WordWolf

This movie's been lambasted quite a bit, at least some of it fairly. The director decided to use a lot of "shaky camera work". According to him it reflected "the urgency of what was going on." Most of the first 1/2 of the movie (or more) was not "urgent" and had no action scenes but still had the shaky cam. Another complaint is that the title makes no sense if you miss a single line in the dialogue- but in the source-book series it seems to be a major plot point about how the characters live and what they have to do to survive. It's also been seen as derivative of "similar" movies- of different categories that don't resemble each other. All of that having been said, some critics actually LIKED the movie. They said it was well-cast and well-acted, which it was, given the script. I suspect critics liked it as much for touching on political subjects, and how well they weren't handled didn't change their rating. The expected violence was toned down a LOT, and the described potential suffering was glossed over. This allowed the movie to get a PG-13 rating and target a much bigger (younger) audience than it otherwise would have. At least 2 characters were described as being black, and the surprise of some viewers at having them appear as black in the movie is a bit confusing, but can be chalked up to poor reading comprehension since their skin colour was actually mentioned in the book.

"Maid Marian"?

"Rocket Man," by Elton John. Although I liked William Shatner's cover.

No. And you're way, way off.

It seems a LOT of us saw quality people at the LOCAL level, all attributing the organization with the reasons for the quality. (It fooled me at the time, certainly.) The locals were quality, and didn't let transplants from hq disrupt things, even the incompetent, ham-handed one that stayed only 1 year. They just kept on doing what they did and he STILL probably doesn't get that he was unneeded and a waste of time when he was local. I think he worked out he was neither liked nor respected by now. craig himself documented that this policy of money and the corps came straight from wierwille from the days of the earliest corps. vpw told lcm "YOU CAN STAY AS LONG AS YOUR MONEY HOLDS!" when asked about his continued participation. lcm NEVER SPENT TIME ON THE FIELD, NOR IN A REAL JOB. craig went straight from college to full-time "employment" at twi. He never dealt with life like the way anyone in the field dealt with it-- salary, rent, negotiating vacation time, arranging locations for classes, day-to-day life in general! lcm's entire life was the twi locale version, which was VERY differnt in every way (go food shopping? Cook? Raise my kid? What do all those things even MEAN?) lcm was completely clueless as to what life was like on the field, let alone how classes were run on the field. Furthermore, he had no real leadership training nor experience, since he had none outside of twi, and nobody had any inside of twi to impart to him. What he had was a sense that he DID have such training and not a clue about doing anything beyond blustering and barking orders that he got from his coaches and then from vpw. As someone found out who asked vpw WHY he picked lcm, vpw himself said that lcm always obeyed him and never questioned his orders. As lcm pointed out in his biography, vpw separated lcm fairly early in his twi experience and began making all sorts of exceptions for him and gave him special treatment and entrance into the inner cadre (excepting, of course, that he raise all his required money to finish the corps training.) We know all this now. Nicely phrased. The qualiity came from the locals, and the credit went to the organization and the higher-ups who did very little and collected tithes for it and asked for MORE-making up phrases like "abundant sharing" and "plurality giving" to try to squeeze every last dollar from out on the field where it actually could do some good. As for wierwille, he was a showman who sometimes put on a great stage act, but it was all an act.

This movie's been lambasted quite a bit, at least some of it fairly. The director decided to use a lot of "shaky camera work". According to him it reflected "the urgency of what was going on." Most of the first 1/2 of the movie (or more) was not "urgent" and had no action scenes but still had the shaky cam. Another complaint is that the title makes no sense if you miss a single line in the dialogue- but in the source-book it seems to be a major plot point about how the characters live and what they have to do to survive. It's also been seen as derivative of "similar" movies- of different categories that don't resemble each other.

I've heard the song before, but not well enough to recognize it without the title phrase.

Obviously, working without modern conveniences- and from a perspective and style very different from our own- can be interpreted as grossly inferior. I think that says as much about us interpreting that as it does about what we're interpreting. If you're expecting something that's geared specifically for you from decades ago, you'll be disappointed. Books written about a century to 1 1/2 centuries ago, if scholarly, were written with an intended audience of PhDs and candidates. That's why they occasionally lapsed into quotes from Latin and the writers never bothered to translate that into English. They expected that the only people who would read their books, in fact, the only people with access to their books, were the Doctorates and the like. I've seen complaints about that sort of thing with DIFFERENT books all written in that time-frame. The authors are too high-faluting, the language is too stilted and sesquipedalian, the Latin is inserted and never explained- and all because he wanted to talk over the heads of his audience! No, he expected that the dozens of possible readers would all be able to keep up. That was pretty much standard for that type of book, written in English to US or UK audiences, and all less than 2 centuries ago. A read through writings from around the time of the US revolution might result in frustrations with the writers- frustrations common to your read of the other writings of that time and place. Shakespeare is usually read with annotations for the differences in the language, and the differences in the mindset and expectations, (and occasionally, for the stage-directions you can't see performed when reading a book that was meant to be acted out.) That increases as time increases, distance increases, and mindset differs more. For that matter, we all know our culture is the "correct" one when encountering other cultures by visiting others or having them travel to where we are, so we should just consider the others to be silly and incorrect when and where they differ from us.

