BobDylan

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 8, 2008 -> 01:27 PM) because then it's plagiarism. I'm saying he has no obligation to stick to the book. Hitchcock's average work, Rebecca, he was forced to stick to the book too much. His fantastic works were inspired by not-well known novels he didn't have to pander to the hysterical fanbases of "BUT THAT WASN'T IN THE BOOK" His work was probably average because the book was unfilmable. Look at what Kubrick said about Lolita. They're different arts, both can do certain things the other can't. We're not talking about music covers here. And generally, if a musician covers a song, they keep the lyrics in tact one way or another. That's not usually the case with film. Anderson has no obligation to stick to the book, no, but if he's going to take scenes from the book and paint them into his own "vision," then I'm going to scrutinize him for tearing apart a good story because I know what the story is. It's easy to say the film is good if you haven't read the book. It always is. There's nothing to compare it to. But if you're going to adapt a book, then the book has already set the bar for what the quality is. That's not my fault, and every director knows that when he's adapting a book, he has that certain challenge of at least matching the storytelling of the novelist regardless of if he changes the story around or not. It's the same with song covers. P.T. Anderson didn't do it in this case. In fact, he fell quite short. The shame with "There Will Be Blood" is that a lot of people now want to read the book. They're going to get something entirely different (albeit better). It's a tragedy that it takes a movie to get somebody to read a book. It's not like nobody has heard of Upton Sinclair. And I've seen films adapt books that didn't stay true and turn out well. The Shining, for instance. It's not impossible, but I challenge you, and everyone, to show me five examples where the film was better than the book.

Man, it was great to see MJ back in that Bulls uniform after all that.

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 02:52 PM) I can't say how much I disagree with this. For one, any director with any brain should not ever feel an obligation to his source of inspiration, if he wanted to recreate the novel he would've named it Oil. This wasn't meant to be made in the same way as atonement. There's really little point to a movie about the corrupt oil industry of the turn of the 20th century, but this movie about humanity isolation and greed is forever potent. The dinner scene where he says 'I'm finished' was one of the best scenes I've seen in a long time. Have you read the book? It's easy to say that without reading the book. If there's no obligation to the source of inspiration, why credit the book at all? It's obvious Anderson pulled moments from the book and smacked them on screen. He did a poor job of it.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) Wow, and this is AFTER you slammed "There Will Be Blood." Just what are your movies interests? I loved P.T. Anderson's first four movies. (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love.) There Will Be Blood wasn't terrible, but it's just another display that movies should stop adapting books. They're different forms of storytelling and you can get away with things in prose that you can't with a camera, and vice versa. I've found that most of my favorite movies, with only the exception of two (No Country for Old Men, The Shining), are all original screenplays. And those two exceptions are by some of the greatest American film directors of all-time.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 12:37 PM) It seemed that Daniel was the protagonist. It also made sense that Upton Sinclair, of The Jungle fame, wrote the book Oil that this mnovie was based on. The evil person was a pro business millionaire who harmed his employees and the Minister renounced Jesus at the end and said he was a false prophet etc. Much like the evil businesses and Socialism in The Jungle The book and the film are so drastically different it's not even funny. P.T. Anderson just took themes from the book and parts of Sinclair's plot skeleton and did what he wanted to do. The same basic theme is there for both film and book, but it's as if the two stories had never met each other.

Alright. I saw Cloverfield. If it's not the worst movie I've ever seen, it's in the top 5 of the worst. It was basically a remake of The Blair Witch Project and Godzilla smacked together in one film. The decisions the characters made were ridiculous and downright idiotic. Why they thought it was a good idea to string on a love story, the only backstory being that they made love once, is beyond me. Why they didn't ditch the camera after 10 minutes of seeing what was going on, again, beyond me. Why I made a spoiler alert for such a terrible movie is beyond me as well. If you haven't seen this movie yet, do yourself a favor and wait until you can catch it on TBS in 5-10 years.

