Capuchin
-
Posts
1,118 -
Joined
Posts posted by Capuchin
-
-
> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}
> So, as far as the 31st goes, two Wongs make it right.
*groan*
-
> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}I see two Mr. Wong movies - *Doomed To Die* and *The Fatal Hour* on the 31st.
Thanks for the correction!
> I wish they were Moto films, but i'll settle for these since they don't air very often.
I'm not fully awake yet and was probably subconsciously substituting the sublime for the simply glorious.
-
I don't know about the movie's box office, but Cinemark is probably facing a world of hurt. There's some chatter that one of the dead usually carries, but Cinemark forbids even concealed carry. Removing a person's ability to protect themselves in such incidents and not providing reasonable security to compensate isn't generally a good idea.
-
> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}
> The only selection in my mind, with regards to the statement you made, is movies. No genres, no subsets, no color preferences, no screen size aspects. No limiting, as you refer to it.
If someone made a list of the greatest woman in the world, and they're all blondes, their explanation that's the only ones they like wouldn't remove the obvious bias.
Movies of the era you mention are definitely a subclass in that their presentation, style, and cultural references are alike and specific to that era.
-
I'm sure there are a lot of groups that are going to try to capitalize on the incident. ABCNews tried to tie it to the Tea Party, there are suggestions that the weapons were part of the FnF op, etc.. An online community adopting a tragedy as a poster boy is, unfortunately, nothing new.
(There has been an effort in the other thread to limit it to discussion of the effect the incident will have on the box office.)
-
There are two Mr. Wong movies on the 31st. I don't remember which ones, but they don't have Mr. Wong in the titles (which is why I almost missed them in the schedule).
Edited by: Capuchin on Jul 21, 2012 3:00 PM because I erred by saying they're Mr. Moto instead of the correct Mr. Wong.
-
> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}
> Okay, so you mean most - as in more than 66 percent. Very important point, I guess.
Um, not quite. While I was generalizing in my original statement, I meant it as as a simple majority, but I wished to give an impression of more substance. When I restated it as majority I was being specific in my intent in the most unambiguous fashion..
> Don't know why you keep bringing stuff like slashers and genres and subsets into your assertion that "most of the greatest movies ever made were produced under the code". Why complicate a simple sentiment unnecessarily?
Because it is more exact to define my assertion by eliminating specific cases wherein the generalization might be thought to not hold true.
> I disagree. I think most of the greatest movies ever made were made from the mid 60's onward - with 1967 being the first watershed year.
They are of a distinct subclass (virtually all color and widescreen, virtually all exhibiting modern life, etc.), so you are limiting the possible selection.
-
> {quote:title=BasilBruce wrote:}{quote}
> But if there wasn't a production code things might have made society more like today.
To what extent life imitates art has been disputed for centuries.
The only way to settle such a question is to find two universes that are exactly parallel in all ways and --screw with one of them-- mount a sociological experiment wherein you make subtle changes to the art in one universe while keeping the other as a control against which to judge the effects of your changes.
-
> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}
>> Capuchin wrote: It was a generalized statement because, while I was willing to insert the weasel word most, I wasn't about to write "The majority of the movies ranked as the greatest of all time by film scholars, devotees, and other interested parties, excepting those whose main passions are silents, pre-codes, slasher flicks, porn, neo-realism, CGI bunnies . . ." and list the other 13,642 other genres which fall outside the classic era.
> What's the difference between "most of" and "the majority of"? Means the same either way, does it not?
Majority denotes anything more than half.
In a million, the majority is 500,001, and no rational person would dispute it.
Most connotes much more than half.
A person might concede that 500,001 is technically most of a million, but they would be unsatisfied with anything less than 666,666.
> The statement, "Most of the greatest movies ever made were produced under the code", is pretty straight-forward - doesn't seem to require any further explanation (or, as in this case, convolution).
It is delineating the parameters, not convolution.
A list of the greatest anything will be subjective. Only by removing those lists made by people with a clear and distinct preference for a specific category or subset can there be a reasonable and relatively objective listing of the ideal examples contained within the whole.
