From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V14 #175 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, July 21 2005 Volume 14 : Number 175 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Obliteration Pie CD ["Marc Holden" ] Re: Obliteration Pie CD [Sumiko Keay ] reap [Mike Swedene ] reap ["Charlotte Tupman" ] Re: reap (Doohan) [Aaron Lowe ] Re: Only 50 years old [Tom Clark ] Re: Only 50 years old [Jason Brown ] Re: Only 50 years old [FSThomas ] Re: Only 50 years old [Jeff ] in other news.... [Christopher Gross ] Re: in other news.... [Jeff ] Re: in other news.... [Christopher Gross ] Re: in other news.... [Capuchin ] Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) [Eb ] Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) [Tom Clark ] Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) [Christopher Gross ] Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) [Eb ] reap [Eb ] RE: Obliteration Pie CD ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: reap [Tom Clark ] Re: reap [Eb ] Re: reap [Tom Clark ] Re: reap [Eb ] Re: reap [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: reap [Eb ] Re: reap ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) [Jeff ] Re: reap [Jeff ] Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) [Jeff ] RE: reap ["Marc Alberts" ] Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) ["Nora B." ] RE: reap [Capuchin ] Re: reap [Eb ] RE: reap ["Brian Huddell" ] RE: reap ["Marc Alberts" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:24:22 -0700 From: "Marc Holden" Subject: Obliteration Pie CD Here's an update on the Japanese CD, from the gift shop at the Museum of Robyn Hitchcock. I'd also keep my eyes open for it at Robyn's shows--they sold it at the Largo for $20. Later, Marc >We received just a small box by airmail which went to the first orders that >came in (only 20) and the bulk of them (120) came by surface and should be >here by month's end (they were sent from Japan July 1) and your order is in >with those. We also just worked out getting more of them, so, while we did >stop selling them when the 120 sold out, we'll be adding it back on to the >site. >Sorry for the wait. >Best wishes, >David Whether they ever find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be considered an enemy planet. Jack Handey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:22:58 -0500 From: Sumiko Keay Subject: Re: Obliteration Pie CD Mine must have been in the 120. Well, it's almost month's end! Sumi On 7/20/05, Marc Holden wrote: > Here's an update on the Japanese CD, from the gift shop at the Museum of > Robyn Hitchcock. I'd also keep my eyes open for it at Robyn's shows--they > sold it at the Largo for $20. Later, Marc > > >We received just a small box by airmail which went to the first orders that > >came in (only 20) and the bulk of them (120) came by surface and should be > >here by month's end (they were sent from Japan July 1) and your order is in > >with those. We also just worked out getting more of them, so, while we did > >stop selling them when the 120 sold out, we'll be adding it back on to the > >site. > >Sorry for the wait. > >Best wishes, > >David > > > Whether they ever find life there or not, I think Jupiter should be > considered an enemy planet. Jack Handey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:46:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Swedene Subject: reap James Doohan BKA - "Scotty" from Star Trek - ------------------------------------------------- "there is water at the bottom of the ocean" - talking heads _________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:57:35 +0100 From: "Charlotte Tupman" Subject: reap James Doohan, 'Scotty' in Star Trek, aged 85. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8643634/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:11:04 -0500 From: Aaron Lowe Subject: Re: reap (Doohan) http://www.startrek.com/startrek/videoview?id=6528 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:26:42 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Only 50 years old On Jul 19, 2005, at 6:49 PM, Capuchin wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Eb wrote: > > >> Well, that will screw the country's future quite nicely. >> >> > > From CNN: > During the dispute over the 2000 presidential election, Roberts > was part > of a team of Republican lawyers and former Supreme Court law > clerks who > assisted the Bush-Cheney campaign. > > Smokescreen to get people's minds off of turd blossom for a while? And I mean really, was it so important that he had to hijack primetime programming for it? - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:24:18 -0700 From: Jason Brown Subject: Re: Only 50 years old > Smokescreen to get people's minds off of turd blossom for a while? > And I mean really, was it so important that he had to hijack > primetime programming for it? The announcement of a Supreme Court nominee is certainly newsworthy enough to warrant breaking into prime time TV. This guy will likely still be on the court when im getting ready to retire in 35 years! Certainly more news worthy that the awful speech Bush gave a few weeks back on prime time. