WordWolf

If it's a Western, I'll take a swing with "F Troop."

*sigh* It's a well-known show, if not a new show. Some people could have gotten it from one or another of those quotes by themselves. "And now back to Charlie Chan!" "What does it do?" "It does all of it." "I'm The Chef of the Future." "Pleased to meet you, o Chef of the Future." "I'm The Chef of the Future!!" "Pleased to meet you again, o Chef of the Future!" "Can it core a apple?" "Mind if I smoke?" "I don't care if you burn." (That was from the scene with the trick handcuffs that don't open with a key.) " I'll go fix my lipstick. I won't be gone long, 'Killer'. I call you 'Killer' 'cause you slay me. "And I'm calling Bellevue 'cause you're nuts!" "Hello, Bunny? This is ol' Buttercup." 328 Chauncey Street. "One of these days....Bang! Zoom!"

I don't think there's another person on this board who saw that movie. I skip a movie I quite like for the same reason- obscurity no matter how good the movie was.

"And now back to Charlie Chan!" "What does it do?" "It does all of it." "I'm The Chef of the Future." "Pleased to meet you, o Chef of the Future." "I'm The Chef of the Future!!" "Pleased to meet you again, o Chef of the Future!" "Can it core a apple?" "Mind if I smoke?" "I don't care if you burn." (That was from the scene with the trick handcuffs that don't open with a key.) " I'll go fix my lipstick. I won't be gone long, 'Killer'. I call you 'Killer' 'cause you slay me. "And I'm calling Bellevue 'cause you're nuts!" "Hello, Bunny? This is ol' Buttercup." 328 Chauncey Street.

You phrased it as a question? That's it. Check YouTube to find the single frame where Waldo's corpse is piled with the other dead. I'm annoyed he had the nerve to do that in the theatrical release but not the DVD. (I'm sure sales of the DVD would have gone up.) They also have the trailer which has a frame of Gibson hanging out with the costumed cast.

Shame, shame, George! *wags finger at George* Ok, now that that's over with, go ahead.

Sometimes it seems that the controversy around a movie can make the movie secondary or less. Sometimes it seems the director is so crazy he starts controversy by accident or on purpose. In the case of this movie, the trailer had a frame of the director on-set with the characters all in costume, and the theatrical release (but not the DVD release) included a single frame of a dead WALDO (of Where's Waldo/Wally fame) corpse in-shot with the other corpses. There would have been plenty of controversy without that, starting with filming entirely in Maya with English subtitles (or other subtitles for releases elsewhere, I would imagine.) It was set in Guatemala. As often happens, people disagreed as to the meaning of the ending. The director pointed out it had a revealing. That should come as no great shock to anyone who knows what the movie's title means. It was shot in Mexico, without CGI. It was an action-drama.

No. It was an action-drama. Yes. You may suspect it was in Spanish all you wish (or "Castellano" for the pedantic), but that was not the language of the movie. (Except, I'd expect, in subtitles for Spanish-speaking countries where it appeared in theaters, of course.) BTW, there's a perfectly good reason why I describe this movie, and you keep picturing "Passion of the Christ" despite no connection of setting, timeframe, focus, format, or actors.

"And now back to Charlie Chan!" "What does it do?" "It does all of it." "I'm The Chef of the Future." "Pleased to meet you, o Chef of the Future." "I'm The Chef of the Future!!" "Pleased to meet you again, o Chef of the Future!" "Mind if I smoke?" "I don't care if you burn." (That was from the scene with the trick handcuffs that don't open with a key.) " I'll go fix my lipstick. I won't be gone long, 'Killer'. I call you 'Killer' 'cause you slay me. "And I'm calling Bellevue 'cause you're nuts!" "Hello, Bunny? This is ol' Buttercup."

Sometimes it seems that the controversy around a movie can make the movie secondary or less. Sometimes it seems the director is so crazy he starts controversy by accident or on purpose. In the case of this movie, the trailer had a frame of the director on-set with the characters all in costume, and the theatrical release (but not the DVD release) included a single frame of a dead WALDO (of Where's Waldo/Wally fame) corpse in-shot with the other corpses. There would have been plenty of controversy without that, starting with filming entirely in another language with English subtitles (or other subtitles for releases elsewhere, I would imagine.) It's not in the setting of "the Passion of the Christ" (it was set later than that) and it didn't use any of the languages of "the Passion of the Christ"'s dialogue or whatever. As often happens, people disagreed as to the meaning of the ending. The director pointed out it had a revealing. That should come as no great shock to anyone who knows what the movie's title means. It was shot in Mexico, without CGI, but was set further south.

Depending on the kindergarten, ethics IS taught there, but it's ethics that a kindergartener can understand. In grad school, they teach at a grad level.

No. Wrong language and wrong setting.

It does sound like that, at least that scene definitely did...

Sometimes it seems that the controversy around a movie can make the movie secondary or less. Sometimes it seems the director is so crazy he starts controversy by accident or on purpose. In the case of this movie, the trailer had a frame of the director on-set with the characters all in costume, and the theatrical release (but not the DVD release) included a single frame of a dead WALDO (of Where's Waldo/Wally fame) corpse in-shot with the other corpses. There would have been plenty of controversy without that, starting with filming entirely in another language with English subtitles (or other subtitles for releases elsewhere, I would imagine.)

