get a few exceptions, such as "The Grapes of Wrath," but John Ford
made a great visual work, emphasizing the characters' faces rather
than focus on the details better suited from reading the book (and
having the great instincts to cast the right actors). "Greed" (from
"McTeague") and "The Magnificent Ambersons" were also exceptions, but
they also suffered from having the films taken away from the directors
by the studio heads, and the butchery done to them diminished their
greatness.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

There are many others, taken from classics but in most case they were from
the 40's and the never did justice to the book in a 90 min format.
Seriously, nothing by Doestoevsky or Tolstoy or Dumas, or Cervantes, or
Bronte. etc. could not be redone in a series format. But by now EVERY book
written by Heinlein or Clarke of Asimov, and others should be in film today.

Wouldn't you like to see those titles made into films?

They could be remade today.

Post by Boaz
Some original scripts
have been equally as great or even better. Some original scripts of
historical topics, are based on historical records and much research.

Is it too difficult to provide examples of these "some" things you
keep bringing up, like some bad spicy lunch?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You want lists of Classics and Sci Fi never made into films? Give me a
break.

Post by Boaz
Anyway, it is usually the complaints of the armchair critic who

Yes, there is: having the work lost in translation. However, not
everyone has the advantage of having cable with HBO, Showtime and
anything else that these "mini-series" can be shown. And while I have
a pretty nice TV it is still no comparison to a big theater screen,
where a film is truly appreciated as a film, and not some second-hand
visual aid to a novel. That is why I don't go with your argument. A
film is not meant to be a novel with images, nor was it ever meant to
be that.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So you should get cable and a better TV. A film is too make a story with
images and sound. I'd much rather see all the Heinlein and Clarke books
and many others and the classics instead of the crap MOST film are spewing
out.

Post by Boaz
certainly it's no excuse for stealing ideas and not honoring the great
writer's stories.

ichorwhip

2008-04-14 03:36:19 UTC

On Apr 12, 8:45 pm, Boaz <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snipped a bunch, mainly because Dizzy D is an idiot who can't
preserve formatting when he responds>

Post by Boaz
These novels, as well as the other works by the authors you've brought
up now and then, might be considered "too cerebral" for teenage boys
(the largest demographic for films right now) who go to the movies to
watch things "blow up real good." Even "Total Recall" was marred by a
third act that resorted to dumb-shit violence, even though the rest of
it kept the spirit of Dick's source novel and was enjoyable as a
result.

Wha?!!! You mean you didn't explode with laughter at Arnold, Ronnie
Cox and Rachel Ticotin garbling, gagging and gasping for air with
their eyes bulging out of their heads in the virgin Mars atmosphere?
That was the funniest (read: absurd) thing in the whole movie next to
Kuato's scene... but seriously, your point is well taken. "Total
Recall" got more and more ridiculously cartoonish in its violence and
gore as it went along and even earlier than the third act if you ask
me, but that's Paul Verhoeven for you ("Robocop" had already well
established his ultraviolent tendencies), still I liked it fine and
rank it right along with "Predator" as my favorite Arnold flicks; the
concept remained intact although the dressing was infected.

Post by Boaz
Great original films are just as valid as great novels, but "great" films
are a tiny minority of the films made today, while there is a large supply
of Great novels. making endless remakes and stealing ideas to make mediocre
films is very annoying.

Again, what great novels are you referring to?

Stuart Little or Charlotte's Web praps?

Post by Boaz
If you are referring to the "great novels" that most of us had to read
in high school and college English class, lotsa luck. Try selling them
to people who know only corporate law, accounting and have MBAs. Go
ahead; try to sell them. These guys have read the great novels too, or
they are familiar enough with them to know what is being pitched to
them.

Take Thomas Mann's "The Magic Mountain" for instance... Translating
the philosophical underpinnings and mammoth breadth of this looooong
and densely constructed masterpiece to the screen would be nearly
impossible and what would be the point anyway? It stands on it own
and _is_ as it was meant. The best one could expect to do is cleverly
reference it within the "confines" of a film, which is an entirely
different medium. But somebody already did that...