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:41:08 -0400 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Only 50 years old Tom Clark wrote: > I mean really, was it so important that he had to hijack primetime > programming for it? It's arguably the most important thing, more so than a Senate or Presidential election. If confirmed, he could be overseeing the interpretation of laws and precedents in this country for thirty years. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:16:00 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Only 50 years old On 7/20/05, Jason Brown wrote: > > Smokescreen to get people's minds off of turd blossom for a while? > > And I mean really, was it so important that he had to hijack > > primetime programming for it? > > The announcement of a Supreme Court nominee is certainly newsworthy > enough to warrant breaking into prime time TV. This guy will likely > still be on the court when im getting ready to retire in 35 years! > Certainly more news worthy that the awful speech Bush gave a few weeks > back on prime time. Important, yes. But urgent and timely such that it had to be announced just then? No. But if Rove ends up resigning or getting canned, that'll be announced like a Friday at 5:40 pm - not midday, not midweek. Surely no one here believes politicians pay no attention to their publicists, and just announce things when they happen, and allow them to happen when they will? - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:57:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: in other news.... ... There's a new Serenity trailer! ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:32:11 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: in other news.... On 7/20/05, Christopher Gross wrote: > ... There's a new Serenity trailer! > > Otherwise known as "Why Yes We Americans Do Love Our Guns, Even in the Not-Specifically-American Future"... How come no Book in the preview? IMDB still lists him in the cast... - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:45:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: in other news.... On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Jeff wrote: > > How come no Book in the preview? IMDB still lists him in the cast... He's definitely in the movie, but he might not have as big a part as he did in Firefly. (There were rumors that a scheduling conflict almost kept Ron Glass out of the movie altogether.) Maybe he'll only appear in one section of the movie -- for example, Serenity might travel to several planets, but Book stays behind on the first -- and that section just didn't have any cool action-packed scenes for the trailer. Of course those who have seen an advance screening will know, as will those who have read spoilers on the web. If anyfeg out there falls into either of these categories, please DO NOT post details here! Or if you do, at least warn us before any spoilers. Thanks.... - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: in other news.... On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Christopher Gross wrote: > (There were rumors that a scheduling conflict almost kept Ron Glass out > of the movie altogether.) What the hell kind of scheduling conflict can Ron Glass have to prevent him from taking a paying job? Is there a Barney Miller reunion show of which I was previously unaware? > Of course those who have seen an advance screening will know, as will > those who have read spoilers on the web. If anyfeg out there falls into > either of these categories, please DO NOT post details here! Or if you > do, at least warn us before any spoilers. Thanks.... But man, can I tell you about all the hypernerdy "browncoats" that gathered in front of the cinema to sing that damned "Hero of Canton (The Ballad of Jayne)"? J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:55:02 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/51432004.htm Sarah Michelle Gellar's naked ambition July 20, 2005, 12:26:33 Sarah Michelle Gellar wants to strip off naked for her next film role. The sexy actress admits she is desperate to bare all on the big screen before she hits 30 so her fans can see her in her prime. Gellar, who shot to fame in the hit US TV series 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer, hopes her naked ambition will convince directors to cast her in more racy roles so she can shake off her teen star image. When quizzed on the subject, she said: "I am approaching 30 and I need a change. The sort of roles I would like are not being offered, so this way might just shock people into choosing me." Rumours are rife Gellar is currently being lined up to play a porn star in new movie 'Southland Tales'. The 'Grudge' star will play an X-rated actress who is trying to quit porn to develop her own reality TV show. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:05:27 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) On Jul 20, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Eb wrote: > http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/51432004.htm > > Sarah Michelle Gellar's naked ambition > July 20, 2005, 12:26:33 > > Sarah Michelle Gellar wants to strip off naked for her next film > role. The sexy actress admits she is desperate to bare all on the > big screen before > she hits 30 so her fans can see her in her prime. Oh yes.... (eyes roll back) gllllllarrgh... - -tc, queueing up worn out copy of "Cruel Intentions" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:31:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Eb wrote: > http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/51432004.htm Sounds great, but don't get your hopes up. You'll notice that the article never actually quotes Sarah as saying she wants to get nekkid. I suspect she really said something like "I want another sexy role," and the reporter then gave it the tabloid treatment. But hey, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. - --Chris "I'm not ashamed. It's the computer age. Nerds are in! ... They're still in, right?" --Willow ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:42:51 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) >> http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/51432004.htm > > Sounds great, but don't get your hopes up. My hopes up?? Why would I want to see a scrawny 14-year-old naked? ;) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:43:05 -0700 From: Eb Subject: reap http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_re_us/obit_thomas Now, your assignment is to write the inevitable lame Leno joke for tonight's monologue. I figure "freezer section" must be in the punchline somewhere.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:00:06 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: Obliteration Pie CD Marc Holden wrote: > Here's an update on the Japanese CD, from the gift shop at the Museum of > Robyn Hitchcock. I'd also keep my eyes open for it at Robyn's shows--they > sold it at the Largo for $20. Later, Marc I hope you aren't implying that I'll have to buy it again, because mine has yet to arrive :( Marc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:02:48 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: reap On Jul 20, 2005, at 4:43 PM, Eb wrote: > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_re_us/obit_thomas > > Now, your assignment is to write the inevitable lame Leno joke for > tonight's monologue. I figure "freezer section" must be in the > punchline somewhere.... "Anybody here like to eat TV dinners? You know, the ones that you put in the microwave? Well, the inventor of the TV dinner, Gerry Thomas, has died. Yeah yeah, it was tragic. Turns out though that he'll be buried in a cardboard box with plastic over it. And halfway through the ceremony the plastic is to be folded back from one end..." - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:14:09 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: reap >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_re_us/obit_thomas >> >> Now, your assignment is to write the inevitable lame Leno joke for >> tonight's monologue. I figure "freezer section" must be in the >> punchline somewhere.... >> > > "Anybody here like to eat TV dinners? You know, the ones that you > put in the microwave? Well, the inventor of the TV dinner, Gerry > Thomas, has died. Yeah yeah, it was tragic. Turns out though that > he'll be buried in a cardboard box with plastic over it. And > halfway through the ceremony the plastic is to be folded back from > one end..." Mmmm...no, that won't work. ;) I think a better variation of this joke would be.... Jay: "...and halfway through the ceremony, they had to rotate the coffin." Crowd groans. Kevin Eubanks, biggest sellout on television: "Uh heh heh heh. Oh man...that's bad." Jay: "Well, it figures you'd stick up for TV dinners. I imagine you must eat quite a few of them, during those dateless nights at home!" Kevy: "Uh heh heh heh. Oh man...that's cold! Uh heh heh heh." Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:20:47 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: reap On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Eb wrote: >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_re_us/obit_thomas >>> >>> Now, your assignment is to write the inevitable lame Leno joke >>> for tonight's monologue. I figure "freezer section" must be in >>> the punchline somewhere.... >>> >>> >> >> "Anybody here like to eat TV dinners? You know, the ones that you >> put in the microwave? Well, the inventor of the TV dinner, Gerry >> Thomas, has died. Yeah yeah, it was tragic. Turns out though >> that he'll be buried in a cardboard box with plastic over it. And >> halfway through the ceremony the plastic is to be folded back from >> one end..." >> > > Mmmm...no, that won't work. ;) I think a better variation of this > joke would be.... > > Jay: "...and