> If you say it, I assume you mean it.
I wrote it. I mean it. As far as I know or can prove, it's true.
If a person has a penchant for silents, slasher movies, or any other genre or subset which is not represented equally throughout the timespan in question (in this case, ever), then their list of greatest movies will be skewed towards certain years, which is why they would disagree with my statement.
That may, or may not, be why you disagreed with my statement. Since you did not offer a rebuttal and merely stated your disagreement, I am forced to consider the most obvious reason as the most likely.
-
> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}
>> Most of the greatest movies ever made were produced under the code.
> I disagree.
As, no doubt, many others do. It was a generalized statement because, while I was willing to insert the weasel word most, I wasn't about to write "The majority of the movies ranked as the greatest of all time by film scholars, devotees, and other interested parties, excepting those whose main passions are silents, pre-codes, slasher flicks, porn, neo-realism, CGI bunnies . . ." and list the other 13,642 other genres which fall outside the classic era.
-
My prayers are for those who were injured or lost loved ones.
-
> {quote:title=audreyforever wrote:}{quote}Hey guys,
> So, my question is even if there was no PCA, or Joseph Breen or Will Hays, do you think the moguls and stars of the studio system would have still allowed profanity and sex and gore into the movies?
Pre-code, they were putting in all the profanity, sex, and violence the public would tolerate. I doubt it would have gotten much worse because the culture was such that viewers accepted people in extreme circumstances reacting strongly, but there's a limit to what they would forgive or let their children see.
Hacks and wannabes were the only ones hurt by the code. Good writers and directors had no problem putting powerful stories on the screen. Most of the greatest movies ever made were produced under the code.
Today's rating system isn't so much about censorship as it is about self-censorship. Letting people know what they'll be exposed to let's them choose for themselves whether or not to watch it.
-
> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}
> Mom is second generation; like her siblings, they were all born in the U.S.
It might vary from state to state, but every birth certificate I've ever seen had a section for the mom's statistics, one of which is place of birth. So your mom's birth certification might list your grandma's hometown.
> I'm still confused about that alphabet. So you think grandma's hometown is Kholm? I guess I'll never know...
Cyrillic is fun! The more vodka you drink, the more sense it makes.
It might not be Kholm. If I remember correctly, Kho is for a hard H sound, and Khe is for a soft H. It depends on how your mom is pronouncing what she remembers. (Understand, I haven't read or spoken Russian regularly for 40 years. I've relearned some key phrases, but these days, I mostly just try to figure out what Masha is muttering under her breath so I'll know whether I should say something comforting or run for the hills.)
-
Oh, great (groan). All the great ones are returning.
I don't stand a chance!
-
There's only one DVD set I'd want, and I'm not sure of the exact date they were produced.
It's *Whitehalls and Wherries.*
(It's a 4 DVD set with 10 hours of instruction on building boats.)
-
> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}
> Grandma came from a small, rural village that Mom thinks is something like "Hamla" or "Humla"; she can't remember. So then I go on the computer and find a list of over 1,000 cities and towns in Russia, listed alphabetically, but -- no "H's".
Х in Cyrillic is usually Kh in Latin letters.
Kholm (Холм) isn't far from St. Petersburg.
If your mom has her birth certificate, it should be listed under mother's place of birth.
-
Count me in! If nothing else, I'm sure I can compile a week out of the days lost in revision from other challenges.
We don't know when SansFin will be back, so at the moment you'll have to list her as a probable no show this time.
I hope you've got something devilish for us!
-
> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}
> My grandmother was from the Ukraine, and she taught me how to say "I love you", which always sounded like "ya tibla yabloo", lol.
There's a great scene in *Tovarich* where a boy tries to say that to Colbert, and he mangles it.
Did your grandmother speak Russian or Ukrainian?
> She's half Cossack, eh? Watch out! LOL
You don't know the half of it!
-
> {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote}
> I look forward to some interesting stories from St. Petersburg and Sansfin's trip.
