WordWolf

That's him. You knew his Japanese name?

Ah, Meteoro! Your movie was a box office bomb, but it was fun, even if PETA complained. Your show was popular enough to get 2 different minor sequels ("New Adventures Of" and "Next Generation") but the original will always be remembered more than the rest. And I do like how your family (mostly) sticks together. The only thing that bothers me is that your name is inconsistent. In the US, they neither call you "Go Mifune" nor "Meteoro."

Charles Stanton Ogle Percy Standing Glenn Strange Gary Conway Michael Gwynn Mike Lane Harry Wilson Don Megowan Danny Dayton Kiwi Kingston Koji Furuhata Allen Swift Susan Denberg Robert Rodan Freddie Jones John Bloom David Prowse Bo Svenson

He probably had different people across the week for a presentation that was mostly the same across the week. Hey-it was local and it was current. That's good for business as well as topical.

Al Pacino the Devil's Advocate Keanu Reeves

Charles Stanton Ogle Percy Standing Glenn Strange Gary Conway Michael Gwynn Mike Lane Harry Wilson Don Megowan Danny Dayton (Those are all actors.)

"Amazing Thing near Macy's in Midtown." Or something like that.

Australian??? *thinks* *thinks more* "Moulin Rouge"?

I'm current with Flash until this week. I'm 1 week behind in Arrow and Gotham, and a bit more with Supergirl. 1 week on Agents of SHIELD as well. The jumbled order of the Supergirl episodes will mean I will have some trouble watching the last one quickly (the one moved back a week.) As for the Flash, I'm wondering if Johnny Chambers himself will show up on an Earth, or if we've already seen the closest I'll get to him. (Speaking vaguely to avoid spoilers.)

It worked. I had no idea until Mastrantonio.

Is #3 that new show, "Limitless"?

Danny de Vito Big Fish Helena Bonham Carter

Either a cop flick or a sword-and-shield knights flick, apparently. "The Untouchables"?

Apples and oranges. 1979-Reverend Whatever takes twi seriously and talks about them all week. That's in his job description-to warn his congregation about alleged exploitative religious groups in the area. 1982- some local rednecks start an incident. That's HARDLY local business talking. 1983-a local business welcomes your money. THAT's what we were talking about.

If it operates like it did, then you have 6 months where the participants bear all expenses, and pay an entrance fee to do so. If they produce zero classes, that's still a net gain in money. If they produce any classes, that's found money. And the participants are too busy to realize they're exploited.

That's it. Supposedly, in the books, the people in the districts are starving when they're not trying to get more food, and starvation continues to be a problem for the contestants during the games. Someone questioned whether Katniss in the movie looked starving- but never questioned if the other contestants from starving districts did, so that complaint didn't get far. It does explain how she knows archery and woods lore- experience in getting food that way.

I'm not getting G-Translate to play nice for me. However, some English newspapers have picked up the story. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cult-leader-victor-barnard-suicide-attempt_564f349ce4b0d4093a574903 http://www.fox9.com/news/51463995-story http://www.startribune.com/pine-co-authorities-tracking-reports-of-suicide-attempt-by-cult-leader-victor-barnard/351783541/

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.