halfway through the ceremony, they had to rotate the > coffin." > > Crowd groans. > > Kevin Eubanks, biggest sellout on television: "Uh heh heh heh. Oh > man...that's bad." > > Jay: "Well, it figures you'd stick up for TV dinners. I imagine you > must eat quite a few of them, during those dateless nights at home!" > > Kevy: "Uh heh heh heh. Oh man...that's cold! Uh heh heh heh." You win. Doesn't Jay imply that Eubanks likes to hit the chronic too? - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:47:50 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: reap Tom Clark wrote: > Doesn't Jay imply that Eubanks likes to hit the chronic too? Oh yes, of course. That "all musicians smoke pot hahaha" riff was even tired when CARSON was doing it -- in Leno's hands, it is tired, dead, cold and decomposed. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:44:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: reap Tom Clark wrote: > Eb wrote: > > I think a better variation of this > > joke would be.... > > > > Jay: "...and halfway through the ceremony, they had to > > rotate the coffin." > > > > Crowd groans. > > > > Kevin Eubanks, biggest sellout on television: "Uh heh > > heh heh. Oh man...that's bad." > > > > Jay: "Well, it figures you'd stick up for TV dinners. I > > imagine you must eat quite a few of them, during those > > dateless nights at home!" > > > > Kevy: "Uh heh heh heh. Oh man...that's cold! Uh heh heh > > heh." > > You win. Doesn't Jay imply that Eubanks likes to hit the > chronic too? It's hard to believe that Branford Marsalis found that job demeaning. "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." -- Mitch Hedberg . __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:54:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Eb wrote: > >> http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/51432004.htm > > > > Sounds great, but don't get your hopes up. > > My hopes up?? Why would I want to see a scrawny 14-year-old naked? ;) Seriously, why do people find her so attractive? There are plenty of people I'd rather see naked before her. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:36:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) > > My hopes up?? Why would I want to see a scrawny 14-year-old naked? ;) > > Seriously, why do people find her so attractive? Speaking for myself: I dunno, I just do. It's not something I can argue logically. But if I had to pick something concrete, I'd mention that she's cute but she's not perfect: for example, she's skinny, as Eb mentioned, and she has that weird widening at the end of her nose. This makes her more real, more interesting and thus more attractive than some injection-molded plastic supermodel. Besides, I like Buffy the character, and Sarah is part of Buffy. > There are plenty of people I'd rather see naked before her. Hey, it's not like we have to choose just one! - --Chris, imagining a Sarah Michelle Gellar / Alyson Hannigan / Eliza Dushku "Neapolitan" nude scene. I'll be in my bunk.... ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:38:34 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: reap >> You win. Doesn't Jay imply that Eubanks likes to hit the >> chronic too? > > It's hard to believe that Branford Marsalis found that job > demeaning. I respected Marsalis so much for dropping that gig. The show's publicity tried to establish that it was just based on Marsalis and Leno not having "chemistry" or some such, but we all know the problem was simply that Marsalis had a shred of dignity. Oopsie. Eb PS Anyone have anything to say about the new Wonka remake? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:01:12 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: reap >From: Eb >Subject: Re: reap >Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:38:34 -0700 >PS Anyone have anything to say about the new Wonka remake? I enjoyed it but found that the flashbacks killed some of the pacing. Also, I though that the music Elfman wrote for the Loompa songs was so overly shrill and loud that I could not hear the lyrics. Max ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:16:24 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) On 7/20/05, Christopher Gross wrote: > --Chris, > imagining a Sarah Michelle Gellar / Alyson Hannigan / Eliza Dushku > "Neapolitan" nude scene. I'll be in my bunk.... Ding-ding-ding! I'll take "Famous Jayne Quotes" for $2,000, Alex. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:19:28 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: reap On 7/20/05, Maximilian Lang wrote: > I though that the music Elfman wrote for the Loompa songs was so overly > shrill and loud that I could not hear the lyrics. Danny Elfman? Shrill and loud? And apparently, water is wet. - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:33:44 -0500 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) Re the below: Well, that oughta start a run on Kleenex among at least one particular demographic... On 7/20/05, Eb wrote: > http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/51432004.htm > > Sarah Michelle Gellar's naked ambition > July 20, 2005, 12:26:33 > > Sarah Michelle Gellar wants to strip off naked for her next film > role. The sexy actress admits she is desperate to bare all on the big > screen before > she hits 30 so her fans can see her in her prime. > > Gellar, who shot to fame in the hit US TV series 'Buffy The Vampire > Slayer, hopes her naked ambition will convince directors to cast her > in more racy > roles so she can shake off her teen star image. > > When quizzed on the subject, she said: "I am approaching 30 and I > need a change. > > The sort of roles I would like are not being offered, so this way > might just shock people into choosing me." > > Rumours are rife Gellar is currently being lined up to play a porn > star in new movie 'Southland Tales'. > > The 'Grudge' star will play an X-rated actress who is trying to quit > porn to develop her own reality TV show. > - -- ...Jeff The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:56:42 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: reap Max wrote: > >PS Anyone have anything to say about the new Wonka remake? > > I enjoyed it but found that the flashbacks killed some of the pacing. > Also, > I though that the music Elfman wrote for the Loompa songs was so overly > shrill and loud that I could not hear the lyrics. Couldn't agree more on the Oompa Loompa songs. The thing that made the original so memorable to me were the songs, and these were rather generic throwbacks to 60s and 70s style. The visuals that went with them were amusing, but not really moving. I will second the flashbacks as well, although those didn't bother me as much as the narration that went with them. In fact, the flashback on the Oompa Loompas was very good, I thought, and did help the story. The ones about the origins of Willy Wonka the candymaker seemed forced, though. One thing I would add is that for me, Depp didn't hold a candle to Gene Wilder as Wonka. He was almost anti-charismatic, which after his performance in "Pirates of the Caribbean" is somewhat shocking to say. He was just...weird. I don't say this as a sign of dislike for the film--I actually enjoyed myself at the showing I attended, and some moments were really great (Veruca Salt's demise was truly spectacular). Burton as usually made everything visually stunning (other than Depp's green tint, which was just disturbing) and the movie truly does stand alone as an achievement rather than as a pure remake. It's just that I love the original so much that this one couldn't help but suffer a bit in comparison. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:15:23 -0700 From: "Nora B." Subject: Re: Here's one for you Buffy nerds ;) > Sarah Michelle Gellar wants to strip off naked for her next film > role. The sexy actress admits she is desperate to bare all on the big > screen before she hits 30 so her fans can see her in her prime. Count me out. Unless Sarah eats some food and regains her Season 1 or Season 3 curves. Especially Season 1, rrrowwrr! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:46:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: reap On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > The thing that made the original so memorable to me were the songs, [snip] > and the movie truly does stand alone as an achievement rather than as a pure > remake. OK, let's get this straight. I'm kind of shocked that people on this usually pedantic list are making this mistake, but if we must review, we will. There was this BOOK quite a while back called Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. It was really popular. Then some folks came along and made a musical film based on the book called "Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory". It was a good movie, but it took some liberties with the story and altered the character of Willy Wonka considerably in order to fit the ideas of the leading man cast for the part. Now there's this new movie based on the same book. This new one is not a remake of the old movie, but another movie based on the same book. And though I haven't seen the new movie yet, from what I hear, it doesn't take some of the liberties of the old movie (though neither appear to represent the Oompa Loompas in their original design as black pygmies from Africa -- see ). > One thing I would add is that for me, Depp didn't hold a candle to Gene > Wilder as Wonka. I think it's a false comparison. In a very real sense, they're not playing the same part. > He was almost anti-charismatic, which after his performance in "Pirates > of the Caribbean" is somewhat shocking to say. He was just...weird. Wonka, in my reading of the book, is a total weirdo. He's a schizophrenic sociopath who lives in a fantasy world of his own design. Wilder's Wonka only really gives that impression in the riverboat sequence. > Burton as usually made everything visually stunning (other than Depp's > green tint, which was just disturbing) Isn't that from the book, though? I can't put my hands on my copy at the moment, but I seem to recall he looked vaguely sickly and had stringy black hair (some comment is made about eating nothing but candy? -- I could be wrong). > It's just that I love the original so much that this one couldn't help > but suffer a bit in comparison. Sounds like you love the musical "Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory", not so much "the original", which is the book on which this new movie is based. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:58:39 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: reap Capuchin wrote: > OK, let's get this straight. I'm kind of shocked that people on > this usually pedantic list are making this mistake, but if we must > review, we will. > > There was this BOOK quite a while back called Charlie And The > Chocolate Factory. It was really popular. Then some folks came > along and made a musical film based on the book called "Willy Wonka > And The Chocolate Factory". It was a good movie, but it took some > liberties with the story and altered the character of Willy Wonka > considerably in order to fit the ideas of the leading man cast for > the part. Now there's this new movie based on the same book. This > new one is not a remake of the old movie, but another movie based > on the same book. Yeah...I guess none of us were quite pedantic enough to point this out. Thanks for raising the bar. > Wonka, in my reading of the book, is a total weirdo. He's a > schizophrenic sociopath who lives in a fantasy world of his own > design. Wilder's Wonka only really gives that impression in the > riverboat sequence. I remember when I first saw the film as a wee lad, I was all upset when Wonka screamed at Charlie at the end for stealing Fizzy Lifting Drinks. Poor Charlie! Leave him alone, darn it!! Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:13:45 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: reap > Yeah...I guess none of us were quite pedantic enough to point this > out. Nah, I'm exactly that pedantic. Cap just beat me to it. I haven't seen Burton's "Charlie" yet but I sure do get tired of hearing it called a "remake" of the musical. It's obviously not that. > I remember when I first saw the film as a wee lad, I was all upset > when Wonka screamed at Charlie at the end for stealing Fizzy Lifting > Drinks. Poor Charlie! Leave him alone, darn it!! I was only upset because some fucking *suit* had tacked that garbage onto a perfectly good ending. And don't get me started on the geese... +brian in New Orleans ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:44:58 -0700 From: "Marc Alberts" Subject: RE: reap Jeme wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Marc Alberts wrote: > > The thing that made the original so memorable to me were the songs, > [snip] > > and the movie truly does stand alone as an achievement rather than as a > pure > > remake. > > OK, let's get this straight. I'm kind of shocked that people on this > usually pedantic list are making this mistake, but if we must review, we > will. > > There was this BOOK quite a while back called Charlie And The Chocolate > Factory. It was really popular. Then some folks came along and made a > musical film based on the book called "Willy Wonka And The Chocolate > Factory". It was a good movie, but it took some liberties with the story > and altered the character of Willy Wonka considerably in order to fit the > ideas of the leading man cast for the part. Now there's this new movie > based on the same book. This new one is not a remake of the old movie, > but another movie based on the same book. Um, I didn't realize I didn't make that clear that this wasn't a true remake. Oh wait--here is what you sniped: "and the movie truly does stand alone as an achievement rather than as a pure remake." I guess I did. Look, I could care less about which is truer to the book or not. I find that reviewing movies based on how true they were to their original source is an artifact of the days when books were considered art forms and films were not. At the end of the day, I don't go to a theater and pay my $10 or whatever it is too read a book, but rather to be entertained. As such, comparing the two movies together is much more apt than comparing either movie to the book, since a book is an entirely different sort of entertainment altogether, and one where I look for very different things than the movie. In the end, it's not "people on the list making this mistake," but rather you imposing your ideas on what I should be looking for in a movie and then trying to hold me to them. I would suggest that a more efficient use of your time in this regards is to simply see the film yourself and then you can have your very own review rather than criticizing mine because it doesn't cover things exactly the way you want them covered. But, on the plus side, you did return pedantries to the list. Thanks for that. Marc ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V14 #175 ********************************