Yep...

Post by Boaz
Even though T.E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" was used as
research material for "Lawrence of Arabia," anyone who has read the
book will know that the book itself could not be filmed as is,

That's a fact, and it would have taken a series of films to even try,
and then it couldn't be as great a film as it is. Robert Bolt's
genius was economy and knowing exactly what to put in and what to
omit, and his screenplay stands like an eighth pillar.

Post by Boaz
and an
original screen story structure had to be created, pretty much from
the ground up. That is not as easy a task as one would think.

I regularly marvel at the job done on that screenplay. Did you know
that practically every line of the dialog is quotable? ;-) Lean had
only the best people helping him to make his vision, Lawrence's
vision, what it became. Anyone who doesn't revere "Lawrence of
Arabia" for what it represents ought to ask themselves why exactly
they bother to watch movies at all.

Post by Boaz
It is
unfortunate that producer Sam Spiegel claimed the script was an
adaptation and not an original; by having the Academy put it in the
Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar category was not only incorrect, it
ended up losing to Horton Foote's adaptation of "To Kill a
Mockingbird," a script that stayed very close to its literary source.

Not that that wasn't an exceptional film and book...

Post by Boaz
You get a few exceptions, such as "The Grapes of Wrath," but John Ford
made a great visual work, emphasizing the characters' faces rather
than focus on the details better suited from reading the book (and
having the great instincts to cast the right actors).

Agreed, just rewatched that again recently, what a masterpiece!

Yes, there is: having the work lost in translation.

You're right, you really are. I think Dizzy is prolly too lazy or
something to just read for the sheer pleasure and edification of it;
he's full of excuses as always, and he seems to lack wisdom, a sign
that he doesn't read much. I enjoy reading a great book as much as
watching a great film, but that's not exactly normal in an ADD/
cyberworld is it? Anyways, I really like Beethoven's Fourth Symphony,
I think it's underrated and underheard, and I hope someone makes a
moooovie out of it soon so everybody will know what I mean by that,
and, most importantly, that I was right all along... <gulp!>

Post by Boaz
However, not
everyone has the advantage of having cable with HBO, Showtime and
anything else that these "mini-series" can be shown. And while I have
a pretty nice TV it is still no comparison to a big theater screen,
where a film is truly appreciated as a film, and not some second-hand
visual aid to a novel. That is why I don't go with your argument. A
film is not meant to be a novel with images, nor was it ever meant to
be that.

"It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing."
if you're not a chucklehead that is...

Post by Boaz
certainly it's no excuse for stealing ideas and not honoring the great
writer's stories.

Here is my suggestion to anyone here who wants to TRULY honor the
great writers of the world: read their books or stories.

A novel concept? I know... I know... "Give dem ahrrr Cohaagen!"

Post by Boaz
If a film is
derived from any one of those books (though Bog knows which ones DC
Comics is referring to)

LOL!!!!!!! I was doing a great job of not doing _that_ up to this
point...

Post by Boaz
then they should be appreciated for what they
are: a film, which should stand on its own and be viewed and commented
upon for its own merits. Comparing films to the original literary
source is the worst (and laziest) form of film criticism.
Reading a great novel is a wonderful experience on its own. Don't wait
for the film, and don't expect a film. Just enjoy the book.
We now return to the real world, while DC Comics returns to his
alternate universe.

How Bizzaro!

"Big things have small beginnings, sir."
i
"piop"

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-14 10:12:59 UTC

"ichorwhip" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b4d7c3cd-6108-4d72-85d7-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 12, 8:45 pm, Boaz <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snipped a bunch, mainly because Dizzy D is an idiot who can't
preserve formatting when he responds>

Post by Kelpzoidzl
Great original films are just as valid as great novels, but "great"
films
are a tiny minority of the films made today, while there is a large supply
of Great novels. making endless remakes and stealing ideas to make mediocre
films is very annoying.

Again, what great novels are you referring to?

Stuart Little or Charlotte's Web praps?

Post by Kelpzoidzl
I am not complaining about great original movies. I am conplaining about
all the constant flow of rubbish or subpar movies, with some central idea
ripped off from the cultural memes that evolved from all those great
novels.

