Discussion:
[TAN] I Just Saw "The Ring" - Huh?
(too old to reply)
Richard Boye'
2003-10-14 00:48:56 UTC
Permalink
So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
absolutely baffled.

But before we address my bafflement, let's all pause and reflect on what
a beautiful woman Naomi Watts is.


Okay. Moving on.

Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
spoilers are being addressed below...















How was Samora making the video? Same way she made the x-rays?

If I think I pieced together the mystery like a good little
movier-watcher, Samora's parents wanted a child very badly. They
did...something eldritch and unholy(?) to get one. What they got was
Samora, a child who did not sleep and projected evil vibes and images
everywhere, which had the added benefit of driving horses(!) to suicide.

So, her mother put a bag over her head and dropped her down a well,
where her Evil(tm) lingered and lingered.

Rachel (Naomi Watts), her ex and her son all watched the tape, and thus
all were given one week to live. But, only her ex (Jeff?) was killed at
the end. What gives?

Also, even though Rachel "rescued" Samora, she's still pissed off and
Evil(tm)?

I'm sure I missed gobs of the story, but I was also reading or
something.



--
Richard M. Boye' * ***@webspan.net
Typing into the Void:
http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/books/blogger.html
"Some men lead lives of quiet desperation.
My desperation makes a pathetic whining sound."
Craig Moe
2003-10-14 01:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net> wrote:
>So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
>if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
>absolutely baffled.
>
>But before we address my bafflement, let's all pause and reflect on what
>a beautiful woman Naomi Watts is.
>
>
>Okay. Moving on.
>
>Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
>spoilers are being addressed below...

I can try. It's been a while since I've seen it.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>How was Samora making the video? Same way she made the x-rays?

Yep.

>Rachel (Naomi Watts), her ex and her son all watched the tape, and thus
>all were given one week to live. But, only her ex (Jeff?) was killed at
>the end. What gives?

Rachel, and later her son, made a copy of the tape. Reproduce the tape,
and the Evil(tm) is happy.

>Also, even though Rachel "rescued" Samora, she's still pissed off and
>Evil(tm)?

Yes. Hence the Evil(tm).

--
Craig Moe
http://www.commutemag.com
Aaron Bergman
2003-10-14 01:36:32 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@webspan.net>,
Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net> wrote:

> Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
> spoilers are being addressed below...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






> Rachel (Naomi Watts), her ex and her son all watched the tape, and thus
> all were given one week to live. But, only her ex (Jeff?) was killed at
> the end. What gives?

I haven't actually seen the movie, but I've been led to believe that the
way to avoid getting killed is to pass the tape along to someone else.

Aaron
Christopher Tong
2003-10-14 03:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Richard Boye' wrote:

> So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
> if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
> absolutely baffled.
>
> But before we address my bafflement, let's all pause and reflect on what
> a beautiful woman Naomi Watts is.

Excuse me while I reflect.



























> Okay. Moving on.

> Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
> spoilers are being addressed below...
> How was Samora making the video? Same way she made the x-rays?

She seeems to be a very EM-type person, judging from the way she screwed
with X-rays, mirrors and photographs.

> If I think I pieced together the mystery like a good little
> movier-watcher, Samora's parents wanted a child very badly. They
> did...something eldritch and unholy(?) to get one. What they got was
> Samora, a child who did not sleep and projected evil vibes and images
> everywhere, which had the added benefit of driving horses(!) to suicide.
>
> So, her mother put a bag over her head and dropped her down a well,
> where her Evil(tm) lingered and lingered.

And imprinted itself onto a blank videotape at a hostel.

> Rachel (Naomi Watts), her ex and her son all watched the tape, and thus
> all were given one week to live. But, only her ex (Jeff?) was killed at
> the end. What gives?

It's more clear in the (more draggy, but more explosively scary)
Japanese version of the film -- make a copy of the tape and get someone
else to watch it to remove the curse. That's why Rachel got her son to
push he dub butoon at the end.

> Also, even though Rachel "rescued" Samora, she's still pissed off and
> Evil(tm)?

"Rescuing" her had nothing to do with the curse. Yes, Samara was a
vindictive little bitch. What, are you looking for rational
explanations? I refer to _Scream_ for a motive.

Chris
Marcus Hagert
2003-10-14 05:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net> wrote:

> So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
> if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
> absolutely baffled.
>
> But before we address my bafflement, let's all pause and reflect on what
> a beautiful woman Naomi Watts is.
>
>
> Okay. Moving on.
>
> Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
> spoilers are being addressed below...

http://ringworld.somrux.com

Site contains MAJOR spoilers, though, so anyone who haven't yet seen all
six movies (soon to be seven) might not want to browse the entire site.
_You_ will want to click "the ring - remake" link, or go straight to:

http://ringworld.somrux.com/ringRemake.htm

HTH.

--
"Your sensibilities harm my omeganess!"
"Fat smiles with my ears when you say that! Who-pah!"
--- Super Duper Dream Fighters | 2001-04-01 | http://www.sluggy.com/
Leigh Butler
2003-10-14 17:47:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:48:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
wrote:

>So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
>if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
>absolutely baffled.

>Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
>spoilers are being addressed below...


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>How was Samora making the video? Same way she made the x-rays?

(Samara.)

Yes. She apparently has the ability to manipulate electromagnetic
media, or light, or both, or something like that.

Another thing I didn't really realize until I saw it the second time
was that the TV in the cabin was directly over the well, and that she
clearly "made" that video as those kids were trying to tape the
football game. So they were the first ones to see it. Maybe that was
obvious to everyone else, but that confused me the first time around.

>If I think I pieced together the mystery like a good little
>movier-watcher, Samora's parents wanted a child very badly. They
>did...something eldritch and unholy(?) to get one.

Yeah, they were deliberately vague about that. But - there's going to
be a sequel.

>What they got was
>Samora, a child who did not sleep and projected evil vibes and images
>everywhere, which had the added benefit of driving horses(!) to suicide.

She was doing that to the horses specifically, on purpose, because she
didn't like them. The implication was she could have driven anyone she
wanted to suicide.

>So, her mother put a bag over her head and dropped her down a well,
>where her Evil(tm) lingered and lingered.

Yeah. Let this be a lesson - burn, not drown, your demonspawn.

>Rachel (Naomi Watts), her ex and her son all watched the tape, and thus
>all were given one week to live. But, only her ex (Jeff?) was killed at
>the end. What gives?

(The BF's name is Noah. But hey, you were close!)

Well, this has already been answered, but - Rachel asks herself the
same question, and then realizes that unlike Noah, _she_ made a copy
of the videotape. So she gets her son to do the same. As long as new
copies are getting made and spread around, Samara (great name, BTW)
will let you off the hook.

>Also, even though Rachel "rescued" Samora, she's still pissed off and
>Evil(tm)?

Well, that was actually the one part of the movie I had a problem
with. Rachel's son [1] is all, "You helped her? You weren't supposed
to help her!" and then we get that completely awesome and
scary-as-hell scene of Samara climbing out of the TV to kill Noah
(which freaked me right the fuck out, I don't mind saying), so the
implication was that now her skeleton was out of the well, she was
more powerful and could wreak more havoc or whatever.

But... well, she could kill people through the TV BEFORE Rachel
"helped" her. So, what, now she can just be ten times more scary about
it? I don't know. That didn't actually make a lot of sense to me.

*shrug* Maybe the sequel will explain it. Good scare flick, in any
case. I was jumpy for days after seeing it. It's been a long time
since a movie affected me that much.



[1] Who, BTW, is playing Charles Wallace Murry in the upcoming _A
Wrinkle in Time_ miniseries.

--
Leigh Butler
Grant Anderson
2003-10-14 18:47:21 UTC
Permalink
"Leigh Butler" <***@paramount.com> wrote in message
news:***@news.cis.dfn.de...

> [1] Who, BTW, is playing Charles Wallace Murry in the upcoming _A
> Wrinkle in Time_ miniseries.

Hurrah! Hope it makes it to New Zealand TV.

Grant
Johan Gustafsson
2003-10-14 19:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Leigh Butler wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:48:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
> wrote:
>
> >So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
> >if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
> >absolutely baffled.
>
> >Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
> >spoilers are being addressed below...
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >How was Samora making the video? Same way she made the x-rays?
>
> (Samara.)
>
> Yes. She apparently has the ability to manipulate electromagnetic
> media, or light, or both, or something like that.
>
> Another thing I didn't really realize until I saw it the second time
> was that the TV in the cabin was directly over the well, and that she
> clearly "made" that video as those kids were trying to tape the
> football game. So they were the first ones to see it. Maybe that was
> obvious to everyone else, but that confused me the first time around.

Of course, the "tape legend" seems rather developed if it started that
week. Neither tape nor phone call specifies what's going to happen after
seven days. But that may well be something Samara imprints on her
victims so they'll spread the tale before they die. Or, I realize as
I've typed this far, this is of course not the first tape made in that
cabin. God, I'm dense sometimes.

> >If I think I pieced together the mystery like a good little
> >movier-watcher, Samora's parents wanted a child very badly. They
> >did...something eldritch and unholy(?) to get one.
>
> Yeah, they were deliberately vague about that. But - there's going to
> be a sequel.

Boy howdy.

> >Rachel (Naomi Watts), her ex and her son all watched the tape, and thus
> >all were given one week to live. But, only her ex (Jeff?) was killed at
> >the end. What gives?
>
> (The BF's name is Noah. But hey, you were close!)
>
> Well, this has already been answered, but - Rachel asks herself the
> same question, and then realizes that unlike Noah, _she_ made a copy
> of the videotape. So she gets her son to do the same. As long as new
> copies are getting made and spread around, Samara (great name, BTW)
> will let you off the hook.

Interesting thing, in the Japanese original this was handled by Naomi-
character having a flashback to an interview with a schoolgirl who
claimed the only way to lift the curse was to pass it on. Since that
particular snippet of interview hadn't been showed before in the film,
it seemed a tremendous cop-out to me. But, the more I think about it,
the more I suspect this tape-that-kills story is a genuine urban legend
in Japan, and that a story for the book and film was built around it. So
the average Japanese movie-goer would already have that information
going in and would, after being side-tracked by psychic girls and death
by wells, have more of a "aahhh-of-course" reaction than a "where-the-
fuck-did-*that*-come-from" one.

Or not.

> >Also, even though Rachel "rescued" Samora, she's still pissed off and
> >Evil(tm)?
>
> Well, that was actually the one part of the movie I had a problem
> with. Rachel's son [1] is all, "You helped her? You weren't supposed
> to help her!" and then we get that completely awesome and
> scary-as-hell scene of Samara climbing out of the TV to kill Noah
> (which freaked me right the fuck out, I don't mind saying),

You and me both, although I was desensitized from watching the (almost
identical) scene in the Japanese original. Jesus, I used to think I was
fairly difficult to scare (and I mean genuine scare, not Spring-Loaded
Cat Effect scare).

> so the
> implication was that now her skeleton was out of the well, she was
> more powerful and could wreak more havoc or whatever.
>
> But... well, she could kill people through the TV BEFORE Rachel
> "helped" her. So, what, now she can just be ten times more scary about
> it? I don't know. That didn't actually make a lot of sense to me.

Maybe the implied continuation of that sentence is "You helped her? You
weren't supposed to help her! Now she's ten times more powerful and will
kill us deader than before!" but rather "You weren't supposed to help
her! You were supposed to destroy her! Nothing has changed, she'll still
kill us all!"


--
Johan Gustafsson *** ***@e-bostad.net

"Här sitter jag med min spetälske vän / som alla tycks se utom jag
Här sitter vi med vår apati / vi vet att vi vill men vi vet inte vad."
- Cafe 33, "Min spetälske vän"
David Chapman
2003-10-14 20:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Johan Gustafsson did not say this. Johan Gustafsson was not here:
> Leigh Butler wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:48:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
>> wrote:

>>> Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on?
>>> Obviously, spoilers are being addressed below...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Another thing I didn't really realize until I saw it the second time
>> was that the TV in the cabin was directly over the well, and that she
>> clearly "made" that video as those kids were trying to tape the
>> football game. So they were the first ones to see it. Maybe that was
>> obvious to everyone else, but that confused me the first time around.
>
> Of course, the "tape legend" seems rather developed if it started that
> week. Neither tape nor phone call specifies what's going to happen
> after seven days. But that may well be something Samara imprints on
> her victims so they'll spread the tale before they die.

Presumably someone watched the tape and told another person what the voice
had said before they died. When they turned up toes up seven days after
having watched the tape, the person they told would have put it together and
begun warning people.

> But, the more I think about it,
> the more I suspect this tape-that-kills story is a genuine urban
> legend in Japan, and that a story for the book and film was built
> around it.

I believe it is.