She's staying with her dad until it's safe to go back to Odessa (which got even more rain today). I don't want to hear what they get up to. Knowledge of it might be considered accessory after the fact.
> Will she see Putin?
I doubt it. She has a deep, abiding hatred for all Soviet leaders.
-
Links sent along with your good wishes. (I don't know when she'll get to watch them.)
She's been to a lot of movies there. Her favorite so far is Бедуин. I found a trailer for it.
She says it's nicely twisty. (Did she ever mention she's half Cossack?
)(I'm afraid my Russian is rusty. I can follow it, mostly, but can't offer a translation.)
This is why she decided to go to St. Petersburg for a bit.
And it's supposed to rain again tomorrow (or is it today? Two weeks ago next Tuesday? The time difference always gets me.)
-
> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}Ah, tak!
> "You will be spending a lot of time at the mountains and near the sea".
With my luck, it'd be mountains of laundry and a sea of troubles.
-
> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}
>I don't like the Disney channel(s) because I can't find anything Disney (Walt Disney that is).
Phineas and Ferb has the sensibilities but not the artwork. I think Walt would approve. I can envision thirty years from now some people saying they went into science/engineering because of that show.
They sometimes do show the good movies.
I've tried to watch a couple of the live action shows. Couldn't.
-
> {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
>> {quote:title=Capuchin wrote:}{quote}
>> It's in the contracts.
>It's in every contract?
It's part of the boilerplate, and I never heard of it being altered significantly during negotiations. There's often some leeway on some channels from some providers, but providers fight tooth and nail to keep as much as they can in the "all subscribers" category.
> I thought we were talking about having ESPN in a Disney tier, not allowing cable companies to force people to buy a sports package to get ESPN.
Splitting it into any tier would let cable companies drop their base package price an average of $7 a month. Since Disney won't allow a specific Disney tier, putting ESPN is a sports tier makes sense, but Disney won't allow that, either.
>> When I considered dropping into a lower package on DirecTV, I found there was a charge.
> I dropped a package last year and they didn't charge me anything.
I was going through their website earlier this year (after they changed Cloo). The fee notice was plain. (I didn't e-mail them to see if I could get it waived because I was no longer under contract so it might be a retention issue.)
As for their profit margins -- since they're a publicly traded company, their dividends are a matter of public record.
The days of easy money was just before the HD wave. They could charge as much as cable companies, and each new customer cost next to nothing to service because they didn't have to invest in infrastructure upgrades to serve new customers, as cable companies do.
They're not hurting, and I'd never feel sorry for them, but they're having to buckle down to business more than before if they want to survive.
If Viacom wins this, then every cable and satellite subscriber in the nation will be paying significantly more in the coming years. For Viacom, it'll only be about a dollar a month, but their contract will be used as a model at contract renewals for Disney, Time-Warner, and all the others.
I read an analysis that if DirecTV backs down, cable rates will increase by an average of $16 a month and satellite rates will increase $12-15 a month within 5 years (above and beyond what's already projected).
-
> {quote:title=voranis wrote:}{quote}
>> Capuchin wrote:
>> Not every channel, every provider's channels.
> That might not be a bad idea. That would allow viewers to see what each content provider costs. Exactly how do the content providers prevent the cable and satellite companies from doing so anyway?
It's in the contracts. Every cable and satellite company I ever heard of wants to put ESPN (the most expensive channel ever) into a sports tier, but Disney says it's an everywhere-or-nowhere.
>> They can also make money by charging fees for switching packages (it costs nothing to upgrade, it often costs to drop something).
> Wow, I don't like the sound of that. I currently don't have to pay anything to upgrade or downgrade with either my cable company or with DirecTV.
When I considered dropping into a lower package on DirecTV, I found there was a charge. It was only a little more than what I'd save the first month, but it was there.
Some of the October Schedule
in General Discussions
Posted
> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote}
> Horror on Wednesdays
> American Politics on Fridays
Is there really much difference between the two anymore?
It looks like a great month!
Thanks for posting this.