Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I love Quentin Tarantino's explanation why he just won't do commentary tracks on his own films: 1) He's lived with the damn things for so long, and has nothing to say he hasn't said a million times before in a million interviews and 2) he goes to the movies to watch the damn film, not listen to some arsehole in the row behind provide a running commentary. Does he want to be that kind of arsehole? No, Sir.
If only he was as sensible about writing himself a cameo in every single film he's ever made...
Then you have David Lynch who says he just doesn't like analysing his films, because he's such an intuitive film-maker in the first place, and he's more interested in getting a mood across to the audience. That doesn't happen if he's there telling viewers what he thinks the appropriate reaction is at any given point.
Although I would have appreciated having a running commentary from him for the second half of Mulholland Drive, telling me exactly what the frack was supposed to be going on. It could start around the time the two leads go to the theatre in the middle of the night, which is more or less when my ability to construct a cohesive narrative from what was going on left the building.
You could build a good drinking game around DVD extras.
Drink once if in the 'making of' doco (by which I mean 'studio puff piece'), one of the leads saying something along the lines of: 'as soon as I read the script I knew I had to make this film' (__really__? Possibly your sense of judement needs a tune-up, given the POS I've just watched).
Drink once if one of the leads says 'director/actor X was a pleasure to work with, I've always wanted to work with them'.
Drink once if one of the leads says 'we had such fun making this film'.
And so on.
-
How about Mammon?
Mammon took my house away. Mammon told me I couldn't afford a new car/wide screen TV/payrise/food for children (delete as appropriate).
Nothing like blaming a deity for all your problems.
Too cerebral?
-
I feel the need to quibble with your irrational hatreds. They're so illogical and unnecessary.
But first...
but now I support … I dunno, France?
France? FRANCE? Those stinky-garlic cheese eating surrender monkeys, with their snooty we're-so-much-more-sophisticated-and-classy-than-you nose-in-the-air gallic ways?
Ugh, how COULD you?
Now, where was I? Ah yes, illogical and unnecessary irrational hatreds.
Oh. Wait.....
-
So is this the official Friday Fun thread? In that case ...
New Zealand's election: the view from wingnut world
There was one thing i liked about that site...
...and that was the click-through banner ad to this.
Lovin' it. A new addition to my christmas list.
-
"The secret priests would take great Cthulhu from his tomb to revive His subjects and resume his rule of earth....Then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom."
Roger Douglas did just get re-elected.....
Expect to see the following questions as part of referenda shortly:
Referendum question 1: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand, and should Wellington be renamed as R'lyeh?
Referendum question 2: Do you support the removal of MMP and its replacement by a purely FPP system, and should the Beehive be reconstructed using purely non-euclidean geometry?
-
I keep picturing the Wellington of 2009 as a kind of Lovecraftian wasteland populated only by the insane, the deformed, and the ACT staffer.
Somewhat like this?
-
I'm off to plug my kettle into it to see what happens
Be sure to let us know if skynet becomes sentient.
-
NZ is not the kind of place where people break each others windows for their political ideas
Given the vile nature of some grassroots political supports, I personally wouldn't be making a statement like that with such unalloyed confidence.
A lot of signs got vandalised round our way in the run-up to election day. A lot. Nearly (but not all) Green and Labour ones.
-
Why not just take the sample after conviction?
Well, I can see the logic in it, and I'm comfortable with it.
If the police arrest a suspect in, for example, a rape case, and in that specific instance they don't have a strong enough case to lay charges, then the suspect gets released.
However, an analysis of a DNA sample might ring the cherries with a whole string of other unsolved cases, and the suspect ain't going anywhere.
However, I remain very uncomfortable with the collecting and storing of samples 'just because'.
-
DNA evidence would be rather easy to plant, much easier then finger prints and even criminals could easily do the planting (for a variety of reasons).
I'm not sure about the planting bit. Do you have a source?
However, crims in the UK are now well aware of the power of DNA evidence, and will routinely attempt to muddy the waters as much as possible. For example, it is now more or less a standard trick to empty the contents of publicly used ashtrays (or similar) into car ashtrays in order to disguise the occupancy/user trail.