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
Leigh Butler
2003-10-15 00:35:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:32:57 +0200, Johan Gustafsson
<***@e-bostad.net> wrote:

>Leigh Butler wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:48:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
>> >if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
>> >absolutely baffled.
>>
>> >Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
>> >spoilers are being addressed below...
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >

<snip>
>> Another thing I didn't really realize until I saw it the second time
>> was that the TV in the cabin was directly over the well, and that she
>> clearly "made" that video as those kids were trying to tape the
>> football game. So they were the first ones to see it. Maybe that was
>> obvious to everyone else, but that confused me the first time around.
>
>Of course, the "tape legend" seems rather developed if it started that
>week. Neither tape nor phone call specifies what's going to happen after
>seven days.

The phone call doesn't? I thought it did. Doesn't it say something
like "in seven days you will see the ring, and then you die"? Or was
that only for the trailer?

I thought that's how the story got started at the school, one of the
kids at the cabin telling someone about it. I remember high school; it
really can take less than a week for a story to spread like wildfire
and attain urban legend status, especially something as juicy and
"Bloody Mary"-ish as that one.

>But that may well be something Samara imprints on her
>victims so they'll spread the tale before they die. Or, I realize as
>I've typed this far, this is of course not the first tape made in that
>cabin. God, I'm dense sometimes.

See, I definitely got the impression that this was the first one. But,
who knows. You'd have thought other mysterious deaths connected to
that cabin and/or a tape would have shown up in Rachel's research,
though.

<snip>
>> >Also, even though Rachel "rescued" Samora, she's still pissed off and
>> >Evil(tm)?
>>
>> Well, that was actually the one part of the movie I had a problem
>> with. Rachel's son [1] is all, "You helped her? You weren't supposed
>> to help her!" and then we get that completely awesome and
>> scary-as-hell scene of Samara climbing out of the TV to kill Noah
>> (which freaked me right the fuck out, I don't mind saying),
>
>You and me both, although I was desensitized from watching the (almost
>identical) scene in the Japanese original.

Haven't seen the original. Don't think I'm going to, just because I
always tend to favor the version I see first over anything later,
regardless, and it gets annoying.

>Jesus, I used to think I was
>fairly difficult to scare (and I mean genuine scare, not Spring-Loaded
>Cat Effect scare).

"Spring-Loaded Cat Effect". Heh.

Splatter flicks almost never scare me. Gross out, sure, but scare, no.
I _snickered_ through both Hellraisers and the two or three Nightmare
on Elm Streets I saw (including the first one). Same for the original
Friday the 13th. Even _The Exorcist_ didn't scare so much as just
horrify. (Granted, I saw all of these years after their original
release, so TIFWIW.)

_The Ring_, though, scared me. _The Others_ scared me. _What Lies
Beneath_, though not the most stellar film, had some good nervous
tension going in the second act. _Alien_, that scared the crap out of
me. That old Ingrid Bergman flick, _Gaslight_, that was eerie. There's
a couple of Hitchcock films, like _The Birds_, that just creep me out
excessively. Even that silly Disney flick from the seventies, _Watcher
in the Woods_... I've talked about this before, haven't I?

Well, too bad, I'm on a roll now.

I think what all those films did, that I don't find your average
horror film does all that well, is (a) build excruciating tension in
lieu of (or at least for a good long while before) explosive violence,
and (b) let the audience's imagination do most of the work in building
that tension before finally giving them the payoff.

Also, now that I look at it, most or all of those films that really
got to me did not have the standard "group of college kids/high school
kids/random pretty people find themselves in conveniently hemmed-in
situation with serial killer/monster/alien/mutant bunny on the loose;
wacky gore and mayhem hijinks ensue" type set-up. Instead they are
tightly focused on one central protagonist who has almost exclusive
command of the camera throughout, and everything is gradually revealed
only as she (they all seem to be female, too) discovers it.

Interesting.

>> so the
>> implication was that now her skeleton was out of the well, she was
>> more powerful and could wreak more havoc or whatever.
>>
>> But... well, she could kill people through the TV BEFORE Rachel
>> "helped" her. So, what, now she can just be ten times more scary about
>> it? I don't know. That didn't actually make a lot of sense to me.
>
>Maybe the implied continuation of that sentence is "You helped her? You
>weren't supposed to help her! Now she's ten times more powerful and will
>kill us deader than before!" but rather "You weren't supposed to help
>her! You were supposed to destroy her! Nothing has changed, she'll still
>kill us all!"

...I guess. Still struck me as bizarre, the way that flowed.

--
Leigh Butler
Marcus Hagert
2003-10-15 05:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Leigh Butler <***@paramount.com> wrote:

> >Of course, the "tape legend" seems rather developed if it started that
> >week. Neither tape nor phone call specifies what's going to happen after
> >seven days.
>
> The phone call doesn't? I thought it did. Doesn't it say something
> like "in seven days you will see the ring, and then you die"? Or was
> that only for the trailer?

The urban legend (during the girls' talk in the very beginning)
specifies that the caller says "you'll die in seven days." However,
during Rachel's call, the voice only says "seven days".

> >But that may well be something Samara imprints on her
> >victims so they'll spread the tale before they die. Or, I realize as
> >I've typed this far, this is of course not the first tape made in that
> >cabin. God, I'm dense sometimes.
>
> See, I definitely got the impression that this was the first one.

So did I, but not that it necessarily was created a week before the
movie begins - only that the teenagers tried to tape a football game
on it at that point, and that it failed. The tape sported other odd
features as well, anyway, so maybe it was "write protected" - that
was my impression, anyway.

> Splatter flicks almost never scare me. Gross out, sure, but scare, no.
> I _snickered_ through both Hellraisers
^^^^
[Snip]

> I think what all those films did, that I don't find your average
> horror film does all that well, is (a) build excruciating tension in
> lieu of (or at least for a good long while before) explosive violence,
> and (b) let the audience's imagination do most of the work in building
> that tension before finally giving them the payoff.

[Snip]

> Instead they are
> tightly focused on one central protagonist who has almost exclusive
> command of the camera throughout, and everything is gradually revealed
> only as she (they all seem to be female, too) discovers it.

Well, there are _eight_ Hellraiser movies listed by IMDb. I am aware of
six; the last two, I think, has not yet appeared (one is listed for 2003,
the other for 2004). Anyway, you might find HR5: Inferno and
HR6: Hellseeker to your liking. IMHO, they are rather different from the
first HR movies and of what you'd expect from the genre. And I also
liked them quite much.

> >Maybe the implied continuation of that sentence is "You helped her? You
> >weren't supposed to help her! Now she's ten times more powerful and will
> >kill us deader than before!" but rather "You weren't supposed to help
> >her! You were supposed to destroy her! Nothing has changed, she'll still
> >kill us all!"
>
> ...I guess. Still struck me as bizarre, the way that flowed.

I haven't seen the japanese version(s), so I'm only guessing, here.
Anyway, I _think_ it might be something related to the japanese
version or its sequels, or to the sequel to _this_ version. The entire
little exchange struck me as too weird to work on its own.

--
"Your sensibilities harm my omeganess!"
"Fat smiles with my ears when you say that! Who-pah!"
--- Super Duper Dream Fighters | 2001-04-01 | http://www.sluggy.com/
Johan Gustafsson
2003-10-15 06:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Leigh Butler wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:32:57 +0200, Johan Gustafsson
> <***@e-bostad.net> wrote:
>
> >Leigh Butler wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:48:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
> >> >if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
> >> >absolutely baffled.
> >>
> >> >Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
> >> >spoilers are being addressed below...
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
>
> <snip>
> >> Another thing I didn't really realize until I saw it the second time
> >> was that the TV in the cabin was directly over the well, and that she
> >> clearly "made" that video as those kids were trying to tape the
> >> football game. So they were the first ones to see it. Maybe that was
> >> obvious to everyone else, but that confused me the first time around.
> >
> >Of course, the "tape legend" seems rather developed if it started that
> >week. Neither tape nor phone call specifies what's going to happen after
> >seven days.
>
> The phone call doesn't? I thought it did. Doesn't it say something
> like "in seven days you will see the ring, and then you die"? Or was
> that only for the trailer?

Nope, the phone call just says "seven days".

> >But that may well be something Samara imprints on her
> >victims so they'll spread the tale before they die. Or, I realize as
> >I've typed this far, this is of course not the first tape made in that
> >cabin. God, I'm dense sometimes.
>
> See, I definitely got the impression that this was the first one. But,
> who knows. You'd have thought other mysterious deaths connected to
> that cabin and/or a tape would have shown up in Rachel's research,
> though.

Yes, but she'd have to go through the guestlists of the cabin (which she
hasn't had access too), then find which of the guests died seven days
later, which would be difficult at best. Not to mention there may be
those who don't watch the tape in the cabin, but take it home with them.

Hell, I don't know.

> <snip>
> >> >Also, even though Rachel "rescued" Samora, she's still pissed off and
> >> >Evil(tm)?
> >>
> >> Well, that was actually the one part of the movie I had a problem
> >> with. Rachel's son [1] is all, "You helped her? You weren't supposed
> >> to help her!" and then we get that completely awesome and
> >> scary-as-hell scene of Samara climbing out of the TV to kill Noah
> >> (which freaked me right the fuck out, I don't mind saying),
> >
> >You and me both, although I was desensitized from watching the (almost
> >identical) scene in the Japanese original.
>
> Haven't seen the original. Don't think I'm going to, just because I
> always tend to favor the version I see first over anything later,
> regardless, and it gets annoying.

Well, I saw the original first, yet I still favor the remake. The
versions are similar enough that I don't think you're missing much.

> >Jesus, I used to think I was
> >fairly difficult to scare (and I mean genuine scare, not Spring-Loaded
> >Cat Effect scare).
>
> "Spring-Loaded Cat Effect". Heh.

Not mine, sad to say.

http://www.jabootu.com/glossary.htm

> Splatter flicks almost never scare me. Gross out, sure, but scare, no.
> I _snickered_ through both Hellraisers and the two or three Nightmare
> on Elm Streets I saw (including the first one). Same for the original
> Friday the 13th. Even _The Exorcist_ didn't scare so much as just
> horrify. (Granted, I saw all of these years after their original
> release, so TIFWIW.)

Hellraiser bored me. I liked the premise of Elm Street (after all, how
do you avoid your dreams?) but found Freddy too goofy for words.

As for the Exorcist, I think it creates a very creepy atmosphere (every
time someone opens the door to Regan's room, not knowing what will
happen) that was constantly undermined by the Big! Shocks! (Watch Regan
projectile vomit! Watch Regan twist her head around completely! Watch
Regan mutilate herself with a crucifix!) that may have been shocking in
1973.

> _The Ring_, though, scared me. _The Others_ scared me. _What Lies
> Beneath_, though not the most stellar film, had some good nervous
> tension going in the second act. _Alien_, that scared the crap out of
> me. That old Ingrid Bergman flick, _Gaslight_, that was eerie. There's
> a couple of Hitchcock films, like _The Birds_, that just creep me out
> excessively. Even that silly Disney flick from the seventies, _Watcher
> in the Woods_... I've talked about this before, haven't I?
>
> Well, too bad, I'm on a roll now.

I think lots of movies are creepy. Only two recent ones have scared me,
"Sixth Sense" and "The Ring". Specifically, the scene where Osment,
having fled for his life from the girl in the tent, actually walks back
to his room where we see a shape under the collapsed tent.

Jesus.

I suspect a lot of it was Osment's Mad Acting Skillz, but for a moment I
felt like I was five, it was in the middle of the night and out in our
cabin in the middle of the woods, and I had to go to the outhouse.



[snip interesting bit on horror films]

--
Johan Gustafsson *** ***@e-bostad.net

"Här sitter jag med min spetälske vän / som alla tycks se utom jag
Här sitter vi med vår apati / vi vet att vi vill men vi vet inte vad."
- Cafe 33, "Min spetälske vän"
Billy Todd
2003-10-15 06:44:32 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:38:27 +0200, Johan Gustafsson
<***@e-bostad.net> wrote:


>I think lots of movies are creepy. Only two recent ones have scared me,
>"Sixth Sense" and "The Ring". Specifically, the scene where Osment,
>having fled for his life from the girl in the tent, actually walks back
>to his room where we see a shape under the collapsed tent.
>
>Jesus.
>
>I suspect a lot of it was Osment's Mad Acting Skillz, but for a moment I
>felt like I was five, it was in the middle of the night and out in our
>cabin in the middle of the woods, and I had to go to the outhouse.

The Blair Witch Project.

My wife and I were out of the country for a month before it came
out and thankfully missed what I was told was a profound amount
of hype.

We went on opening night, were in a theater full of people who
were into it, and it remains the scariest thing I have ever seen on
film. It brilliantly tapped that part of me that was scared shitless
on my first camping trip.

I found out very quickly that the rest of the world's mileage
obviously varied. Apparently it failed to live up to the hype I'd
missed.