Yep...

Post by Boaz
and an
original screen story structure had to be created, pretty much from
the ground up. That is not as easy a task as one would think.

Not that that wasn't an exceptional film and book...

Agreed, just rewatched that again recently, what a masterpiece!

Post by Kelpzoidzl
The excuse that a book is "not suitable to be a movie," is not true
anymore. With the advent of the mini-series and the development of
3D/CGI.....there is NO excuse anymore, not to do the greatest novels.

Yes, there is: having the work lost in translation.

"It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing."
if you're not a chucklehead that is...

Post by Kelpzoidzl
certainly it's no excuse for stealing ideas and not honoring the great
writer's stories.

Here is my suggestion to anyone here who wants to TRULY honor the
great writers of the world: read their books or stories.

A novel concept? I know... I know... "Give dem ahrrr Cohaagen!"

Post by Boaz
If a film is
derived from any one of those books (though Bog knows which ones DC
Comics is referring to)

LOL!!!!!!! I was doing a great job of not doing _that_ up to this
point...

How Bizzaro!

"Big things have small beginnings, sir."
i
"piop"<<<<<<<<<<<

Weak---very weak.

Sure bring on the billions of dollars worth of crap films. Good for you,
good for me. Feels good, ummmm good.

dc

Wordsmith

2008-04-12 18:55:51 UTC

What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

"I can always tell when he's had a few. He gets sarcastic."
W : )

As it was Brian's (and seemingly your) failure to recognise the
sarcasm, perhaps you've had a lot more than a few ... especially when
it was clearly spelled out above "IF they were to be made, of
course :-))".
You're just trolling, seeking out vacuous and inflammatory point-
scoring., the very disease that destroyed this newsgroup.

That "seemingly" is a nice touch, Padraig. Very nice.
W : )-

Thanks for that most illuminating response. I'll be sure to guarantee
it enters into the distinguished annals of AMK scholarship as a most
intriguing snippit of 'remake' gossip.

You're the only one here allowed to be sarcastic? Okaaaaaaayyyy...

W : )

Bill Reid

2008-04-12 00:02:06 UTC

Post by Brian Siano
What are you yabbering about? Michael Bay isn't remaking _2001_.

It was already remade, about two years after "2001". It was called
"Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun" where an astronaut travels to
a distant planet that appears to be identical to Earth except "Ishtar"
is considered to be the greatest movie ever made...bizzare-o...

---
William Ernest "Definitely NOT A Fantastic Voyage" Reid

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-13 00:19:01 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
Thanks for that most illuminating response. I'll be sure to guarantee
it enters into the distinguished annals of AMK scholarship as a most
intriguing snippit of 'remake' gossip.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hmmm. Well just had news that one of my daughters, was just cast to be in
a
big remake. This one being the third version coming out next year.

Congratulations. Not a "Buffy" movie, is it?

No, its a film about a failed filmmaker with terrible scripts, trying to
make artsy, pretentious films with AFI grants

dc

Harry Bailey

2008-04-13 01:53:13 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
Hmmm. Well just had news that one of my daughters, was just cast to be in
a
big remake. This one being the third version coming out next year.

The third version of what? The Daughters of Dracula?

Post by Boaz
Congratulations. Not a "Buffy" movie, is it?

"Listen to the daughters of the night, how sweet their music is!"

Post by Kelpzoidzl
No, its a film about a failed filmmaker with terrible scripts, trying to
make artsy, pretentious films with AFI grants

'artsy', 'pretentious'. After just complaining about the lack of
'great' artistic films adapted from 'great' novels today! You're a
bundle of contradictions.

Would that imaginary film-within-a-film be The Making of Erasurehead
or The Making of Badlands, the previous two versions still in
development hell on account of a preference for garish CGI horror
mooooovies?

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-13 02:51:44 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
Hmmm. Well just had news that one of my daughters, was just cast to be in
a
big remake. This one being the third version coming out next year.

The third version of what? The Daughters of Dracula?

Post by Boaz
Congratulations. Not a "Buffy" movie, is it?