QUOTE(bigruss22 @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 02:36 PM) Id rather have the money Pods made and the ring/memories/chance to be part of history than the dough that C-Lee is eating right now, but thats just me. Me too. Even though Podsednik made chump change in MLB language, he's not exactly poor.

http://www.craigslist.org

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 07:41 PM) See... the thing about ESPN (and it's creeping into cable news as well) is that they want entertainment and show over news. You can get news anywhere but you can't be informed while being entertained at the same time just anywhere. "If it bleeds, it leads." I stopped watching the channel a few years ago. Now I've stopped going to their web page. In fact, ESPN has single handedly killed my desire to watch any sport that isn't baseball.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 2, 2008 -> 10:39 AM) He played 5 1/2 seasons in Chicago, less than half of his 13 year career. Yes, he was good, but he's not statue-worthy. The only reason he's known is for 1919. Hmm. I found this interesting about Jackson. in 1911, with Cleveland, he batted .408 in 571 AB's. Ted Williams batted .406 in 456 AB's. Most of the other stats are in Williams favor, but given 100+ more at bats, could Williams have hit .400?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 1, 2008 -> 05:57 PM) from the Bad ass weapons file: Link I think I'd rather be shot by a bullet than that. 3,700 MPH? Instant death?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 12:16 AM) I can't think of anyone other than Jordan or Babe Ruth who I think could beat Woods in such a poll. Jack Nicholson, but I guess he's not an athlete.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 04:46 PM) Basically know what camera I'm going to rent and it should be good, mic-wise, because we're getting an attachment. Well, if it helps, I could potentially hook you up with all the equipment needed (including a good camera, lighting, sound) through my school. I'd just have to get a buddy of mine in their film program to tell a small lie for me.

If you want the film to be anything professional, DO NOT go with the sound recording on the camera. It will sound like crap when you hit the final cutting board. Small or big mikes will work, but with the small mics, you have a lot more options of where to put them.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 06:37 PM) umm.... deaf people can still see and read. I learn something new every day.

Saw "There Will Be Blood" last night. Having read the book as well, "Oil!," the two stories aren't even remotely close. There Will Be Blood has very little substance compared to the book. P.T. Anderson seemed to have more interest in Daniel Plainfield than what actually made the story work for Upton Sinclair's novel--the oil business is corrupt and thereforre it makes the businessman corrupt. The movie made it seem as Daniel Plainfield is corrupt, therefore the business is corrupt. The movie also gave very little attention to the religious aspects of the novel. Only in the ending scene do we get even a glimpse of what the church is, but Sinclair follows Eli and his brother Paul quite closely throughout the novel. P.T. Anderson also gives us a very different take of the father/son relationship than Sinclair did. H.W. isn't necissarily a tool for Daniel by Sinclair's storytelling. I'm a big P.T. Anderson fan, but he screwed this one up. There was a lot of good stuff in the novel that Anderson left out and he took good characters and made them into his own, essentially 1D characters. Daniel Day Lewis gave a great acting performance, but Anderson put together a limiting story and one that didn't have much to say.

I won't go out anywhere, not even to get the newspaper from the front step, before taking a shower.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:13 PM) These ultra portables like the Mac Air never work out. Sony had a line of them, Dell has a line of them. The problem is what you state, having the peripherals outside the main case. The exec is always forgetting the external CD and then you have docking stations to deal with. Its just becomes a mess. Nice idea by Apple, but I dont know who is going to use it. While not for everyday use or even for the occasional difficult task, I think Asus got the UMPC right with the EEE. For $400, you can't really go wrong with that machine. Yes, the HD space is absolutely tiny and it's not entirely upgradeable outside of an SD card, but for surfing the web, checking e-mail and actually fitting the bill of what a UMPC should be, the EEE is top notch.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jan 8, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) I still have to open it. I loved 2004, so I have my hopes high. It's extremely different from CoD, as I'm sure you can imagine. The two shouldn't even really be compared. Both are great in their own right. But, for kicks, UTIII > Halo 3