--
Billy Todd ***@Spambegone.please.comporium.net
"If there's anything Usenet has a rampant trade surplus on, it's
shit."
John S. Novak, III
Thom Jeffries
2003-10-15 13:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Billy Todd wrote ...
> Johan Gustafsson wrote:
>
> >I think lots of movies are creepy. Only two recent ones have scared me,
> >"Sixth Sense" and "The Ring". Specifically, the scene where Osment,
> >having fled for his life from the girl in the tent, actually walks back
> >to his room where we see a shape under the collapsed tent.
> >
> >Jesus.
>
> The Blair Witch Project.
>
> My wife and I were out of the country for a month before it came
> out and thankfully missed what I was told was a profound amount
> of hype.

Having been here through that, all I can say is 'ayup'.

It was really funny for awhile, what with people being completely
unsure if it was real or fake, what with the websites and documentaries
and such. Of course, then, everyone had to go see it to try and tell
if it was or not.

Then a lot of people didn't get it. Not enough crimson spatters and
hairy beasties and such.

> We went on opening night, were in a theater full of people who
> were into it, and it remains the scariest thing I have ever seen on
> film. It brilliantly tapped that part of me that was scared shitless
> on my first camping trip.

See, that's the thing. There's some visceral fear in all of us about
the dark, whether we choose to admit it or not. I mean, you sit in a
dark room in your own house, thinking about your day at work, you're
fine. Think about any of these movies we're talking about, and it'll
seem too quiet. Or maybe you hear something in the kitchen and start
to wonder.

Then take yourself out of the familiar setting and put yourself in the
woods at night with thoughts of ghost stories swirling in your head.

I was very, very glad I went and saw a matinee and came back out of
the theater into warm, sunny daylight.

> I found out very quickly that the rest of the world's mileage
> obviously varied. Apparently it failed to live up to the hype I'd
> missed.

Go figure. If it ain't Hollywood, people will say it's no good just
cuz it ain't Hollywood. To be fair though, some people can conquer
that fear of the dark/being lost/feeling hunted that the movie conveyed,
and were just immune to its effects. To them, it would be boring and
stupid with very little payoff (in terms of seeing the monster, etc).

Me? I was scared shitless, and refuse to watch the thing ever again.
It didn't help that the woods, barely fifteen feet from my then-apartment
front door, were full of deadfall from the townhouses' construction and
looked a whole lot like the woods from the film. To the point that my
brother, who saw the film a couple months after me commented on the
similarity, with us not even knowing at the time that the other had even
seen it. Yuck.

--
Thom Jeffries
Michael Hoye
2003-10-15 14:28:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Billy Todd <***@dunna-spam-me-comporium.net> wrote:
>
>The Blair Witch Project.
[...]
>I found out very quickly that the rest of the world's mileage
>obviously varied. Apparently it failed to live up to the hype I'd
>missed.

It had such a large advertising budget because the rest of it cost so
little to make. I've heard that the Blair Witch Project is, on a
percentage basis, the most profitable movie ever made.

--
Mike Hoye
Mark Loy
2003-10-15 15:52:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <bmjlin$1if$***@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca>,
***@prince.carleton.ca (Michael Hoye) wrote:

> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Billy Todd <***@dunna-spam-me-comporium.net> wrote:
> >
> >The Blair Witch Project.
> [...]
> >I found out very quickly that the rest of the world's mileage
> >obviously varied. Apparently it failed to live up to the hype I'd
> >missed.
>
> It had such a large advertising budget because the rest of it cost so
> little to make. I've heard that the Blair Witch Project is, on a
> percentage basis, the most profitable movie ever made.



Huh...are you sure it wasn't "You and Your Testicles"?






ML
David Chapman
2003-10-15 16:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Michael Hoye did not say this. Michael Hoye was not here:
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Billy Todd <***@dunna-spam-me-comporium.net> wrote:
>>
>> The Blair Witch Project.
> [...]
>> I found out very quickly that the rest of the world's mileage
>> obviously varied. Apparently it failed to live up to the hype I'd
>> missed.
>
> It had such a large advertising budget because the rest of it cost so
> little to make. I've heard that the Blair Witch Project is, on a
> percentage basis, the most profitable movie ever made.

Indeed it is; it took around $200m worldwide on a budget of $35,000.

I'm also given to understand it's the only film in history whose TV promo
show cost more to make than the film itself.

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
Maggie
2003-10-15 20:28:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@dunna-
spam-me-comporium.net says...

> The Blair Witch Project.

[...]

> I found out very quickly that the rest of the world's mileage
> obviously varied. Apparently it failed to live up to the hype I'd
> missed.

Yeargh. It didn't even come close.

And, disappointingly, I was bored out of my skull by it.

Hitchcock's "The Birds", OTOH, never fails to scare the living hell out
of me. I still cringe when I see more than two or three birds together.
It's especially bad now, as the birds are flocking to head south - the
cloud of starlings in the front yard this morning sent me fleeing for the
back room.


--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://www.darkfriends.net
"And what the, expletive very much included, FUCK do you want?" - Richard
O'Brien, _Revenge of the Old Queen_
Mike Kozlowski
2003-10-15 20:33:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@News.Individual.NET>,
Maggie <***@darkfriends.net> wrote:
>In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@dunna-
>spam-me-comporium.net says...
>
>> The Blair Witch Project.

>And, disappointingly, I was bored out of my skull by it.
>Hitchcock's "The Birds", OTOH, never fails to scare the living hell out
>of me.

Nope, both BWP and The Birds were dull! The only scary movies are Pet
Sematary and Arachnophobia.

When it comes to scary movies, it seems like reactions always fall
into "Dear god that was terrifying" or "BOOOOOORRING!" Or, at least,
I can't immediately think of any examples of putatively scary movies
that don't fall into one of those two categories.

From this I deduce that the whole genre of horror/terror is one that
gets its entire artistic impact from cheap thrills and has no
substantive quality whatsoever in the absence of those thrills.

--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Maggie
2003-10-15 21:23:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <bmkavc$98c$***@reader1.panix.com>, ***@klio.org says...
> In article <***@News.Individual.NET>,
> Maggie <***@darkfriends.net> wrote:
> >In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@dunna-
> >spam-me-comporium.net says...
> >
> >> The Blair Witch Project.
>
> >And, disappointingly, I was bored out of my skull by it.
> >Hitchcock's "The Birds", OTOH, never fails to scare the living hell out
> >of me.
>
> Nope, both BWP and The Birds were dull! The only scary movies are Pet
> Sematary and Arachnophobia.

Pet Sematary I'll give you. But I *liked* Arachnophobia and spent quite
a lot of time giggling at it, not being scared by it.

I kept tarantulas as pets in high school, though, so my reaction was
probably outside the norm. That one was clearly aimed at scaring people
like you and Anne - people who don't like spiders.

As for The Birds being a yawn, you're out of your mind. That's easily
one of the most terrifying movies ever made. Terrifying to me, anyway.
Of course, the first time I saw that movie, I was five. It made a hell
of an impression.


> From this I deduce that the whole genre of horror/terror is one that
> gets its entire artistic impact from cheap thrills and has no
> substantive quality whatsoever in the absence of those thrills.

Isn't that kind of the point?



--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://www.darkfriends.net
"And what the, expletive very much included, FUCK do you want?" - Richard
O'Brien, _Revenge of the Old Queen_
Richard Boye'
2003-10-15 23:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Maggie wrote:
>
> In article <bmkavc$98c$***@reader1.panix.com>, ***@klio.org says...
> > In article <***@News.Individual.NET>,
> > Maggie <***@darkfriends.net> wrote:
> > >In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@dunna-
> > >spam-me-comporium.net says...
> > >
> > >> The Blair Witch Project.
> >
> > >And, disappointingly, I was bored out of my skull by it.
> > >Hitchcock's "The Birds", OTOH, never fails to scare the living hell out
> > >of me.
> >
> > Nope, both BWP and The Birds were dull! The only scary movies are Pet
> > Sematary and Arachnophobia.
>
> Pet Sematary I'll give you. But I *liked* Arachnophobia and spent quite
> a lot of time giggling at it, not being scared by it.

I thought that Pet Cemetery <Samatary?> was blah. I liked Arachnophobia,
and was entertained by it, but didn't find particularly creepy and
scary.

> As for The Birds being a yawn, you're out of your mind. That's easily
> one of the most terrifying movies ever made. Terrifying to me, anyway.
> Of course, the first time I saw that movie, I was five. It made a hell
> of an impression.

Yes, to this day, my sister is scared shitless of sharks (it took us
years to coax her into the water at the beach) because my father the
rocket scientist thought it would be a fine movie to take her to.

She was seven. We lived across the street from the water. Our
grandmother lived at the beach.

WTG, dad!


--
Richard M. Boye' * ***@webspan.net
Typing into the Void:
http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/books/blogger.html
"Some men lead lives of quiet desperation.
My desperation makes a pathetic whining sound."
Richard Boye'
2003-10-16 00:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Richard Boye' wrote:
>
> Maggie wrote:
> >
[...]

> > As for The Birds being a yawn, you're out of your mind. That's easily
> > one of the most terrifying movies ever made. Terrifying to me, anyway.
> > Of course, the first time I saw that movie, I was five. It made a hell
> > of an impression.
>
> Yes, to this day, my sister is scared shitless of sharks (it took us
> years to coax her into the water at the beach) because my father the
> rocket scientist thought it would be a fine movie to take her to.

Duh.

"my father the rocket scientist thought _Jaws_ would be a fine movie to
take her to."

Makes much more sense that way.


--
Richard M. Boye' * ***@webspan.net
Typing into the Void:
http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/books/blogger.html
"Some men lead lives of quiet desperation.
My desperation makes a pathetic whining sound."
David Loewe, Jr.
2003-10-16 02:18:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:47:03 GMT, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
wrote:

>Richard Boye' wrote:
>>
>> Maggie wrote:
>> >
>[...]
>
>> > As for The Birds being a yawn, you're out of your mind. That's easily
>> > one of the most terrifying movies ever made. Terrifying to me, anyway.
>> > Of course, the first time I saw that movie, I was five. It made a hell
>> > of an impression.
>>
>> Yes, to this day, my sister is scared shitless of sharks (it took us
>> years to coax her into the water at the beach) because my father the
>> rocket scientist thought it would be a fine movie to take her to.
>
>Duh.
>
>"my father the rocket scientist thought _Jaws_ would be a fine movie to
>take her to."
>
>Makes much more sense that way.

Well, *I* had it figured out by context...
--
"Chances are you're playing with fire
I thought by now you'd learned
You're gonna get your fingers burned."
Alan Parsons and Eric Woolfson
Mark Loy
2003-10-16 18:39:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, "David Loewe,
Jr." <***@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:47:03 GMT, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
> wrote:
> >> Yes, to this day, my sister is scared shitless of sharks (it took us
> >> years to coax her into the water at the beach) because my father the
> >> rocket scientist thought it would be a fine movie to take her to.
> >
> >Duh.
> >
> >"my father the rocket scientist thought _Jaws_ would be a fine movie to
> >take her to."
> >
> >Makes much more sense that way.
>
> Well, *I* had it figured out by context...


Not me.

I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.








ML
David Loewe, Jr.
2003-10-16 19:09:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:39:13 -0600, ***@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, "David Loewe,
>Jr." <***@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:47:03 GMT, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
>> wrote:
>> >> Yes, to this day, my sister is scared shitless of sharks (it took us
>> >> years to coax her into the water at the beach) because my father the
>> >> rocket scientist thought it would be a fine movie to take her to.
>> >
>> >Duh.
>> >
>> >"my father the rocket scientist thought _Jaws_ would be a fine movie to
>> >take her to."

I read Jaws long before it was made into a movie. I also read The
Exorcist long before I saw the movie.
>> >
>> >Makes much more sense that way.
>>
>> Well, *I* had it figured out by context...
>
>Not me.
>
>I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.

Now *that* was a scary movie - Dick van Dyke flying around in that
car. I was very young when I saw it as part of a double feature at the
drive-in theatre in Rantoul IL (my Dad was stationed at the now
defunct Chanute AFB at the time - he got out in 1966, so I'd have been
under 4). I cried the night I saw it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>ML



































Of course, I cried because I saw Frank Sinatra die in the *second*
feature that night - Von Ryan's Express, but I digress.
--
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed."
-Lazarus Long
Emma Pease
2003-10-16 20:39:35 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:39:13 -0600, ***@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) wrote:
>>
>>I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.
>
> Now *that* was a scary movie - Dick van Dyke flying around in that
> car. I was very young when I saw it as part of a double feature at the
> drive-in theatre in Rantoul IL (my Dad was stationed at the now
> defunct Chanute AFB at the time - he got out in 1966, so I'd have been
> under 4).


Bit tricky that since Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was released in 1968.

Emma


--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
David Loewe, Jr.
2003-10-16 23:50:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
<***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
>Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:39:13 -0600, ***@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) wrote:
>>>
>>>I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.
>>
>> Now *that* was a scary movie - Dick van Dyke flying around in that
>> car. I was very young when I saw it as part of a double feature at the
>> drive-in theatre in Rantoul IL (my Dad was stationed at the now
>> defunct Chanute AFB at the time - he got out in 1966, so I'd have been
>> under 4).
>
>
>Bit tricky that since Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was released in 1968.