Often, but having the benefit of hindsight doesn't guarantee anyone will figure out CORRECTLY what happened in the past, and it doesn't relate to the DIFFERENT, NON-CHARISMA reasons people joined twi- which is a major discussion-point of the thread.

"Comedy Central presents Maria Bamford (2001)." ALMOST in the 90s. "Hey, Maria. I've been taking this class that's really changed my life. Would you like to come to a newcomer's class at 7:30pm? There's no obligation, and it's free!" "S-sure I'll join your cult." The scene where they try to put the squeeze on her to pay for a not-free class with obligations is totally worth seeing.

I think the price is what they think the market would bear. They're not targeting kids because it's about MERCHANDISING now as much as anything else. Who has all the money? To some extent, they're targeting teenagers and 20s. (A lot of the X-titles and new characters pander to a left slant. That appeals to youths more pretty much always, and has the advantage of making the comics more "inclusive" (of those who claim exclusion the loudest, at least.) There's a small subgroup targeted towards older, old-school comics geeks, which explains why they keep retconning progress in characters like Hal Jordan, Oliver Queen, etc.) If you're targeting a handful of fans who want their characters preserved in amber and spend handfuls of money on them, then you're going to preserve the characters. I expect kids can watch the cartoons, and then get the toys, but the comics may be a bit inaccessible to them right now. (My opinion only-you're free to disagree as always.)

His area of study was HOMILETICS. He specifically studied how to put together a sermon and deliver it, hopefully in a relevant, useful, and interesting fashion. (He studied that FORMALLY and got his degree thereby.) To this, he added scholarly materials from some people (Bullinger) and more hands-on material from others (Stiles) and some that focus more on a result (Leonard). So, when he did anything, his style could reflect any of that. We know he lacked the drive to do his own scholarly work, so his books either reflected copying the work of others, transcripts of sermons/presented classes, or, later, the research of the research department, to which he added his name before it went to print (they all said "by Victor Paul Wierwille" on the covers.) His style in the pulpit/ when teaching could work well for people or not. He had the advantage of having a PRIMED audience most of the time. People were told the pfal class was truly fantastic, so they went in expecting that, and often found it because they expected it. Long ago, I played one of his teachings from an ROA for someone who'd never heard of him. They found he spent a lot of time joking and fooling around before finally getting to the subject. They were right. (ROA 77, "the Healing of Naaman" keynote teaching.) Sometimes the presentation style changed radically- vpw copied the wording, tonage, and even the ACCENTS of others when presenting their material which he said was the result of his own research. vpw, by himself, could be a bit brusque, and when he wasn't, he often stopped to have the audience fill in a word while reading. (I've done that a little to emphasize what was said was NOT what would be expected. He did it as a matter of course.) Other times, he could sound like a MUCH nicer person. "Don't you want to speak the wonderful works of God?" (vpw copying Leonard or Stiles, probably Stiles.) So, his style was inconsistent but could work well or fall down, depending on the presentation, the listener's expectations, and whether he was copying or speaking more from himself.

It's just as well. The comics aren't written for kids anymore. They're secondarily for purchase, primarily for advertising products for merchandising (toys, cartoons, movies, shows...) As for the feel of the shows, Flash is brighter, like classic Superman, and Arrow is darker, like Batman. DC is going to have to actually LISTEN to the fans before Superman can be a BRIGHT hero of HOPE again. That may take a long time and cost them a lot of money first. In general, we don't want our kid watching "Gotham" regardless of when it airs, so I agree about the time-slot. It's solely for adults and is grim and gritty. BTW, Ollie DID use a boxing-glove arrow ONCE. In the Wildcat story, he was in a gym. He stuck a boxing glove on an arrow before firing it a short distance. He's used some kind of bola-arrow recently. I'm waiting for Ollie to make some of his super-spicy chili.

Indeed. The "original" one by Universal.

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL." "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

"Henry - In the name of God!" "Oh, in the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!" "Dangerous? Poor old Waldman. Have you never wanted to do anything that was dangerous? Where should we be if no one tried to find out what lies beyond? Have your never wanted to look beyond the clouds and the stars, or to know what causes the trees to bud? And what changes the darkness into light? But if you talk like that, people call you crazy. Well, if I could discover just one of these things, what eternity is, for example, I wouldn't care if they did think I was crazy." "It is one of the strangest tales ever told. It deals with the two great mysteries of creation: life and death. I think it will thrill you. It may shock you. It might even horrify you. So if any of you feel that you do not care to subject your nerves to such a strain, now is your chance to, uh... Well, we've warned you." " You're crazy!" "Crazy, am I? We'll see whether I'm crazy or not." "The neck's broken. The brain is useless. We must find another brain."

I'm slightly behind on Gotham because the Mrs got bored with it partway through last season, and only catches updates when convenient. So, I haven't sat down to watch this week's episode yet. (I'm behind on Supergirl also, and next week I will be out of contact and will briefly fall behind on everything for most of the week. Just FYI.)

