WordWolf

Hey, Human! Who invented the seed drill? In other news, I don't think George is even registering the name, so he can't be nudged to it. It's "LOCOMOTIVE BREATH", by Jethro Tull.

"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside. There behind the glass stands a real blade of grass, be careful as you pass, move along, move along."

Another teen visited Riverdale. A famous one with her own series'. Airing before and after Riverdale. Her aunts were in one of her series, but I doubt they visited Riverdale. Perhaps the right question is not "who", nor "what". We're not looking for the Shield, the Web, the Jaguar, the Fly or Fly Girl, Black Jack, nor Steel Sterling.

Of course he's correct. It contains all the original dialogue, but with a modern setting. The opening narration is delivered on an evening newscast, with modern images. "Two houses, both alike in dignity, in fair Verona, where we lay our scene..." We see two conglomerates, rival companies, Montague and Capulet, both based in Verona Beach, California. John Leguizamo was cast as the hot-blooded Tybalt, Juliet's cousin and starter of fights. All the lines are understood due to visuals. As the young turks draw their pistols on each other, the camera zooms in to the side of one pistol- "SWORD 9 MM". Then the line "Put up your swords!" has an obvious meaning. In the riot early in the story, Old Montague (Dennehy) is in an armored limo, with a rifle holstered to the roof. "Hand me my Long Sword." The news handles the opening and closing of the story, as does the narration. High school students should have no trouble understanding the scenes, even if the Elizabethan dialogue gives them trouble. The brand names explain terms and expressions- pistols by "Sword", the FedEx-like mailing service called "Post-Haste" for "I shall send it Post-Haste", and so on. The original play is defined as a tragedy. I would like to see some other Shakespearean plays get a similar treatment. David Tennant's run of Hamlet with the RSC resembled that, with Hamlet in a castle that included security cameras. (I hear the Hawke version was moreso.) But there's lots of other plays waiting for modern audiences who would appreciate them re-visualized in modern settings. So, it's WordHusky's turn.

"We ruled out Josie McCoy." Correct. "The only other Archie character I can think of with her own show was Katy Keene, but she certainly didn't have more shows than Supergirl." INcorrect. Think some more. You missed somebody famous. "Indies like Dark Horse weren't around in the 60s." We agree. "Was this a Gold Key character?" This was not. BTW, this character appeared, for a short time, on a cartoon around 1970 that had NOTHING to do with the Archies, and was the only established character who would have been apt to do so. Despite being in a different setting of cartoon, it borrowed from Laugh-In and the Archies- it had the wall with the one-off jokes, and a musical number every episode. Out of all her early appearances, that was the only cartoon I watched. And I had to get up really early Saturday mornings to see it. Her live-action shows are a lot more famous, and at least one may be in syndication right now (I suspect 2 are watchable on demand if you know where to look and live in the US.

Although it is true that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (just because we haven't found evidence doesn't mean there is none,) but that is falsely taken to mean that one can just SUPPOSE there's evidence SOMEWHERE even if no evidence is found. vpw did that a number of times. He took a position, and SUPPOSED that SOMEWHERE, there was text to support the position. Nothing works that way. You find the evidence, and study the evidence, and THEN you form the position based on the evidence at hand. Until there's evidence of something, it's premature to say it is so. All textual evidence so far says TWO others crucified, total. The verses in John, at most, could be taken either way- and, as we just saw, seem to support two others crucified, total. NOTHING so far says FOUR others total. To insert an idea where the evidence does not go is not sound research, is not sound work, is not sound reasoning. It places one firmly in the camp of "conspiracy theorists." I'm open to discussing another text- if one ever appears. Until then, the "four crucified" have not presented a CREDIBLE case. "Bullinger said so". Yes, and Bullinger is human and can make stuff up just like anyone else. He presented nothing substantial, only suppositions.

................... Keep going.........

Yes! Both, actually.

The "seed drill" comment was directed at Human. Sigh. Looks like some people can't be trained. BTW, if "crazy mover" itself doesn't have a meaning, maybe it's because it's the wrong phrase.

Hey, Human! I've got this new invention. I call it "the seed drill." Think you can help me file the patent?

No. Review your lines of reasoning again. You had all the legwork already worked out. Not counting CoIE, this is someone who has appeared in more shows than Supergirl, and certainly has had more of her own shows than Supergirl! However, she has had fewer theatrical releases. (AFAIK.)

No, AFAIK. This is not something for which you can train, you crazy mover. Think it over and try again.

Just in case- and to prevent anyone veering off wildly- I'll state outright that the correct answer this round is not any version of Batgirl, Barbara Gordon, Josie Mc Coy, or Josie the lead singer of the Pussycats. Since you'd named both, I would have accepted the posting as a correct guess, had it been the correct answer even if said inadvertently.

Depending on how you look at it, this movie was either very faithful to the source material, or deviated wildly from the source material. Just looking at the name of the film, it's obvious what the original work was- which is very famous in its own right- and also obvious that it takes some creative license with the material. It boasts an all-star cast, and it was based on a very famous previous work. The original author is definitely very famous-you've all heard of him. I'm impressed the movie was greenlit- the guy in charge was not known for directing movies, he was known for directing music videos. It has a number of famous lines in it- so famous I'm leery of posting any as clues. The director took creative license with this film (no, really?). Examples include the scene with a guy obviously in drag, and the scene with the drug use (actually, the scenes overlap.) A number of the actors were fairly safe choices- nobody worries if Paul Sorvino can manage his scenes- but a few were riskier. John Leguizamo in an action scene? Yes- and he did rather well. Not many movies include television news broadcasts as part of the story- but this one did, and for reasons that seem obvious and necessary in hindsight. In this case, they even serve in the manner one would expect of what's referred to as a "Greek chorus" (despite there being nothing "Greek" about this film or its source material.) This movie will probably be watched steadily over the years, and, I would argue, over the decades, if only by high school students. I hope it's by more people, since it has things in its favor beyond why a student might watch it. One is the extensive list of known actors. Of course, fans of the source material- or its writer- would have reason to like it all their own. I know there was no reason whatsoever for it in the script, but I personally would have loved a moment with Brian Dennehy's character and Paul Sorvino's character getting into a fistfight- they certainly had motive. Of course, the story didn't call for it- but one of them almost showed up to a fight firing a rifle. (His wife insisted he not get involved, and refused to hand him his rifle at the time.) As much as it may be normal for some films to pull in a profit by conspicuous product placement (showing a label with a branded product name as in-movie advertisements), this movie did not. This movie- for reasons specific to this movie- invented a number of new brands... and pretty much had to, for reasons made clear to anyone watching the movie. There were comedic moments, and dramatic moments, and suspenseful moments, and action moments in this film. Most people would probably call this film a dramatic film, but an argument could be made for calling it a tragedy. Personally, I thought this would have been a good film for watching a few years ago... but they removed the sub-plot of a town quarantined. When this film was made, I imagine they never thought that would become a current concern or even a talking-point in the news, and they were focused on making a film that was current and accessible to the current audiences. Although it wasn't a perfect film, I for one would have liked to have seen it inspire some similar films afterwards- films with the same intent, produced much the same way. In the broadest sense, we've gotten that, but we have not gotten it in a more direct, literal sense.

You know, if you read your post slowly, and use that as a guide, then review the clues, I think you (you George) have enough to get to the answer already.)