Perhaps I have remembered it wrongly...

Probably was Mary Poppins (a 1964 release - which would be about right
to play with Von Ryan's Express *at a drive-in - which also starred
Dick van Dyke).

I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.
--
"The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes them."
- Jason Laumark
Emma Pease
2003-10-17 00:46:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
>>Jr. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:39:13 -0600, ***@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.
>>>
>>> Now *that* was a scary movie - Dick van Dyke flying around in that
>>> car. I was very young when I saw it as part of a double feature at the
>>> drive-in theatre in Rantoul IL (my Dad was stationed at the now
>>> defunct Chanute AFB at the time - he got out in 1966, so I'd have been
>>> under 4).
>>
>>
>>Bit tricky that since Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was released in 1968.
>
> Perhaps I have remembered it wrongly...
>
> Probably was Mary Poppins (a 1964 release - which would be about right
> to play with Von Ryan's Express *at a drive-in - which also starred
> Dick van Dyke).
>
> I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
> something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.

I actually remembered reading about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang coming out
which is why I knew it was post 1966 (I wasn't reading in 1966 though
I was by 1968).

I would be hard put to remember what I was doing when I was 4.

Emma

--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Mark Loy
2003-10-17 15:26:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
emma+***@kanpai.stanford.edu wrote:

> In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
> Jr. wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
> ><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
> >>Jr. wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:39:13 -0600, ***@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.

<David wrote about "Chitty" viewing in 1966>

> >>Bit tricky that since Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was released in 1968.
> >
> > Perhaps I have remembered it wrongly...
> >
> > I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
> > something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.
>
> I actually remembered reading about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang coming out
> which is why I knew it was post 1966 (I wasn't reading in 1966 though
> I was by 1968).
>
> I would be hard put to remember what I was doing when I was 4.



Okay uh...listen, guys...Rich _obviously_ blatantly and with malice and
aforethought meant _Jaws_ as anyone with two working brain cells would
know so then when Dave unnecessarily said that he figured that out ol'
Markus decided, being the comedic genius that he is, to come up with a
movie that was as far from Jaws as possible within four or five seconds of
thought and Wa-la!!--Chitty was born. That is to say, it was all a...it
isn't worth...why are you two posting and posting about...I...I'm sorry
I...


Nevermind.







ML
David Loewe, Jr.
2003-10-17 17:38:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:26:49 -0600, ***@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) wrote:

>In article <***@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
>emma+***@kanpai.stanford.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
>> Jr. wrote:
>> > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
>> ><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
>> >>Jr. wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:39:13 -0600, ***@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.
>
><David wrote about "Chitty" viewing in 1966>
>
>> >>Bit tricky that since Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was released in 1968.
>> >
>> > Perhaps I have remembered it wrongly...
>> >
>> > I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
>> > something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.
>>
>> I actually remembered reading about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang coming out
>> which is why I knew it was post 1966 (I wasn't reading in 1966 though
>> I was by 1968).
>>
>> I would be hard put to remember what I was doing when I was 4.
>
>
>
>Okay uh...listen, guys...Rich _obviously_ blatantly and with malice and
>aforethought meant _Jaws_ as anyone with two working brain cells would
>know so then when Dave unnecessarily said that he figured that out

Not *quite* the chain of posting there[1], Markus, ol' buddy, ol' pal,
but I digress.

>ol' Markus decided, being the comedic genius that he is, to come up with a
>movie that was as far from Jaws as possible within four or five seconds of
>thought and Wa-la!!--Chitty was born. That is to say, it was all a...it
>isn't worth...why are you two posting and posting about...I...I'm sorry
>I...
>
>
>Nevermind.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>ML

[1] I replied to Rich's *correction* - to let him know that "anyone
with two working brain cells" *had* gotten it.
--
"...it's time for me to go."
Albert A. Gore Jr. conceding the 2000
Presidential Election
Lara Beaton
2003-10-17 18:22:43 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:26:49 -0600, ***@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) wrote:

>In article <***@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
>emma+***@kanpai.stanford.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
>> Jr. wrote:
>> > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:39:35 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
>> ><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
>> >>Jr. wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:39:13 -0600, ***@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.
>
><David wrote about "Chitty" viewing in 1966>
>
>> >>Bit tricky that since Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was released in 1968.
>> >
>> > Perhaps I have remembered it wrongly...
>> >
>> > I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
>> > something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.
>>
>> I actually remembered reading about Chitty Chitty Bang Bang coming out
>> which is why I knew it was post 1966 (I wasn't reading in 1966 though
>> I was by 1968).
>>
>> I would be hard put to remember what I was doing when I was 4.
>
>
>
>Okay uh...listen, guys...Rich _obviously_ blatantly and with malice and
>aforethought meant _Jaws_ as anyone with two working brain cells would
>know so then when Dave unnecessarily said that he figured that out ol'
>Markus decided, being the comedic genius that he is, to come up with a
>movie that was as far from Jaws as possible within four or five seconds of
>thought and Wa-la!!--Chitty was born. That is to say, it was all a...it
>isn't worth...why are you two posting and posting about...I...I'm sorry
>I...
>
>
>Nevermind.

Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.

My world no longer makes sense.

--
Lara Beaton
"I thought I had seen a few things, but listening to
your stories, I suddenly need to know the plural of
'apocalypse'."
Emma Pease
2003-10-18 00:51:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton wrote:

>
> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
>
> My world no longer makes sense.

Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
cranberry-orange loaf cake.

"David, would you like a slice?"



--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Jennifer Winters
2003-10-18 01:14:21 UTC
Permalink
"Emma Pease" <***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:***@munin.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton
wrote:
>
> >
> > Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
> > ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
> >
> > My world no longer makes sense.
>
> Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
> her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
> cranberry-orange loaf cake.
>
> "David, would you like a slice?"


Is that Earl Grey, hot?

--
Jennifer Winters
Nerd in babe's clothing
Mark Loy
2003-10-21 18:49:32 UTC
Permalink
In article <Nt0kb.5344$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Jennifer Winters" <***@wwco.nospam.com> wrote:

> "Emma Pease" <***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:***@munin.Stanford.EDU...
> > In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
> > > ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
> > >
> > > My world no longer makes sense.
> >
> > Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
> > her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
> > cranberry-orange loaf cake.
> >
> > "David, would you like a slice?"
>
>
> Is that Earl Grey, hot?




Hey, don't get your hopes too far up...I'm pretty sure he's gay.









ML
David Loewe, Jr.
2003-10-21 18:16:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:49:32 -0600, ***@iupui.edu (Mark Loy) wrote:

>In article <Nt0kb.5344$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>"Jennifer Winters" <***@wwco.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Emma Pease" <***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote in message
>> news:***@munin.Stanford.EDU...
>> > In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
>> > > ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
>> > >
>> > > My world no longer makes sense.
>> >
>> > Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
>> > her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
>> > cranberry-orange loaf cake.
>> >
>> > "David, would you like a slice?"
>>
>>
>> Is that Earl Grey, hot?
>
>
>
>
>Hey, don't get your hopes too far up...I'm pretty sure he's gay.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>ML

I know this isn't conclusive but, Charles Grey (the second Earl Grey -
whom the tea is named for) had 7 daughters and 10 sons.
--
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat."
- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-1987
Jennifer Winters
2003-10-22 00:50:16 UTC
Permalink
"Mark Loy" <***@iupui.edu> wrote in message
news:mloy-***@134.68.134.43...
> In article <Nt0kb.5344$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Jennifer Winters" <***@wwco.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Emma Pease" <***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> > news:***@munin.Stanford.EDU...
> > > In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
> > > > ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
> > > >
> > > > My world no longer makes sense.
> > >
> > > Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
> > > her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
> > > cranberry-orange loaf cake.
> > >
> > > "David, would you like a slice?"
> >
> >
> > Is that Earl Grey, hot?
>
>
>
>
> Hey, don't get your hopes too far up...I'm pretty sure he's gay.


Hmmmm....then what about you? *wink*

--
Jennifer Winters
Nerd in babe's clothing
Duncan J Macdonald
2003-10-22 00:55:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:50:16 GMT, Jennifer Winters said...
> "Mark Loy" <***@iupui.edu> wrote in message
> news:mloy-***@134.68.134.43...

<snip ... Oh the irony>

> > Hey, don't get your hopes too far up...I'm pretty sure he's gay.
>
>
> Hmmmm....then what about you? *wink*

OBQuote: "We're not homosexuals, but we are willing to learn."


Zero points. I mean, really, you think that is worth points?
--
Duncan J Macdonald
***@navy.mil
***@comcast.net
John Alt
2003-10-22 08:04:55 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.cis.dfn.de>,
***@comcast.net says...
>
> OBQuote: "We're not homosexuals, but we are willing to learn."
>
>
> Zero points. I mean, really, you think that is worth points?
>
We were all stupid enough to join this newsgroup.
Duncan J Macdonald
2003-10-22 08:58:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:04:55 -0700, John Alt said...
> In article <***@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> ***@comcast.net says...
> >
> > OBQuote: "We're not homosexuals, but we are willing to learn."
> >
> >
> > Zero points. I mean, really, you think that is worth points?
> >
> We were all stupid enough to join this newsgroup.

Que?

--
Duncan J Macdonald
***@navy.mil
***@comcast.net
David Loewe, Jr.
2003-10-18 05:19:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:51:39 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
<***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton wrote:
>>
>> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
>> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
>>
>> My world no longer makes sense.
>
>Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
>her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
>cranberry-orange loaf cake.
>
>"David, would you like a slice?"

"No, thanks. Do you have any devil's food, Emma?"
--
"Clams on the half shell...and rollerskates."
Bernard Edwards & Nile Rodgers
Emma Pease
2003-10-18 20:54:06 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:51:39 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton wrote:
>>>
>>> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
>>> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
>>>
>>> My world no longer makes sense.
>>
>>Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
>>her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
>>cranberry-orange loaf cake.
>>
>>"David, would you like a slice?"
>
> "No, thanks. Do you have any devil's food, Emma?"

"Most certainly"

Emma removes the cover from another plate revealing a sinfully
chocolately devils food cake.

"Would you like some of my elderberry wine with this?"


--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Duncan J Macdonald
2003-10-18 21:42:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease said...
> In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:51:39 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
> ><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
> >>> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
> >>>
> >>> My world no longer makes sense.
> >>
> >>Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
> >>her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
> >>cranberry-orange loaf cake.
> >>
> >>"David, would you like a slice?"
> >
> > "No, thanks. Do you have any devil's food, Emma?"
>
> "Most certainly"
>
> Emma removes the cover from another plate revealing a sinfully
> chocolately devils food cake.
>
> "Would you like some of my elderberry wine with this?"

[A figure appears stage left, apparently bounding up a set of stairs
to the basement. He is dressed as if to ride - jodhpurs, calf-high
boots, and a pith helmet.]

"I say! Not another one!" The figure points to Mark's body while
looking inquisitively at Emma. "Shall I bury him in the Canal Zone
with the others?"

--
Duncan J Macdonald
***@navy.mil
***@comcast.net
Jennifer Winters
2003-10-18 22:29:35 UTC
Permalink
"Duncan J Macdonald" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease said...
> > In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
Jr. wrote:
> > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:51:39 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
> > ><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >>In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton
wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
> > >>> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
> > >>>
> > >>> My world no longer makes sense.
> > >>
> > >>Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
> > >>her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
> > >>cranberry-orange loaf cake.
> > >>
> > >>"David, would you like a slice?"
> > >
> > > "No, thanks. Do you have any devil's food, Emma?"
> >
> > "Most certainly"
> >
> > Emma removes the cover from another plate revealing a sinfully
> > chocolately devils food cake.
> >
> > "Would you like some of my elderberry wine with this?"
>
> [A figure appears stage left, apparently bounding up a set of stairs
> to the basement. He is dressed as if to ride - jodhpurs, calf-high
> boots, and a pith helmet.]
>
> "I say! Not another one!" The figure points to Mark's body while
> looking inquisitively at Emma. "Shall I bury him in the Canal Zone
> with the others?"


Isn't it time for you to charge up San Juan Hill?

--
Jennifer Winters
Nerd in babe's clothing
Duncan J Macdonald
2003-10-19 03:35:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:29:35 GMT, Jennifer Winters said...
> "Duncan J Macdonald" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:***@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease said...
> > > In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
> Jr. wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:51:39 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
> > > ><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
> > > >>> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> My world no longer makes sense.
> > > >>
> > > >>Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
> > > >>her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
> > > >>cranberry-orange loaf cake.
> > > >>
> > > >>"David, would you like a slice?"
> > > >
> > > > "No, thanks. Do you have any devil's food, Emma?"
> > >
> > > "Most certainly"
> > >
> > > Emma removes the cover from another plate revealing a sinfully
> > > chocolately devils food cake.
> > >
> > > "Would you like some of my elderberry wine with this?"
> >
> > [A figure appears stage left, apparently bounding up a set of stairs
> > to the basement. He is dressed as if to ride - jodhpurs, calf-high
> > boots, and a pith helmet.]
> >
> > "I say! Not another one!" The figure points to Mark's body while
> > looking inquisitively at Emma. "Shall I bury him in the Canal Zone
> > with the others?"
>
>
> Isn't it time for you to charge up San Juan Hill?