"Listen to the daughters of the night, how sweet their music is!"

Not quite.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
No, its a film about a failed filmmaker with terrible scripts, trying to
make artsy, pretentious films with AFI grants

'artsy', 'pretentious'. After just complaining about the lack of
'great' artistic films adapted from 'great' novels today! You're a
bundle of contradictions.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I don't think "artsy pretentious," equates with great films made from great
novels.

Post by Harry Bailey
Would that imaginary film-within-a-film be The Making of Erasurehead

or The Making of Badlands, the previous two versions still in
development hell on account of a preference for garish CGI horror
mooooovies?<<<<<<<<<<

My reply to Boaz was one of sarcasm at his lame Buffy remark. Boaz is the
protagonist in that ditty.

dc

Don Stockbauer

2008-04-15 18:40:49 UTC

Post by Harry Bailey
Hmmm. Well just had news that one of my daughters, was just cast to be in
a
big remake. This one being the third version coming out next year.

The third version of what? The Daughters of Dracula?

Post by Boaz
Congratulations. Not a "Buffy" movie, is it?

"Listen to the daughters of the night, how sweet their music is!"
Not quite.

Post by Kelpzoidzl
No, its a film about a failed filmmaker with terrible scripts, trying to
make artsy, pretentious films with AFI grants

'artsy', 'pretentious'. After just complaining about the lack of
'great' artistic films adapted from 'great' novels today! You're a
bundle of contradictions.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I don't think "artsy pretentious," equates with great films made from great
novels.

Post by Harry Bailey
Would that imaginary film-within-a-film be The Making of Erasurehead

or The Making of Badlands, the previous two versions still in
development hell on account of a preference for garish CGI horror
mooooovies?<<<<<<<<<<
My reply to Boaz was one of sarcasm at his lame Buffy remark. Boaz is the
protagonist in that ditty.
dc

Now, now. Yall need to learn to get along.

Don Stockbauer

2008-04-16 13:24:49 UTC

Don't stop on my account. Please, continue with your endless
"discussions".

Tobasco

2008-04-16 14:51:42 UTC

Post by Don Stockbauer
Don't stop on my account. Please, continue with your endless
"discussions".

what - are you remaking Yojimbo or something?

Wordsmith

2008-04-16 20:51:22 UTC

Don't stop on my account. Please, continue with your endless
"discussions".

Which you are quite content in being part of.

W : )

Harry Bailey

2008-04-15 00:40:04 UTC

option=com_content&task=view&id=3282&It...].

Post by Harry Bailey
It's been 'modernized' to soldiers taking on an evil druglord, natch.
CGI explosions a-plenty.)
Straw Dogs (by Director Rod Lurie of "Resurrecting The Champ" & "The
Contender")
Rififi (directed by Harold Baker and starring master of subtlety Al
Pacino)
A Tale of Two Sisters (to be called "The Uninvited" directed by the
Guard brothers)
The Long Good Friday (reimagined by Paul WS Anderson of Resident Evil/
Alien Vs Predator fame)
There's no end to it, to this juggernaut of reappropriating banal,
twisted and deflationary versions of past cultural achievements (and
you can bet your bottom dollar that these guys are the first to
complain about today's 'lack of cinematic innovation' while
simultaneously up to their eyeballs in militantly shutting down all
possibilities for any such innovation). And it's all so fucking
TEDIOUS and amnesiac (even with remakes of fairly mainstream movies -
I mean, who even already remembers the remakes of Planet of the Apes
or Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, despite their runaway box-
office "success"?).
What's even worse is that when highly respected and established
directors ('auteur' film-makers, or at least those with some track
record of having a consistent vision, philosophy, or set of themes
manifested in their previous work) fall into this trap, their future
becomes increasingly bleak and disappointing: consider Scorsese after
his remake of Cape Fear [and his current Rolling Stones shite; he
might as well be making a doc glorifying the 'magic' of Coca-fucking-
Cola]; consider Soderberg after his CGI remake of Solaris; consider
the Coens after [and before, it should be said] their remake of The
Ladykillers; consider Gus van Sant after his remake of Psycho;
consider Brian de Palma's remake of The Black Dahlia; and on and on
and on.
Haneke's remake of Funny Games is pretensious, over-laboured SHITE
(though you won't think so if you haven't seen his original from a
decade ago); but we can go back further: Hitchcock, perhaps the first
director to remake his own movies (The 39 Steps, etc), could never
surpass the originals, even though he only remade them, as he himself
then cynically reasoned, for the Hollywood-US market in order to
increase his movie-making muscle there (and his loot).
And none of this is even to begin to address those film-makers who are
desperate, not just to appropriate/bask in the narcissistic glory of
another's past achievements by 'remaking' their work, but to even
Spielberg 'finishing' Kubrick's AI (well, we've had a million mad
threads hereabouts on THAT topic already); Tykwer 'finishing'
Kieslowski's Heaven; and an abandoned Kurosawa project currently being
'finished' by some pompous gobshite.
Like Peter Finch in Network, "I'm mad, I'm mad as hell - and I'm not
going to take it any more!!". Instead, I think I'll go and 'do' a
remake of Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space (shot and edited 'in-
camera' on an iPhone, of course); I mean, there's just gotta be a lil'
market niche for remakes of failed movies that are bound to keep the
capitalist suits box-office happy-dappy!
So then, seriously, what's your fave 'remake'?
And what film is really so lousy (the ONLY justification for ever
remaking anything), that it's crying out for a remake (but never will
be, precisely for that very reason)?

