From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #403 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, October 22 2001 Volume 10 : Number 403 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: found on usenet [Eb ] Re: found on usenet [bayard ] Re: LotR [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: found on usenet [Capuchin ] filk you! ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: found on usenet [bayard ] Re: David Gilmour recording with RH? ["matt sewell" Subject: Re: found on usenet >Sometimes, they'll start off as ordinary porn scam, but then you scroll >down and see the telltale namedropping paragraph.... Oops...meant to say "spam," not "scam." Although, I suppose that both apply. :) BTW, those posts also always have a Reply-To line citing that news.admin.abuse.email newsgroup...another tipoff. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:41:24 -0700 (PDT) From: bayard Subject: Re: found on usenet what struck me most about it was, it was only xposted to two groups - and very low traffic ones at that. (that, and how much it reminded me of Livia.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:45:45 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: LotR >> With apologies to Paul Simon, Arthur C Clarke, and Stanley Kubrick... >> >> You can call me HAL > >That was great! And you even left applicable lyrics left untouched! Neat! thang kyew. Would this be an appropriate time to say that over the weekend I was at a large party masquerading as a very small convention (fifteen of us, three days), where two of the Weta crew from LotR talked to us? They were heavily involved in the weaponry and costuming side of the battle scenes, and from the things they told us, my feelings about this movie(these movies) have gone from hopeful anticipation to "oh...wooow....watch out world!" Comments like 'at the very least it should do for fantasy movies what Star Wars did for sf movies' leave me vaguely hopeful (even though the people talking were, of course, biased). As for the comments about whether the actor chosen for Aragorn was right, one of the two said that he knew something special was going on when he arrived at the set, had a look around and though to himself "well, there's Peter Jackson, there's Elijah Wood, there's Aragorn, there's Cate Bl... hang on... that *is* Aragorn..." Sadly there was so much that was told that I couldn't begin to remember it all here. I will say that among the stars of the movie one that should get special credit was De Niro. De Niro the horse, that is - one of the horses that was used for Shadowfax. Aragorn was a method actor, and tried to get his sword off of him after the days shooting was over took on some of the idiocy of Cato ambushing Clouseau, and to keep their spirits up and 'bond' one band of orcs developed their own chants and songs that would rival a British soccer terrace "'ere we go 'ere we go 'ere we go... smash the elves, oi oi oi!". Seems like when the DVDs come out, one of the things on them will be "the funniest bloopers reel you're ever likely to see" (if you're into that sort of thing). The movies themselves will be long (2 and a half hours), much of the breathtaking scenery is real (remarkably few mattes, although much of the underground work is computer generated). Two 'the making of' docos are being made, the better one is likely to be the one made by Peter Jackson's own company. And I can't resist ending this post with an incomprehensible in-joke from the set: "release the chickens!" James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 23:41:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: found on usenet On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, bayard wrote: > since sunday is always a slow day here... Well, it's Saturday for everyone but James and the good Commander. This looks like the output of a travesty generator. Likely someone is harvesting posts to those groups and running a travesty of posts (in sum, or from particular posters) and posting them when they get long enough. But it would be a very good travesty generator, because most of those were grammatical sentences. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:38:59 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: filk you! > From: Eb > > (Poor Charlotte -- looks like she may be taking a turn toward the > "zaftig," rather than growing into the willowy, marketable nymph she > was supposed to be. :P) I'd say "hooray!" but I have no particular interest in seeing Charlotte Church develop womanly curves or any other body type for that matter. > From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) [You Can Call Me HAL] Brilliant! See, that stuff is great fun (in small doses, naturally). My main exposure to filk is stuff like this whole CD I have of songs about Elfquest characters ("sunlight, leaf-fall, High Ones, what a day!") and it's very very painful. All original tunes, all very into the complex emotions these characters have. Eek. As far as the distinction between SF and fantasy -- it does get fuzzy but I should think it's not too hard to tell the difference between guys in spacesuits and elves with swords (the stereotypes of the two camps). Even if you do occasionally get elves in space (Elfquest, for example!). > From: Jeff Dwarf > > i didn't mean that to be dismissive. it's just that, for the most part, > most scifi or fantasy stuff i've encountered just sort of leaves me > cold. sort of like opera or hiphop. i have no problem with them per se; > it's just that they don't really inspire any need to plumb its depths. > or even it's not-quite-so-depths. I've read an awful lot of SF and fantasy, and generally I'm less interested in the staid genre stuff (guys in spacesuits, elves with swords) than I am in the more speculative trajectories (Harlan Ellison is a good example, though he's not one of my favorites). A lot of the genre can be shallow and tedious, but you can say the same of any genre, really. You said you read what your professors assign you...if that means you don't read fiction for pleasure you probably needn't bother trying SF or fantasy, but just keep in mind that LOTR is the beginning of a lot of modern fantasy and by no means its end. - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:54:05 -0700 (PDT) From: bayard Subject: Re: found on usenet On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Capuchin wrote: > On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, bayard wrote: > > since sunday is always a slow day here... > > Well, it's Saturday for everyone but James and the good Commander. no it's not. > But it would be a very good travesty generator, because most of those were > grammatical sentences. yeah, but i still want to know why they're getting posted... and why each only goes to 2 newsgroups. (and why they're all set to reply to abuse contacts. if these people know they're doing something wrong, AND don't stand to profit from it, what is it - some sort of contest??) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:35:28 +0100 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: David Gilmour recording with RH? ISTR a version of Astronomy D being introduced by Robyn with the words "fade away Dave Gilmour"... His appearance with the Soft Boys (Dave Gilmour's, not Robyn's!) seemed a little pointless - when you have a guitar hero like Kimberley, and the dynamic between Kim & Robyn, Gilmour seems a little pedestrian and redundant... although I must say I am no great fan of DG - least it wasn't Roger Waters, I spose..! Pretty Things... not really my scene, man, but Arthur Brown looked as beautiful as ever. Soft Boys - missed a bit of the set, but was a great performance, although the sound left a little to be desired - there didn't seem to be enough middle - the bass was an indecipherable rumble and the guitars/vocals just a little tinny... foldback sound must have been good - the harmonies seemed to me to be impecable. Cheers Matt >From: "lucifersam" >Reply-To: "lucifersam" >To: >Subject: Re: David Gilmour recording with RH? >Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:07:54 +0100 > >well he actually played with the SB's tonight at RFH.....I think that may be >enough!!!!!! > > >haven't seen the magazine myself yet, but read an excerpt somewhere online. >He definitely talks about > > playing with RH, and I can only imagine it's in the studio.) > > > > Anyone know anything about this? I may have missed a discussion of it on >the list earlier...? > > -A - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #403 ********************************