Chaaaaaaaaaaarge!

--
Duncan J Macdonald
***@navy.mil
***@comcast.net
Brian Trosko
2003-10-19 04:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Duncan J Macdonald <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:29:35 GMT, Jennifer Winters said...
> > "Duncan J Macdonald" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:***@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease said...
> > > > In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
> > Jr. wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:51:39 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
> > > > ><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
> > > > >>> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> My world no longer makes sense.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
> > > > >>her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
> > > > >>cranberry-orange loaf cake.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>"David, would you like a slice?"
> > > > >
> > > > > "No, thanks. Do you have any devil's food, Emma?"
> > > >
> > > > "Most certainly"
> > > >
> > > > Emma removes the cover from another plate revealing a sinfully
> > > > chocolately devils food cake.
> > > >
> > > > "Would you like some of my elderberry wine with this?"
> > >
> > > [A figure appears stage left, apparently bounding up a set of stairs
> > > to the basement. He is dressed as if to ride - jodhpurs, calf-high
> > > boots, and a pith helmet.]
> > >
> > > "I say! Not another one!" The figure points to Mark's body while
> > > looking inquisitively at Emma. "Shall I bury him in the Canal Zone
> > > with the others?"
> >
> >
> > Isn't it time for you to charge up San Juan Hill?

> Chaaaaaaaaaaarge!

Dammit, we forgot the horses.
Duncan J Macdonald
2003-10-19 04:28:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:15:05 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko said...
> Duncan J Macdonald <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:29:35 GMT, Jennifer Winters said...
> > > "Duncan J Macdonald" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:***@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease said...
> > > > > In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe,
> > > Jr. wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:51:39 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
> > > > > ><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
> > > > > >>> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> My world no longer makes sense.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
> > > > > >>her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
> > > > > >>cranberry-orange loaf cake.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>"David, would you like a slice?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "No, thanks. Do you have any devil's food, Emma?"
> > > > >
> > > > > "Most certainly"
> > > > >
> > > > > Emma removes the cover from another plate revealing a sinfully
> > > > > chocolately devils food cake.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Would you like some of my elderberry wine with this?"
> > > >
> > > > [A figure appears stage left, apparently bounding up a set of stairs
> > > > to the basement. He is dressed as if to ride - jodhpurs, calf-high
> > > > boots, and a pith helmet.]
> > > >
> > > > "I say! Not another one!" The figure points to Mark's body while
> > > > looking inquisitively at Emma. "Shall I bury him in the Canal Zone
> > > > with the others?"
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't it time for you to charge up San Juan Hill?
>
> > Chaaaaaaaaaaarge!
>
> Dammit, we forgot the horses.
>
Never work with animals on stage -- it gets messy.
















Well, Jizzbondo the Magnificent does, but that's different.
--
Duncan J Macdonald
***@navy.mil
***@comcast.net
Jennifer Winters
2003-10-19 23:26:31 UTC
Permalink
"Duncan J Macdonald" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:15:05 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko said...
> > Duncan J Macdonald <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:29:35 GMT, Jennifer Winters said...
> > > > "Duncan J Macdonald" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:***@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease said...
> > > > > > In article <***@4ax.com>, David
Loewe,
> > > > Jr. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:51:39 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
> > > > > > ><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara
Beaton
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed
that the
> > > > > > >>> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> My world no longer makes sense.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy,
checked
> > > > > > >>her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
> > > > > > >>cranberry-orange loaf cake.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>"David, would you like a slice?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "No, thanks. Do you have any devil's food, Emma?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Most certainly"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Emma removes the cover from another plate revealing a sinfully
> > > > > > chocolately devils food cake.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Would you like some of my elderberry wine with this?"
> > > > >
> > > > > [A figure appears stage left, apparently bounding up a set of
stairs
> > > > > to the basement. He is dressed as if to ride - jodhpurs, calf-high
> > > > > boots, and a pith helmet.]
> > > > >
> > > > > "I say! Not another one!" The figure points to Mark's body while
> > > > > looking inquisitively at Emma. "Shall I bury him in the Canal Zone
> > > > > with the others?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it time for you to charge up San Juan Hill?
> >
> > > Chaaaaaaaaaaarge!
> >
> > Dammit, we forgot the horses.
> >
> Never work with animals on stage -- it gets messy.
>
> Well, Jizzbondo the Magnificent does, but that's different.

Only when he gets overexcited though.

--
Jennifer Winters
Nerd in babe's clothing
Mark Loy
2003-10-21 18:50:52 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.cis.dfn.de>, Duncan J
Macdonald <***@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:15:05 +0000 (UTC), Brian Trosko said...
> > > Chaaaaaaaaaaarge!
> >
> > Dammit, we forgot the horses.
> >
> Never work with animals on stage -- it gets messy.
> Well, Jizzbondo the Magnificent does, but that's different.



I don't consider it work as much as my gift.







J,tM!
David Loewe, Jr.
2003-10-19 06:04:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
<***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:51:39 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
>><***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
>>>> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
>>>>
>>>> My world no longer makes sense.
>>>
>>>Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
>>>her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
>>>cranberry-orange loaf cake.
>>>
>>>"David, would you like a slice?"
>>
>> "No, thanks. Do you have any devil's food, Emma?"
>
>"Most certainly"
>
>Emma removes the cover from another plate revealing a sinfully
>chocolately devils food cake.
>
>"Would you like some of my elderberry wine with this?"

"Most assuredly."
--
"Drunk all the time
Feeling fine on elderberry wine
Those were the days, We'd lay in the haze
Forget depressive times."
Bernard Taupin
Mark Loy
2003-10-21 18:56:15 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
emma+***@kanpai.stanford.edu wrote:

> In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton wrote:
>
> >
> > Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
> > ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
> >
> > My world no longer makes sense.
>
> Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
> her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
> cranberry-orange loaf cake.
>
> "David, would you like a slice?"



You know I uh...I've never put Emma and thigh-bone marrow abyss stupefying
fear in the same thought process before.

_Now_...now ol' Markus is broken.









ML
Michael Hoye
2003-10-18 07:43:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
Emma Pease <emma+***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
>In article <***@4ax.com>, Lara Beaton wrote:
>
>> Of all the people in this forum, I never would have guessed that the
>> ones to break the Loy would be Emma and David Loewe.
>>
>> My world no longer makes sense.
>
>Emma wiped her knife clean on the corpse of the quivering Loy, checked
>her little lace cap, composed herself, turned and cut the
>cranberry-orange loaf cake.
>
>"David, would you like a slice?"

"You shouldn't have wiped the knife," said Loewe. "That would have
been... Gravy. Richer still."

"Wait."

--
Mike Hoye
Ken Gerrard
2003-10-17 17:51:27 UTC
Permalink
"David Loewe, Jr." <***@mindspring.com> writes:

[...]

>I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
>something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.

Done.

--
Ken Gerrard
***@nubule.nu
http://nubule.nu/
Maggie
2003-10-19 23:21:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <bmpa6v$615$***@reader1.panix.com>, ***@panix.com says...
> "David Loewe, Jr." <***@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
> >something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.
>
> Done.

Share! You shameless tease.

I remember my dog biting me when I was three. I needed stitches. I
remember those, too.

(I don't remember *why* Nicky bit me, though. My grandfather always said
it was an accident, that we were roughhousing and he got overly nippy.)


--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://www.darkfriends.net
"And what the, expletive very much included, FUCK do you want?" - Richard
O'Brien, _Revenge of the Old Queen_
David Loewe, Jr.
2003-10-20 08:40:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:21:26 -0400, Maggie
<***@darkfriends.net> wrote:

>In article <bmpa6v$615$***@reader1.panix.com>, ***@panix.com says...
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <***@mindspring.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
>> >something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.
>>
>> Done.
>
>Share! You shameless tease.
>
>I remember my dog biting me when I was three. I needed stitches. I
>remember those, too.

I don't think that's in the same class. It seems to me that you'd have
to remember the why you state below you don't remember for it to be
the same class - remembering the complexities of a complex event
(chain of events) - of remembering accurately.
>
>(I don't remember *why* Nicky bit me, though. My grandfather always said
>it was an accident, that we were roughhousing and he got overly nippy.)

This is why I'm leery.

I can tell you what I was doing when I heard that JFK was shot (aged 1
year 355 days) - because relatives have told me so many times that it
feels like I actually remember it. But, I know that I really don't.
RFK, on the other hand...
--
"One cries foul and will not speak
The other claims a little victory
And all the time you know we fail to see
This is the language of love"
Dan Fogelberg
Ken Gerrard
2003-10-20 17:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Maggie <***@darkfriends.net> writes:

>In article <bmpa6v$615$***@reader1.panix.com>, ***@panix.com says...
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <***@mindspring.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
>> >something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.
>>
>> Done.

>Share! You shameless tease.

I intended snark over the phrasing but I'll indulge. I was playing with
Duplo in the living room while mom watched a tape of St. Elsewhere on the
Beta. The phone rang so the show was paused.

The conversation lasted longer than the VCR's will: it unpaused
automatically. I remember thinking I might be accused of tampering.

>I remember my dog biting me when I was three. I needed stitches. I
>remember those, too.

>(I don't remember *why* Nicky bit me, though. My grandfather always said
>it was an accident, that we were roughhousing and he got overly nippy.)

I'm unable to place another early memory: I was outside the house. Sam, a
huge dog reminiscent to me of Barkley, chased me and eventually knocked me
down for a lick-a-thon. Although it was friendly I was terrified. I'm
still not much of a dog person.

--
Ken Gerrard
***@nubule.nu
http://nubule.nu/
Jeff Stockwin
2003-10-17 18:18:11 UTC
Permalink
"David Loewe, Jr." <***@mindspring.com> wrote:

[one order of sidetrack, hold the cotext]

> I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
> something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.

Accurately isn't the problem, but remembering things _completely_ is
something more difficult. I remember a bit about the Christmas just
after I turned two: riding in the back of my grandparents' car,
sitting on my knees on the dark green vinyl seats and looking at the
snow out the back window, my nearest sister next to me. I know more
about that Christmas, but it's all from stories I heard later and from
asking, not my own memories. What I do remember is accurate, though,
I asked around until my grandfather remembered that car and my mother
remembered that she sent the 2 little ones with her parents for a
while. I knew it had to be that year because my grandmother died
before the next Christmas. While we're here: I remember the day my
mother told me that Grandma had died and I was still 2 then. I
remember where she took me in the house, that I stood and she knelt,
that she was sad, and that it was just the 2 of us. Nothing else,
though.

I can't be alone in remembering things from when I was that young, but
it certainly isn't surprising that your memory of when you were 4
isn't perfect.

--
Jeff Stockwin
Kevin Bealer
2003-10-22 05:38:42 UTC
Permalink
David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>
> I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
> something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.

I was born in 1975; I remember when my parents took me along to the
courthouse to vote in the 1980 election. I had earlier asked my parents
why I had to go to school (kindergarden); they told me the president
(then Carter) says that kids have to go to school.

I wanted Reagan to win so I wouldn't have to go.

Kevin
Michael Hoye
2003-10-22 07:31:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@patriot.net>,
Kevin Bealer <***@patriot.net> wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I would, however, challenge anyone else to remember accurately
>> something that happened when they were under 4 years of age.
>
>I was born in 1975; I remember when my parents took me along to the
>courthouse to vote in the 1980 election. I had earlier asked my parents
>why I had to go to school (kindergarden); they told me the president
>(then Carter) says that kids have to go to school.
>
>I wanted Reagan to win so I wouldn't have to go.

I don't have my calendar handy - are we throwing the little ones
back this week?

--
Mike Hoye
Jennifer Winters
2003-10-17 01:49:17 UTC
Permalink
"Mark Loy" <***@iupui.edu> wrote in message
news:mloy-***@134.68.134.43...
> In article <***@4ax.com>, "David Loewe,
> Jr." <***@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:47:03 GMT, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
> > wrote:
> > >> Yes, to this day, my sister is scared shitless of sharks (it took us
> > >> years to coax her into the water at the beach) because my father the
> > >> rocket scientist thought it would be a fine movie to take her to.
> > >
> > >Duh.
> > >
> > >"my father the rocket scientist thought _Jaws_ would be a fine movie
to
> > >take her to."
> > >
> > >Makes much more sense that way.
> >
> > Well, *I* had it figured out by context...
>
>
> Not me.
>
> I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.


Well your remake of "How I Spent My Summer Vacation" is very disturbing
yes--all those poor sheep--but I don't think it's Jaws caliber. After all,
compare a John Williams soundtrack to a Chuck Woolery one....