The show WAS "Star Trek." (The Original Series.) The song was not "Beyond Antares." That was actually sung by Nichelle Nichols to Charlie X in the episode "Charlie X." "Beyond The rim of the star-light My love Is wand'ring in star-flight I know He'll find in star-clustered reaches Love, Strange love a star woman teaches. I know His journey ends never His star trek Will go on forever. But tell him While he wanders his starry sea Remember, remember me." http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/trek.asp " Pressured by Roddenberry, Courage had made a "handshake deal" a couple of years earlier that gave Roddenberry the option of composing lyrics for Courage's Star Trek music (and Courage signed a contract — unknowingly, he later claimed — to that effect). Roddenberry exercised that option, writing lyrics for the main theme and then asserting his right to half the performance royalties as a co-composer. It made no difference that the lyrics were not intended to be used in the show itself and had not been recorded or released. As the lyricist, Roddenberry was entitled to an equal share of the royalties, whether or not the lyrics were ever used. Courage protested in vain that although the arrangement may have been legal, it was unethical: Roddenberry's lyrics added nothing to the value of the music and were created for no reason other than to usurp half the composer's performance royalties. An unsympathetic Roddenberry proclaimed, "Hey, I have to get some money somewhere. I'm sure not going to get it out of the profits of Star Trek." " As a business decision, it was legal. Since Courage refused to score any more episodes nor add the music for scenes, it probably was a bad decision for the quality of the show in the long run. Then again, even GR didn't think the show would survive long enough to begin syndication.

This show became more popular in syndication than it was in its original airing. The executive producer conned 50% of the fees for the composer of the main title theme. The song was an instrumental. The producer wrote lyrics for it which were NEVER used-and insisted he wrote 1/2 the song and was entitled to 1/2 the royalties.

Must be "Ghostbusters."

"The Green Hornet"?

"Henry - In the name of God!" "Oh, in the name of God! Now I know what it feels like to be God!" "Dangerous? Poor old Waldman. Have you never wanted to do anything that was dangerous? Where should we be if no one tried to find out what lies beyond? Have your never wanted to look beyond the clouds and the stars, or to know what causes the trees to bud? And what changes the darkness into light? But if you talk like that, people call you crazy. Well, if I could discover just one of these things, what eternity is, for example, I wouldn't care if they did think I was crazy." "It is one of the strangest tales ever told. It deals with the two great mysteries of creation: life and death. I think it will thrill you. It may shock you. It might even horrify you. So if any of you feel that you do not care to subject your nerves to such a strain, now is your chance to, uh... Well, we've warned you." " You're crazy!" "Crazy, am I? We'll see whether I'm crazy or not."

"God" Peter Minuit Benjamin Franklin 'Benny' Linn From his post-Marx Brothers days. In "Skidoo", "the Story of Mankind", and "A Girl in Every Port." Emile J. Keck Detective Sam Grunion Lionel Q. Deveraux "Double Dynamite", "Love Happy"- introducing Marilyn Monroe, and more of a Harpo movie than a Marx Brothers movie, although Chico also appeared. Groucho narrated and played a detective. Devereaux was from "Copacabana", opposite Carmen Miranda. Ko-ko (Lord High Executioner) George Schmidlap Gordon Miller Groucho was a fan of Gilbert & Sullivan musicals, and finally got to play in "the Mikado." Schlidlap was from "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?" Gordon Miller was from "Room Service," an un-Marx Brothers movie by the 3 brothers. It was an adaptation of someone else's story, which is why he doesn't have a wackier name. Wolf J. Flywheel S. Quentin Quayle Dr. Hugo Z. Hackenbush "The Big Store", "Go West", and "A Day at the Races." In that last movie, his last name is repeated a lot in the telephone scene by Sig Ruman (and in the scene when Harpo tried to tell Chico something about him. Ronald Kornblow J. Cheever Loophole Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff "A Night in Casablanca,"the last true Marx Brothers movie. "At The Circus" and "Horse Feathers." Captain Geoffrey T. Spaulding Rufus T. Firefly Otis B. Driftwood "Animal Crackers", "Duck Soup" and "A Night at the Opera." His characters get named a few times in each- ANatO opens with him being paged. I couldn't use "Monkey Business" because their characters are named "Groucho", "Chico" "Harpo" and "Zeppo" in that one. Otherwise, I used all the movies that had Groucho, Harpo and Chico.

It is Groucho. I thought a FEW of the names might be memorable.

"God" Peter Minuit Benjamin Franklin 'Benny' Linn Emile J. Keck Detective Sam Grunion Lionel Q. Deveraux Ko-ko (Lord High Executioner) George Schmidlap Gordon Miller Wolf J. Flywheel S. Quentin Quayle Dr. Hugo Z. Hackenbush Ronald Kornblow J. Cheever Loophole Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff Captain Geoffrey T. Spaulding Rufus T. Firefly Otis B. Driftwood