Michael Bay is also remaking Hitchcock's "Birds". Several years ago he
also produced a remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". "3:10" to
Yuma was another remake that didn't add anything new to the original.
I'm shocked that "Rosemary's Baby" is being remade. There are certain
films that you simply don't touch, and if a remake like this is
greenlit, then what's to stop some director, in 50 years time,
updating a Kubrick film?

50 years!? You're very optimistic!

Post by MP
Thankfully most remakes are treated with the reception they deserve.

If ONLY!! Numerous are boxoffice goldmines ... there are other forces
at work here. But it's also the case that
they have the GALL, the (reflexively impotent) shamelessness, to
appropriate the original title (as an iconic
brandname) for a 'remake' that invariably has nothing in common with
the original beyond that title. Contrast this
with many past 'remakes', where the makers choose a different title:
Kurosawa's Seven Samurai was already 'remade' in the past, as the
tongue-in-cheek Western, The Magnificent Seven, but at least its
makers had the decency to keep a safe distance from the original
title. Today's hubristic, ego-maniacal philistine plagiarists, in
their megalo-vanity, want TOTAL OWNERSHIP (and bask in the simulated/
reflected 'glory' of the original artist without any effort or
understanding or risk or challenge or innovation).

Post by dumb_n00b
At least they're doing it while Polanski is alive and still producing
amazing films like the Pianist. His spotty morals be damned, the man
is an artist.

And so was Hitler!!! [just had to get that in :-) And the very fact
that the Nazi's [like young Alex in ACO] were up to their ears in
(classist) aesthetics didn't prevent them from committing the most
vile atrocities, a point frequently made by Kubrick, a point which
somewhat undermines the sentimentalised fantasy ending of The Pianist
- the art-loving/piano-loving Nazi having mercy on the pianist by
virtue of the latter's talent; whereas it's more likely that the Nazi
at the end of the movie - much like Oscar Schindler - realised that
the game was up, that the third reich was doomed, and pragmatically
quickly changed sides, changed his allegiance ].

Post by dumb_n00b
There is no possible way that anyone low enough to make a remake can
touch Rosemary's Baby and not completely rape it. And it'll probably
be bad to boot, like the Shining miniseries. A lot of the magic of
Rosemary's Baby is the dreamlike atmosphere and lack of action,
something that almost no modern movies (since of course EWS) have been
able to pull off, or even attempt to pull off.

Of course. We already saw this with Soderberg's Solaris, an even worse
'rape' - of Tarkovsky - than a Rosemary's
Baby remake, yet increasingly we see (or at least I've already
noticed) that many (especially) younger viewers
when heard discussing "Solaris" are referring exclusively to the
fantasy-indulgent remake, never having heard of
the original; it's as if the original never existed for these
people ... making it all the more tragic, the disappearance of
historicity.