"And now back to Charlie Chan!" "What does it do?" "It does all of it." "I'm The Chef of the Future." "Pleased to meet you, o Chef of the Future." "I'm The Chef of the Future!!" "Pleased to meet you again, o Chef of the Future!"

Somewhere between "1 obscure clue" and "here's the name of the movie" is a lot of ground. This is probably "the Neverending Story".

Let's keep the ball in play. George seems not to be ready, so we can move on. It will be his turn again soon one way or another... Go for it.

I tend to go to either IMDb or Wikipedia for something on the movie, but occasionally I find inspiration elsewhere, like looking at Wikiquote, and seeing one movie title reminded me of an entirely different movie. I mean, really. The Movie Mash-Up threads allow partial lists of the cast, trivia about the movie, quotes from the movie, or anything else directly related to the movie. That covers a lot of ground and allows people to, say, pick a really famous movie but really difficult clues to start with for it. IMDb is usually a good place to find any or all of them once the poster has a particular movie in mind.

"And now back to Charlie Chan!" "What does it do?" "It does all of it."

2 days ago, I was hoping for another clue, a chance to figure it out fair and square. At 5 days without a 2nd clue, I call the round abandoned and move on. Either the poster is out of reach or doesn't mind stalling the thread. I have absolutely no idea about this one. I'd like it if RG would step in and take a round, since it's easy to her. ("It's only easy if you know the answer."-Regis Philbin.)

It's obviously all the actors who played The Doctor (Who.) One "life" was the original series (Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, Baker...), one "life" is the current one (Eccleston, Tennant...) but what was the third?

Yes. More respected than Costner, less so than Flynn decades before. I have no idea about Crowe. Too easy?

There are legitimate figures that switch the active sense for the passive sense. We use it whenever we break a dish and say "The dish broke", or a child knocks something down or drops it and says "It fell." The idea was that "the snare of the devil" was hidden until revealed by Jesus (which, I suspect, wasn't based on a verse of any kind). Further, that the language supported that kind of talk where God is spoken of as the Origin of everything, mainly to prevent people from focusing on the devil the way twi did in the 90s and later. Bullinger's explanation was a different figure for much the same reason. Bullinger used "synedoche" (parts for the whole) and said "God" was used for the entire spiritual realm. (At least, I heard people claiming that Bullinger used that very figure for his explanation. Either that or it was "metonymy" (an attribute for the whole.) It's easy to mix the usage of one for the usage of the other. Technically, some of those might be seen as the removal of protection- God walled up the Red Sea, then stopped doing it, and TECHNICALLY the normal Red Sea killed a lot of soldiers. Jericho's walls were destroyed, and then the ISRAELITES, not God, killed a lot of people (God's spared TECHNICALLY from having done it because He gave the order but didn't actually kill anyone HIMSELF.) As for other battles, including David vs Goliath, I think the explanation falls down with many of those. Therefore, the single verse twi based all of that on must be re-examined. Hebrews 2:14-16 (NASB) 14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. Hebrews 2 speaks of salvation, angels, Jesus, and humans. The idea that the devil is the SOLE being who has ANY say over death is more than the verse says. People who can order an execution are said to have the power of life and death. No verse says that God has no authority over death. Rather, we see instances where people are raised from the dead, removing the rulership of death over them for a time. (The Shunnamite woman's son, Jesus Christ, Lazarus, the little girl Jesus raised...) The idea that God would-of necessity- have to use the devil's own authority to kill goes FAR beyond what this verse says, and goes firmly into the category twi calls "private interpretation." I can make a flowing, sensible, artistic explanation about how that would work, but all my reasoning is useless if it takes me a different direction than Scripture. My conclusion was (and is) that God Almighty will accomplish His purpose, and we can cooperate and be a part of it, or we can oppose it and see God succeed despite our best efforts. God's playing the really long game, and moves which seem senseless now will make perfect sense in a decade or 2, or in a century or 2, and so on.

There's 3 different types of Bible versions: word for word concept for concept paraphrases The "word for word" ones are the best ones for doing research. Paraphrases are nice to listen to, but are patently useless for study. The Amplified Bible is a paraphrasing Bible. Furthermore, I consider the name to be false advertising, since the Amplified Bible actually is NOT any louder than any other version. Luke 17:26-30 (NASB) 26 And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; 29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

This is interesting. I'd like to see all sides agree on this. When I was an Intermediate Class grad, I once asked a corps dude what Jesus Christ is doing now. He extemporized (made stuff up on the spot), and said he didn't think Christ HAD to be doing anything now. I let it go because it meant he didn't know, and I found his answer a LOT stupider than "Good question, but I don't know-let me get back to you." Here's God Almighty's best agent of the last 2 millenia (or more). He's alive and healthy, and has no pressing tasks. And God chooses to have this most obedient One do absolutely NOTHING for the following 2 millenia. It struck me as wasteful, and poor use of available resources. Would Jesus really want to do NOTHING for 2000 years while his brethren suffered on the Earth? Would God Almighty want that? (The guy who gave me that answer, last I heard, is on twi's board.) So, I kept reading until I eventually had a much better answer. Romans 8:34 (NASB) 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Hebrews 7:24-25 (NASB) 4 but Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds his priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore he is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. Jesus' job is to intercede for us. I'm not sure what that entails, but I'd bet it keeps him VERY busy. "Jesus Christ is one of a kind." I can SO get behind that. :)