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jan 7, 2008 -> 06:14 PM) Call of Duty 4 may be the best console online shooter to date. It blows Halo 3's out of the water, and almost everything I've read says the same. Nah, Unreal Tournament III trumps them all.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Jan 4, 2008 -> 06:33 AM) Hey Kyyle, my daughter says "sure" as far as if kids younger than her would be fine with Pet Vet. Her one warning was that once you make a descision in the game, that's it, it's final. I don't know exactly what she means by that, and told her I would play it with her a little bit over the weekend. By the way, to make this DS discussion somewhat more on topic, I read yesterday that Nintendo is about to make the Wii and DS fully compatible. Somehow the two systems are going to be able to share their games. There is an article online about this, I will try and find it. As for the kids growing up and getting into the other systems, I don't know about that. I'm 37 and other gaming systems never really interested me. This one did because it was a break from the norm. Same reason I got into the DS. It wasn't the same dang thing I have been seeing for years. But it is also a lot of fun. I like the active side to it. Are the graphics as great as the 360? No, I guess not, but they are a little bit better than my Intellivision. By the time my kids get older, I am also thinking that (if it still lives), the Wii's graphics will also have improved. From what I have heard, Mario Galaxy is a great looking game. So within a year the system has shown a GREAT improvement on it's graphics. I played a 360 over the holidays. Everybody was telling me I would be forgetting about my Wii and wanting a 360. Didn't happen. I still love the Wii and still have no real interest in a 360. Now...I would someday like a PSP. But it has to be an older model that can be hacked. One of the guys I work with turned his into a MAME machine basically and it has every game under the sun on it! Arcade, Intellivision, Atari, Sega, Nintendo...you name it, he has it. Mario Galaxy is about the ceiling for Wii graphics. Not to mention the Wii doesn't look much better than the Gamecube did, if any better at all. It wasn't difficult for Nintendo developers to make the switch for that reason. They're basically still working with the same graphics technology. The big question for Nintendo is if they can keep putting out games worth buying--and for Microsoft and Sony, if they can match the innovation of Nintendo. The PC world is already on the prowl for a Wii like camera (with extra capabilities, to boot), and if the cost is what they say it is, could be detrimental to Nintendo. All 360 and Sony games would have to do is add in game capability for such motion censored camera and with the two systems USB ports, the Wii will look like nothing more than a toy. And I still feel, when it's all said and done, Sony will win this console battle like they did the last two. And it's still strange to me that it's hard to find a Wii.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 04:28 PM) Really? I would much rather choose from the available catalogs of Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Sega, Sega Genesis, Turbo Graphix, Neo Geo, Gamecube(all available on the Wii), AND Wii over Xbox/ Xbox 360 and Sony Playstation(is it fully backwards compatable with PS1 and PS2?). And who knows what the future holds for any one of these consoles. Sega Dreamcast pulled the plug and went with software over consoles without any real warning to their console fanbase, who is to say that X-box or Playstation dont decide to pull something similar? Sega Dreamcast was going for broke. Playstation had a slow opening year, but I can almost guarantee they'll start selling a boatload of more units this year. As with the 360, good games were slow to come out. Unreal Tournament III at the end of '07 was just a glimpse into what's to come for Sony. March will be a big month for the PS. And the Wii gaming catalogue is poor compared to 360 or PS3--PS3, even with a limited selection of "marquee" titles. But, as always, it depends what you like. From the start, it seemed like Sony and Nintendo went different ways. I always felt like Nintendo was more family oriented. The other platforms were gamer oriented. But if anybody wants the best of the best, go buy a graphics card and some PC games. I grew up on consoles and love them, but I'm saving my money to buy a new desktop.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 23, 2007 -> 12:15 PM) Zelda, Metroid, and Mario Galaxy are about as gamerish as you can get as is the concept of the Virtual Console. I'd say it's suitable for just about anyone. Outside of that is squat, though. I guess I'm a gamer, but I'm not putting down $300 for a console when it'll only have 3 games worth playing. Besides, the PC market is currently developing a motion censored camera that doesn't require a nunchuck and can judge the user with depth perception. And it's only supposed to cost $60. And I know graphics are essentially worthless and nothing more than a perk, but the games on the Wii look like crap.

QUOTE(Brian @ Jan 1, 2008 -> 02:04 PM) Did it tickle? It kind of felt like velcro...

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Dec 29, 2007 -> 10:54 PM) Flying into Chicago (from Houston) on NYE and then at a party with some friends in Western Springs. Back to college on the 3rd for my last semester. Haha. I grew up there.