--
Jennifer Winters
Nerd in babe's clothing
Duncan J Macdonald
2003-10-17 02:35:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:49:17 GMT, Jennifer Winters said...
>
> "Mark Loy" <***@iupui.edu> wrote in message
> news:mloy-***@134.68.134.43...

<snip>

> > I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.
>
>
> Well your remake of "How I Spent My Summer Vacation" is very disturbing
> yes--all those poor sheep--but I don't think it's Jaws caliber. After all,
> compare a John Williams soundtrack to a Chuck Woolery one....

I hate to admit it, but Mark made a typo -- twice.

It's supposed to be "Kitty", not "Chitty".

There, feel better?










N.B. No sheep were harmed during the production of this post.

--
Duncan J Macdonald
***@navy.mil
***@comcast.net
Mark Loy
2003-10-17 15:32:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.cis.dfn.de>, Duncan J
Macdonald <***@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:49:17 GMT, Jennifer Winters said...
> >
> > "Mark Loy" <***@iupui.edu> wrote in message
> > news:mloy-***@134.68.134.43...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.
> >
> >
> > Well your remake of "How I Spent My Summer Vacation" is very disturbing
> > yes--all those poor sheep--but I don't think it's Jaws caliber. After all,
> > compare a John Williams soundtrack to a Chuck Woolery one....
>
> I hate to admit it, but Mark made a typo -- twice.
>
> It's supposed to be "Kitty", not "Chitty".


Actually, Duncan, the movie you're thinking about was "Clitty".

HTH






ML
David Chapman
2003-10-17 19:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Mark Loy did not say this. Mark Loy was not here:
> In article <***@news.cis.dfn.de>, Duncan J
> Macdonald <***@comcast.net> wrote:

>> It's supposed to be "Kitty", not "Chitty".
>
>
> Actually, Duncan, the movie you're thinking about was "Clitty".

I always thought it was Shitty Dicky Gang Bang?

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
Mark Loy
2003-10-17 21:12:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <3f903ec7$0$246$***@news.dial.pipex.com>, "David Chapman"
<***@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

> Mark Loy did not say this. Mark Loy was not here:
> > In article <***@news.cis.dfn.de>, Duncan J
> > Macdonald <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's supposed to be "Kitty", not "Chitty".
> >
> >
> > Actually, Duncan, the movie you're thinking about was "Clitty".
>
> I always thought it was Shitty Dicky Gang Bang?


No.

That's a chapter title in Richard Simmon's autobiography.







ML
John Anderson
2003-10-17 21:49:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <mloy-***@134.68.134.43>, ***@iupui.edu says...
> In article <3f903ec7$0$246$***@news.dial.pipex.com>, "David Chapman"
> <***@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> > Mark Loy did not say this. Mark Loy was not here:
> > > In article <***@news.cis.dfn.de>, Duncan J
> > > Macdonald <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> It's supposed to be "Kitty", not "Chitty".
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, Duncan, the movie you're thinking about was "Clitty".
> >
> > I always thought it was Shitty Dicky Gang Bang?
>
>
> No.
>
> That's a chapter title in Richard Simmon's autobiography.
>
> ML
>

Are you implying that Richard Simmons, that hunk of burning man-flesh
is a homosexual? How low will you stoop?

--
John Anderson
WTF?
David Chapman
2003-10-17 23:03:52 UTC
Permalink
John Anderson did not say this. John Anderson was not here:
> In article <mloy-***@134.68.134.43>, ***@iupui.edu
> says...
>> In article <3f903ec7$0$246$***@news.dial.pipex.com>, "David
>> Chapman" <***@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>>> I always thought it was Shitty Dicky Gang Bang?

>> No.
>>
>> That's a chapter title in Richard Simmon's autobiography.

> Are you implying that Richard Simmons, that hunk of burning man-flesh
> is a homosexual?

ObQuote: "There'll be no burning here today!" (0.1pts)

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
Michael Hoye
2003-10-17 22:05:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.infowest.com>,
John Anderson <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <mloy-***@134.68.134.43>, ***@iupui.edu says...
>> In article <3f903ec7$0$246$***@news.dial.pipex.com>, "David Chapman"
>> <***@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I always thought it was Shitty Dicky Gang Bang?
>> No.
>> That's a chapter title in Richard Simmon's autobiography.
>
>Are you implying that Richard Simmons, that hunk of burning man-flesh
>is a homosexual? How low will you stoop?

About halfway.

--
Mike Hoye
Jennifer Winters
2003-10-18 01:16:24 UTC
Permalink
"Michael Hoye" <***@prince.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:bmpp2h$m0q$***@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
> In article <***@news.infowest.com>,
> John Anderson <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <mloy-***@134.68.134.43>, ***@iupui.edu says...
> >> In article <3f903ec7$0$246$***@news.dial.pipex.com>, "David
Chapman"
> >> <***@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I always thought it was Shitty Dicky Gang Bang?
> >> No.
> >> That's a chapter title in Richard Simmon's autobiography.
> >
> >Are you implying that Richard Simmons, that hunk of burning man-flesh
> >is a homosexual? How low will you stoop?
>
> About halfway.


Everybody limbo!!!

--
Jennifer Winters
Nerd in babe's clothing
Jennifer Winters
2003-10-18 01:11:40 UTC
Permalink
"Duncan J Macdonald" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:49:17 GMT, Jennifer Winters said...
> >
> > "Mark Loy" <***@iupui.edu> wrote in message
> > news:mloy-***@134.68.134.43...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I was certain he was talkin' about _Chitty Chitty Bang Bang_.
> >
> >
> > Well your remake of "How I Spent My Summer Vacation" is very disturbing
> > yes--all those poor sheep--but I don't think it's Jaws caliber. After
all,
> > compare a John Williams soundtrack to a Chuck Woolery one....
>
> I hate to admit it, but Mark made a typo -- twice.
>
> It's supposed to be "Kitty", not "Chitty".
>
> There, feel better?

I do, but I don't know about those cats.

> N.B. No sheep were harmed during the production of this post.

So you used goats, then?

--
Jennifer Winters
Nerd in babe's clothing
Duncan J Macdonald
2003-10-18 02:59:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:11:40 GMT, Jennifer Winters said...
> "Duncan J Macdonald" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:***@news.cis.dfn.de...

<snip>


> > N.B. No sheep were harmed during the production of this post.

> So you used goats, then?

I not only plead the fifth, but I also refuse to countenance the
question.

--
Duncan J Macdonald
***@navy.mil
***@comcast.net
Jim Hill
2003-10-16 15:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Richard Boye' wrote:
>Maggie wrote:
>>
>> As for The Birds being a yawn, you're out of your mind. That's easily
>> one of the most terrifying movies ever made.
>
>Yes, to this day, my sister is scared shitless of sharks (it took us
>years to coax her into the water at the beach) because my father the
>rocket scientist thought it would be a fine movie to take her to.

I guess your sister isn't very smart.


Jim, who picked up the missing segue but made the wisecrack anyway
--

Longhaired freaky people need not apply.
Leigh Butler
2003-10-15 18:15:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:38:27 +0200, Johan Gustafsson
<***@e-bostad.net> wrote:
>Leigh Butler wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:32:57 +0200, Johan Gustafsson
>> <***@e-bostad.net> wrote:
>> >Leigh Butler wrote:

<_The Ring_>

>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>>
>> <snip>
>> >Of course, the "tape legend" seems rather developed if it started that
>> >week. Neither tape nor phone call specifies what's going to happen after
>> >seven days.
>>
>> The phone call doesn't? I thought it did. Doesn't it say something
>> like "in seven days you will see the ring, and then you die"? Or was
>> that only for the trailer?
>
>Nope, the phone call just says "seven days".

Oh. Well, never mind then.


>> <snip>

>> >Jesus, I used to think I was
>> >fairly difficult to scare (and I mean genuine scare, not Spring-Loaded
>> >Cat Effect scare).
>>
>> "Spring-Loaded Cat Effect". Heh.
>
>Not mine, sad to say.
>
>http://www.jabootu.com/glossary.htm

Heh.

I liked "Fruit Cart, Fruit Cart!"

<snip>
>> _The Ring_, though, scared me. _The Others_ scared me. _What Lies
>> Beneath_, though not the most stellar film, had some good nervous
>> tension going in the second act. _Alien_, that scared the crap out of
>> me. That old Ingrid Bergman flick, _Gaslight_, that was eerie. There's
>> a couple of Hitchcock films, like _The Birds_, that just creep me out
>> excessively. Even that silly Disney flick from the seventies, _Watcher
>> in the Woods_...
>
>I think lots of movies are creepy. Only two recent ones have scared me,
>"Sixth Sense" and "The Ring". Specifically, the scene where Osment,
>having fled for his life from the girl in the tent, actually walks back
>to his room where we see a shape under the collapsed tent.
>
>Jesus.
>
>I suspect a lot of it was Osment's Mad Acting Skillz, but for a moment I
>felt like I was five, it was in the middle of the night and out in our
>cabin in the middle of the woods, and I had to go to the outhouse.

Oh yeah. Forgot all about _The Sixth Sense_. And yeah, it was that
scene specifically that kicked in the "Oh, shit" reaction. I don't
know that I as an _adult_, much less a little kid, could have walked
back into that room.

And someone else mentioned _The Blair Witch Project_, which I also
forgot about and is EXACTLY what I was talking about as an example of
letting your audience do the work of scaring themselves for you.

I don't care what anyone says, before the hype ruined it that was a
damn good film, and a great lesson in turning disadvantages into
assets.

--
Leigh Butler
Johan Gustafsson
2003-10-15 19:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Leigh Butler wrote:

[scary movies]

> And someone else mentioned _The Blair Witch Project_, which I also
> forgot about and is EXACTLY what I was talking about as an example of
> letting your audience do the work of scaring themselves for you.
>
> I don't care what anyone says, before the hype ruined it that was a
> damn good film, and a great lesson in turning disadvantages into
> assets.

Certainly. And a "great" lesson in turning advantages into obstacles
would be to view Jan de Bont's remake of "The Haunting" (but please, for
all that is good and pure, watch the Robert Wise original first!)

Jan de Bont had a big budget, good actors (well, most of them were) and
access to a professional crew and he still churned out one of the
crappiest, non-scariest movies in existance.


--
Johan Gustafsson *** ***@e-bostad.net

"Like, life is a yo-yo... and mankind keeps tying knots in the string."
- Bernard the Poet, "X-Men"
Mark Loy
2003-10-15 21:13:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Johan Gustafsson
<***@e-bostad.net> wrote:

> Leigh Butler wrote:
>
> [scary movies]
>
> > And someone else mentioned _The Blair Witch Project_, which I also
> > forgot about and is EXACTLY what I was talking about as an example of
> > letting your audience do the work of scaring themselves for you.
> >
> > I don't care what anyone says, before the hype ruined it that was a
> > damn good film, and a great lesson in turning disadvantages into
> > assets.
>
> Certainly. And a "great" lesson in turning advantages into obstacles
> would be to view Jan de Bont's remake of "The Haunting" (but please, for
> all that is good and pure, watch the Robert Wise original first!)
>
> Jan de Bont had a big budget, good actors (well, most of them were) and
> access to a professional crew and he still churned out one of the
> crappiest, non-scariest movies in existance.

Very true.

The original was really well done while the remake was poor, to say the least.

A movie that hasn't been mentioned that gave me the "willies" was _the
Entity_. The idea of something invisible attacking/raping you and you
can't do *anything* to combat it or stop it or even run away from it is
fuckin' creepy.

Another movie, of a slightly different genre', that was scary as hell to
me was _Fail Safe_.

Or not.

Maybe you had to have "been there".






ML
David Chapman
2003-10-15 22:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Johan Gustafsson did not say this. Johan Gustafsson was not here:
> Leigh Butler wrote:
>
> [scary movies]
>
>> And someone else mentioned _The Blair Witch Project_, which I also
>> forgot about and is EXACTLY what I was talking about as an example of
>> letting your audience do the work of scaring themselves for you.
>>
>> I don't care what anyone says, before the hype ruined it that was a
>> damn good film, and a great lesson in turning disadvantages into
>> assets.
>
> Certainly. And a "great" lesson in turning advantages into obstacles
> would be to view Jan de Bont's remake of "The Haunting" (but please,
> for all that is good and pure, watch the Robert Wise original first!)
>
> Jan de Bont had a big budget, good actors (well, most of them were)
> and access to a professional crew and he still churned out one of the
> crappiest, non-scariest movies in existance.

Jan de Bont was also forbidden from replicating any scene from the original
movie for copyright reasons. He was fucked before he began. Give him
credit for getting Hill House *perfect*, at least.