[But then, it could be argued (from within the 'auteur' paradigm) that
Rosemary's Baby is Polanski's 'remake' of
his earlier Repulsion ...].

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-15 02:34:34 UTC

option=com_content&task=view&id=3282&It...].

Michael Bay is also remaking Hitchcock's "Birds". Several years ago he
also produced a remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". "3:10" to
Yuma was another remake that didn't add anything new to the original.
I'm shocked that "Rosemary's Baby" is being remade. There are certain
films that you simply don't touch, and if a remake like this is
greenlit, then what's to stop some director, in 50 years time,
updating a Kubrick film?

50 years!? You're very optimistic!

Post by MP
Thankfully most remakes are treated with the reception they deserve.

If ONLY!! Numerous are boxoffice goldmines ... there are other forces
at work here. But it's also the case that
they have the GALL, the (reflexively impotent) shamelessness, to
appropriate the original title (as an iconic
brandname) for a 'remake' that invariably has nothing in common with
the original beyond that title. Contrast this
Kurosawa's Seven Samurai was already 'remade' in the past, as the
tongue-in-cheek Western, The Magnificent Seven, but at least its
makers had the decency to keep a safe distance from the original
title. Today's hubristic, ego-maniacal philistine plagiarists, in
their megalo-vanity, want TOTAL OWNERSHIP (and bask in the simulated/
reflected 'glory' of the original artist without any effort or
understanding or risk or challenge or innovation).

Post by dumb_n00b
At least they're doing it while Polanski is alive and still producing
amazing films like the Pianist. His spotty morals be damned, the man
is an artist.

Of course. We already saw this with Soderberg's Solaris, an even worse
'rape' - of Tarkovsky - than a Rosemary's
Baby remake, yet increasingly we see (or at least I've already
noticed) that many (especially) younger viewers
when heard discussing "Solaris" are referring exclusively to the
fantasy-indulgent remake, never having heard of
the original; it's as if the original never existed for these
people ... making it all the more tragic, the disappearance of
historicity.
[But then, it could be argued (from within the 'auteur' paradigm) that
Rosemary's Baby is Polanski's 'remake' of
his earlier Repulsion ...].'

I think Coppola should do a scene for scene remake of Pearl Harbor, with the
same cast and make a masterpiece out of it. That would be a nice payback
for Michael Bay. It should come out before his latest spate of remakes come
out.

dc

AZ Nomad

2008-04-15 15:32:49 UTC

With a hollywood remake, they'd get rid of all that weightlessness crap.
Everybody knows that ships have gravity in the floors.

Some space battles would have to be added. Can't have a movie in space
without space battles and can't have a hollywood movie without stunts and
explosions. Add a couple of gun battles too. Gotta keep the stunt workers
union happy.

There would have to be at least one woman on the ship so that 30% of the
dialog could relate to a love interest... Get rid of that star gate scene
too. Can't have any of that hippy druged out shit in a modern hollywood
movie.

Hal would be adorned with christmas lights. Everybody knows that
a computer can't think without a swirling lightshow!

Kelpzoidzl

2008-04-15 17:05:30 UTC

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 18:33:09 -0700 (PDT), Harry Bailey

With a hollywood remake, they'd get rid of all that weightlessness crap.
Everybody knows that ships have gravity in the floors.
Some space battles would have to be added. Can't have a movie in space
without space battles and can't have a hollywood movie without stunts and
explosions. Add a couple of gun battles too. Gotta keep the stunt workers
union happy.
There would have to be at least one woman on the ship so that 30% of the
dialog could relate to a love interest... Get rid of that star gate scene
too. Can't have any of that hippy druged out shit in a modern hollywood
movie.
Hal would be adorned with christmas lights. Everybody knows that
a computer can't think without a swirling lightshow!

In the new age Hal's memorable comedy line would be, "You've got mail"

dc

AZ Nomad

2008-04-15 17:36:08 UTC