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
David Chapman
2003-10-15 08:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Leigh Butler did not say this. Leigh Butler was not here:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:32:57 +0200, Johan Gustafsson
> <***@e-bostad.net> wrote:
>>>> So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed
>>>> it even if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon
>>>> retropesction, I am absolutely baffled.
>>>
>>>> Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on?
>>>> Obviously, spoilers are being addressed below...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
> <snip>
>>> Another thing I didn't really realize until I saw it the second time
>>> was that the TV in the cabin was directly over the well, and that
>>> she clearly "made" that video as those kids were trying to tape the
>>> football game. So they were the first ones to see it. Maybe that was
>>> obvious to everyone else, but that confused me the first time
>>> around.
>>
>> Of course, the "tape legend" seems rather developed if it started
>> that week. Neither tape nor phone call specifies what's going to
>> happen after seven days.
>
> The phone call doesn't? I thought it did. Doesn't it say something
> like "in seven days you will see the ring, and then you die"? Or was
> that only for the trailer?

Must only have been the trailer. It's definitely just "Seven days..." in
the film.

>>>> Also, even though Rachel "rescued" Samora, she's still pissed off
>>>> and Evil(tm)?
>>>
>>> Well, that was actually the one part of the movie I had a problem
>>> with. Rachel's son [1] is all, "You helped her? You weren't supposed
>>> to help her!" and then we get that completely awesome and
>>> scary-as-hell scene of Samara climbing out of the TV to kill Noah
>>> (which freaked me right the fuck out, I don't mind saying),
>>
>> You and me both, although I was desensitized from watching the
>> (almost identical) scene in the Japanese original.
>
> Haven't seen the original. Don't think I'm going to, just because I
> always tend to favor the version I see first over anything later,
> regardless, and it gets annoying.

That's a pity. Ring US is a bit of a mishmash of Ring Japan and Ring 2.
The original Japanese version is cleaner and with less distractions from the
story - plus, you find out who she's planning on having her son show the
tape to.

> Splatter flicks almost never scare me. Gross out, sure, but scare, no.
> I _snickered_ through both Hellraisers and the two or three Nightmare
> on Elm Streets I saw (including the first one).

There was one jump in the original NOES; when the dead girl appears in class
in the body bag. I saw that film when it was first released on video,
though, so I saw it a bit earlier than you (and I was probably younger,
too).

> _The Ring_, though, scared me. _The Others_ scared me. _What Lies
> Beneath_, though not the most stellar film, had some good nervous
> tension going in the second act. _Alien_, that scared the crap out of
> me.

Alien? It's a great movie (and I look forward to the enhanced cut), but
plotwise it's no more than Friday the 13th In Space.

> I think what all those films did, that I don't find your average
> horror film does all that well, is (a) build excruciating tension in
> lieu of (or at least for a good long while before) explosive violence,
> and (b) let the audience's imagination do most of the work in building
> that tension before finally giving them the payoff.

Event Horizon did that *extremely* well until it bottled it in the last act.
I have friends - not particularly weak-stomached friends - who had to leave
before it got that far.

> Also, now that I look at it, most or all of those films that really
> got to me did not have the standard "group of college kids/high school
> kids/random pretty people find themselves in conveniently hemmed-in
> situation with serial killer/monster/alien/mutant bunny on the loose;
> wacky gore and mayhem hijinks ensue" type set-up.

Because such films are not scary, as a rule. The only exceptions seem to be
John Carpenter's remake of The Thing - actually, Carpenter does
claustrophobia pretty well in general - and My Little Eye.

> Instead they are
> tightly focused on one central protagonist who has almost exclusive
> command of the camera throughout, and everything is gradually revealed
> only as she (they all seem to be female, too) discovers it.
>
> Interesting.

Seemed pretty obvious to me. You've got three things working there:

1) You're more likely to be afraid for a protagonist if you can identify
with them. If there's only one protagonist, you get to know them better and
so can identify more closely. Of course, being female helps this as well.

2) That which is not known is more frightening than that which is. The
hardest part of a horror film to do is the reveal; it's hard to be scared
when you know everything. And of course, if you know no more than the
protagonist you have another point of identification.

3) Female protagonists inspire a sympathetic fear in female viewers and a
protective response in male viewers.

Now, one interesting thing you *didn't* notice was the thing that connects
the protagonists of What Lies Beneath, The Exorcist, The Ring and The
Others. I'll put in a bit of blank space here, so you can have a quick
guess before you read on.














The answer is that they're all parents - as, for that matter, is Lynn Sear
in The Sixth Sense. Also, four of those five films concern *single* mothers
and the last has the mother in jeopardy. This adds yet another level of
fear response; the fear of what will happen to the children if the parents
are taken away. (Ripley is also a mother, as it happens, but we don't find
that out until Aliens - which is why I didn't count it above. It does,
however, add to the surrogate mother relationship she has with Newt.)

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
Leigh Butler
2003-10-15 18:46:25 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:58:31 +0100, "David Chapman"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Leigh Butler did not say this. Leigh Butler was not here:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:32:57 +0200, Johan Gustafsson
>> <***@e-bostad.net> wrote:

>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> <snip>


>> Splatter flicks almost never scare me. Gross out, sure, but scare, no.
>> I _snickered_ through both Hellraisers and the two or three Nightmare
>> on Elm Streets I saw (including the first one).
>
>There was one jump in the original NOES; when the dead girl appears in class
>in the body bag. I saw that film when it was first released on video,
>though, so I saw it a bit earlier than you (and I was probably younger,
>too).

I don't even remember the body bag thing. The film just didn't have
that great an impact on me. The only time I remember jumping was right
at the beginning of the film, where they had that great little
throwaway bit that many people might not have even noticed, especially
on video - the kids are all in the living room yakking about whatever,
and if you happen to be looking at the window behind them at just the
right moment, you see a figure dashing across it outside.

>> _The Ring_, though, scared me. _The Others_ scared me. _What Lies
>> Beneath_, though not the most stellar film, had some good nervous
>> tension going in the second act. _Alien_, that scared the crap out of
>> me.
>
>Alien? It's a great movie (and I look forward to the enhanced cut), but
>plotwise it's no more than Friday the 13th In Space.

Have I ever mentioned you're a freak?

I disagree, but even if I agreed, it wasn't the plot that made _Alien_
so fucking scary. It was the skillful creation of mood and atmosphere,
the exquisite building of tension along with one of the great payoffs
of cinema history, shock value back when shock actually _had_ value,
the truly disturbing imagery of the art design, the (for the time)
superior effects, excellent acting, and kickass music. In comparison,
_Friday the 13th_ isn't fit to lick up _Alien_'s acidic spittle.

>> I think what all those films did, that I don't find your average
>> horror film does all that well, is (a) build excruciating tension in
>> lieu of (or at least for a good long while before) explosive violence,
>> and (b) let the audience's imagination do most of the work in building
>> that tension before finally giving them the payoff.
>
>Event Horizon did that *extremely* well until it bottled it in the last act.
>I have friends - not particularly weak-stomached friends - who had to leave
>before it got that far.

I saw _Event Horizon_, and honestly remember very little about it
except thinking that Sam Neill really needs to get himself a decent
agent.

>> Instead they are
>> tightly focused on one central protagonist who has almost exclusive
>> command of the camera throughout, and everything is gradually revealed
>> only as she (they all seem to be female, too) discovers it.
>>
>> Interesting.
>
>Seemed pretty obvious to me. You've got three things working there:
>
>1) You're more likely to be afraid for a protagonist if you can identify
>with them. If there's only one protagonist, you get to know them better and
>so can identify more closely. Of course, being female helps this as well.

Well, yeah. This was implied in what I said.

>2) That which is not known is more frightening than that which is. The
>hardest part of a horror film to do is the reveal; it's hard to be scared
>when you know everything. And of course, if you know no more than the
>protagonist you have another point of identification.

Also implied, if not outright stated.

>3) Female protagonists inspire a sympathetic fear in female viewers and a
>protective response in male viewers.

True.

>Now, one interesting thing you *didn't* notice was the thing that connects
>the protagonists of What Lies Beneath, The Exorcist, The Ring and The
>Others.
>
>The answer is that they're all parents - as, for that matter, is Lynn Sear
>in The Sixth Sense. Also, four of those five films concern *single* mothers
>and the last has the mother in jeopardy.

Enh. I think this is more coincidence than pattern.


--
Leigh Butler
David Chapman
2003-10-15 23:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Leigh Butler did not say this. Leigh Butler was not here:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:58:31 +0100, "David Chapman"
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Leigh Butler did not say this. Leigh Butler was not here:
>>> . _Alien_, that scared the crap out
>>> of me.
>>
>> Alien? It's a great movie (and I look forward to the enhanced cut),
>> but plotwise it's no more than Friday the 13th In Space.
>
> Have I ever mentioned you're a freak?

Probably, and you were no more right then than now.

> I disagree, but even if I agreed, it wasn't the plot that made _Alien_
> so fucking scary. It was the skillful creation of mood and atmosphere,
> the exquisite building of tension along with one of the great payoffs
> of cinema history, shock value back when shock actually _had_ value,
> the truly disturbing imagery of the art design, the (for the time)
> superior effects, excellent acting, and kickass music.

But it also had one of the classic "character does something against all
logic and someone gets killed" moments, when Ripley goes back after the
ship's cat. Now, I've always defended this by saying that the Alien was
probably already aboard the Narcissus when she went and had Ripley stayed
she would have died along with Parker and Lambert, but it's still clumsy and
it hurts the payoff - as does the previously-fast moving Alien suddenly
seeming to have been dipped in lead for the finale.

The scariest scene in Alien is when Ripley revivifies Ash.

> In comparison,
> _Friday the 13th_ isn't fit to lick up _Alien_'s acidic spittle.

You *do* realise that I didn't actually compare the two films on any basis
other than the plot you find insignificant as a scariness factor? Friday
the 13th has its place, and indeed is one of the rare watchable slasher
movies, but of course Alien is the better film by far.

>>> I think what all those films did, that I don't find your average
>>> horror film does all that well, is (a) build excruciating tension in
>>> lieu of (or at least for a good long while before) explosive
>>> violence, and (b) let the audience's imagination do most of the
>>> work in building that tension before finally giving them the payoff.
>>
>> Event Horizon did that *extremely* well until it bottled it in the
>> last act. I have friends - not particularly weak-stomached friends -
>> who had to leave before it got that far.
>
> I saw _Event Horizon_, and honestly remember very little about it
> except thinking that Sam Neill really needs to get himself a decent
> agent.

He's doing what he likes to do, I think, not looking for fame or money.
Nobody does two films as similar as In The Mouth of Madness and Event
Horizon in the space of two years unless they want to or they can't get
anything else - and Sam Neill has never been short of work.

>> Now, one interesting thing you *didn't* notice was the thing that
>> connects the protagonists of What Lies Beneath, The Exorcist, The
>> Ring and The Others.
>>
>> The answer is that they're all parents - as, for that matter, is
>> Lynn Sear in The Sixth Sense. Also, four of those five films
>> concern *single* mothers and the last has the mother in jeopardy.
>
> Enh. I think this is more coincidence than pattern.

IME, it's a fairly strong pattern in the more thoughtful kind of horror
movie for the protagonist(s) either to be parents or recently bereaved. I
suspect it's because both make the character emotionally vulnerable in some
way.

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
Michelle J. Haines
2003-10-15 23:54:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.cis.dfn.de>,
***@paramount.com says...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:32:57 +0200, Johan Gustafsson
> <***@e-bostad.net> wrote:
>
> >Leigh Butler wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:48:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
> >> >if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
> >> >absolutely baffled.
> >>
> >> >Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
> >> >spoilers are being addressed below...
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
>
>
> The phone call doesn't? I thought it did. Doesn't it say something
> like "in seven days you will see the ring, and then you die"? Or was
> that only for the trailer?

The phone call was just Samara's voice whispering, "Seven days."

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)
Christopher Tong
2003-10-16 06:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Michelle J. Haines wrote:

> In article <***@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> ***@paramount.com says...

>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:32:57 +0200, Johan Gustafsson
>><***@e-bostad.net> wrote:

>>>Leigh Butler wrote:

>>>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:48:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
>>>>wrote:

>>>>>So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
>>>>>if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
>>>>>absolutely baffled.

>>>>>Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
>>>>>spoilers are being addressed below...









>>The phone call doesn't? I thought it did. Doesn't it say something
>>like "in seven days you will see the ring, and then you die"? Or was
>>that only for the trailer?

> The phone call was just Samara's voice whispering, "Seven days."

The Japanese version was much more creepy... it was like the soundtrack
of the video kept playing over the phone. No words spoken, just the
hoarse, heavy breathing... and that creepy reflection. As for how they
know they're dead in seven days, well, the lead just KNEW.

Chris
David Chapman
2003-10-16 08:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Michelle J. Haines did not say this. Michelle J. Haines was not here:
> In article <***@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> ***@paramount.com says...

>> The phone call doesn't? I thought it did. Doesn't it say something
>> like "in seven days you will see the ring, and then you die"? Or was
>> that only for the trailer?
>
> The phone call was just Samara's voice whispering, "Seven days."

Movie Trivia: Samara was played by Daveigh Chase, who played Samantha Darko
in the film Donnie Darko - which bears many similarities to the original
Ring.

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
morten k.
2003-10-16 15:36:45 UTC
Permalink
"David Chapman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f8e61b2$1$8763$***@news.dial.pipex.com...
<snip>
> Movie Trivia: Samara was played by Daveigh Chase, who played Samantha
Darko
> in the film Donnie Darko - which bears many similarities to the original
> Ring.
>
Huh? Such as?

--
Morten K.
David Chapman
2003-10-16 20:32:35 UTC
Permalink
morten k. did not say this. morten k. was not here:
> "David Chapman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f8e61b2$1$8763$***@news.dial.pipex.com...
> <snip>
>> Movie Trivia: Samara was played by Daveigh Chase, who played
>> Samantha Darko in the film Donnie Darko - which bears many
>> similarities to the original Ring.
>>
> Huh? Such as?

I'm not saying there's specific and direct connections; it's more a
stylistic thing.

Spoilers for Donnie Darko, Ringu/The Ring, Ring 0 and Ring 2:

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

Odd things happening in reflections and recordings, prediction of the
future/prophetic dreams, a general circular motif, and cryptic messages
delivered by a mysterious figure who turns out to be dead - the first of
which specifies a time limit on life.

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
morten k.
2003-10-17 01:24:03 UTC
Permalink
"David Chapman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f8f00d2$0$6631$***@news.dial.pipex.com...
> morten k. did not say this. morten k. was not here:
> > "David Chapman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f8e61b2$1$8763$***@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > <snip>
> >> Movie Trivia: Samara was played by Daveigh Chase, who played
> >> Samantha Darko in the film Donnie Darko - which bears many
> >> similarities to the original Ring.
> >>
> > Huh? Such as?
>
> I'm not saying there's specific and direct connections; it's more a
> stylistic thing.
>
> Spoilers for Donnie Darko, Ringu/The Ring, Ring 0 and Ring 2:
>
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
> #
>
> Odd things happening in reflections and recordings, prediction of the
> future/prophetic dreams, a general circular motif, and cryptic messages
> delivered by a mysterious figure who turns out to be dead - the first of
> which specifies a time limit on life.

Sorry, I'm really not convinced. These are all pretty common elements in
your basic "weird story"/"scary story"-type film. I concur, they are all
there in both films (although I'm not quite sure about the
reflections/recordings parallel concerning Donnie Darko)

It's all about keeping the audience in suspence. I'm not sure if this
qualifies as *movie trivia*, as I could surely point to similarities between
say The Ring and Lost Highway (being a movie I would not consider to be
comparable genrewise to DD). Surely a lot of films share similar elements,
but that doesn't necessarily mean that they _are_ similar.

I get your point, I'm just not convinced.
--
Morten K.
David Chapman
2003-10-14 20:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Leigh Butler did not say this. Leigh Butler was not here:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:48:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
> wrote:
>
>> So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it
>> even if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction,
>> I am absolutely baffled.
>
>> Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on?
>> Obviously, spoilers are being addressed below...
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How was Samora making the video? Same way she made the x-rays?
>
> (Samara.)
>
> Yes. She apparently has the ability to manipulate electromagnetic
> media, or light, or both, or something like that.

Just say she has spooky ghostlike supernatural powers. You don't have to
know what they are.

>> If I think I pieced together the mystery like a good little
>> movier-watcher, Samora's parents wanted a child very badly. They
>> did...something eldritch and unholy(?) to get one.
>
> Yeah, they were deliberately vague about that. But - there's going to
> be a sequel.

Technically speaking, there's already a sequel.

> and then we get that completely awesome and
> scary-as-hell scene of Samara climbing out of the TV to kill Noah
> (which freaked me right the fuck out, I don't mind saying),

It's far, far better done in the original Japanese movie.

> so the
> implication was that now her skeleton was out of the well, she was
> more powerful and could wreak more havoc or whatever.

No - that's how the victims always died before. Noah is wuuurggled in the
same way as the girl at the start, remember.

> But... well, she could kill people through the TV BEFORE Rachel
> "helped" her. So, what, now she can just be ten times more scary about
> it? I don't know. That didn't actually make a lot of sense to me.

I think it's that Naomi Watts thought that Samara made the video because she
wanted to be found and laid to rest, and was killing anyone who didn't help
her. The kid was saying that that was not what she needed to do.

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
Christian R. Williams
2003-10-14 21:44:11 UTC
Permalink
***@paramount.com (Leigh Butler) wrote in message news:<***@news.cis.dfn.de>...
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:48:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Also, even though Rachel "rescued" Samora, she's still pissed off and
> >Evil(tm)?
>
> Well, that was actually the one part of the movie I had a problem
> with. Rachel's son [1] is all, "You helped her? You weren't supposed
> to help her!" and then we get that completely awesome and
> scary-as-hell scene of Samara climbing out of the TV to kill Noah
> (which freaked me right the fuck out, I don't mind saying), so the
> implication was that now her skeleton was out of the well, she was
> more powerful and could wreak more havoc or whatever.

On a side note: That scene completely freaked me out in ways that I've
rarely been freaked out by horror movies before, what's most amusing
about it is that I can't specifically say WHY that is. Hey look,
dripping girl in a dirty dress climbs out of my tv and stalks me
down... that's not all that scary right? In theory? Maybe?

> But... well, she could kill people through the TV BEFORE Rachel
> "helped" her. So, what, now she can just be ten times more scary about
> it? I don't know. That didn't actually make a lot of sense to me.

I talked about this with a friend of mine who watched the movie with
me, our general assesment is that there's more to come. Before she was
limited to the TV right above her 'unresting place' and the ones that
the tape was played in. Presumably now she's got no such limitations.
The fear is that she's not at rest, she's just unleashed, and Noah was
just tidying up old business so to speak.

(fades back into the ether)

***@yahoo.com
formerly ***@home.com, ***@cqi.com (Hi Aunt Hawk)
Leigh Butler
2003-10-15 00:40:28 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Oct 2003 14:44:11 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Christian R.
Williams) wrote:
>***@paramount.com (Leigh Butler) wrote in message news:<***@news.cis.dfn.de>...

Reinserting spoiler space, just in case...






















>> then we get that completely awesome and
>> scary-as-hell scene of Samara climbing out of the TV to kill Noah
>> (which freaked me right the fuck out, I don't mind saying),

>On a side note: That scene completely freaked me out in ways that I've
>rarely been freaked out by horror movies before, what's most amusing
>about it is that I can't specifically say WHY that is. Hey look,
>dripping girl in a dirty dress climbs out of my tv and stalks me
>down... that's not all that scary right? In theory? Maybe?

I was amused in retrospect at my reaction to that scene too. I mean, I
realized in the theater that I was actually saying things like, "Oh,
shit!" OUT LOUD in the theater, which I never do.

And when she did that little "zap" forward thing - Dude, I jumped like
a foot.

Easily the strongest reaction a scary scene's got out me in forever.

--
Leigh Butler
Ryan don't call me gunga MacIntosh
2003-10-15 08:02:11 UTC
Permalink
***@paramount.com (Leigh Butler) wrote in message news:<***@news.cis.dfn.de>...
> On 14 Oct 2003 14:44:11 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Christian R.
> Williams) wrote:
> >***@paramount.com (Leigh Butler) wrote in message news:<***@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>
> Reinserting spoiler space, just in case...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> then we get that completely awesome and
> >> scary-as-hell scene of Samara climbing out of the TV to kill Noah
> >> (which freaked me right the fuck out, I don't mind saying),
>
> >On a side note: That scene completely freaked me out in ways that I've
> >rarely been freaked out by horror movies before, what's most amusing
> >about it is that I can't specifically say WHY that is. Hey look,
> >dripping girl in a dirty dress climbs out of my tv and stalks me
> >down... that's not all that scary right? In theory? Maybe?
>
> I was amused in retrospect at my reaction to that scene too. I mean, I
> realized in the theater that I was actually saying things like, "Oh,
> shit!" OUT LOUD in the theater, which I never do.
>
> And when she did that little "zap" forward thing - Dude, I jumped like
> a foot.
>
The little zap fastforward effect was cool I think the thing that made
it was so scarry was the fact that they inserted a cheap B-horror film
trick (the leap out suprise) into a genuinely creepy scene. Usually
you get one but not the other. Having both in there at the same time
did it for me. I think there was even more scariness in the images
flashing too fast to see bits, only they did it better this time than
in the exorsist. A part that really freaked me was simply the prospect
of the tv world merging with ours. I think most of us have a strong
belief that what we see in the box should stay in the box. Girl
jumping outta the tv is like a barracuda jumping outta the fish tank,
it's just not supposed to happen.

By the by, the shot at the begining where they zoom in on the girls
head reallllly fast and cut, was stolen from evil dead. (unless
someone did it before rami)

Word of advice: (this isn't first hand experience, I know a guy who
knows a guy who knows some people) don't watch a movie like this at
the theatres while on strange drugs or too much alcohol. I know one
girl wimpered alot while another guy reportedly yelled out "thats one
ugly bitch!" when first glimpsing the dead girl in the closet.


Don't call me gunga
Michelle J. Haines
2003-10-14 21:49:23 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@webspan.net>, ***@webspan.net says...
> So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
> if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
> absolutely baffled.

My husband and I watched this when it was on PPV a few months ago.
My husband had nightmares about it, which is something he hasn't done
since he had nightmares about the cartoon Planet of the Apes when he
was three. He has definitively stated he never wants to watch any of
this movie again, ever.

I also found it pretty damned creepy, and had trouble sleeping for a
few days.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How was Samora making the video? Same way she made the x-rays?
>
> If I think I pieced together the mystery like a good little
> movier-watcher, Samora's parents wanted a child very badly. They
> did...something eldritch and unholy(?) to get one. What they got was
> Samora, a child who did not sleep and projected evil vibes and images
> everywhere, which had the added benefit of driving horses(!) to suicide.

There's a Ring website, that explains some of the story background
and follows the mythology of the various Japanese movies and the
book. There's some odd stuff there. Including some indications that
someone in the story was fathered by a Japanese god/demon.

> Rachel (Naomi Watts), her ex and her son all watched the tape, and thus
> all were given one week to live. But, only her ex (Jeff?) was killed at
> the end. What gives?

Rachel made a copy of the tape and showed it to someone else, so she
was spared. Having her son do the same thing means he was also
spared. Unfortunately, the person he shows the tape to probably
won't be so lucky.

> I'm sure I missed gobs of the story, but I was also reading or
> something.

I feel that way about most of the Japanese films I watch, including
Anime. Like there's just something there I'm supposed to know and
don't.

Also, I think part of the fright of the movies is that somehow, you
know this child is profoundly fucked up, but you don't know why, or
what happened that terrified the townspeople, or what.

Michelle
Flutist
--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)
Jamie Bowden
2003-10-15 13:06:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Michelle J. Haines wrote:
> In article <***@webspan.net>, ***@webspan.net says...

> > So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it
> > even if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I
> > am absolutely baffled.

> My husband and I watched this when it was on PPV a few months ago. My
> husband had nightmares about it, which is something he hasn't done since
> he had nightmares about the cartoon Planet of the Apes when he was
> three. He has definitively stated he never wants to watch any of this
> movie again, ever.

> I also found it pretty damned creepy, and had trouble sleeping for a few
> days.

You people need to get out more, it was a suspense horror flick that was a
nice two hour expose' of Ms. Watts. It was well done, but still far too
removed from reality to have any lasting creepiness value once the credits
are rolling.

Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <***@alaric.org.uk>
Sean O'Hara
2003-10-15 21:22:51 UTC
Permalink
In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Jamie Bowden declared...
>
> You people need to get out more, it was a suspense horror flick that was a
> nice two hour expose' of Ms. Watts. It was well done, but still far too
> removed from reality to have any lasting creepiness value once the credits
> are rolling.
>
Huh? What? The *only* films I ever find creepy are the ones that
are unhinged from reality, the ones where things happen that
don't make sense. Realistic horror/thrillers like Silence of the
Lambs are completely unscary.

--
Sean O'Hara
Gibberish in Neutral: http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/
Billy Todd
2003-10-15 22:17:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:22:51 -0400, Sean O'Hara
<***@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Jamie Bowden declared...
>>
>> You people need to get out more, it was a suspense horror flick that was a
>> nice two hour expose' of Ms. Watts. It was well done, but still far too
>> removed from reality to have any lasting creepiness value once the credits
>> are rolling.
>>
>Huh? What? The *only* films I ever find creepy are the ones that
>are unhinged from reality, the ones where things happen that
>don't make sense. Realistic horror/thrillers like Silence of the
>Lambs are completely unscary.

It has never once occured to me that Silence of the Lambs was supposed
to be Horror or even scary. Disturbing, maybe, but not scary.

--
Billy Todd ***@Spambegone.please.comporium.net
"From time to time you have to put up with someone demanding to
know whose brilliant goddamned idea it was to eat at a restaurant
whose main menu item is vinegar-soaked contraceptive sponges."
-Jim Hill, r.a.sf.w.r-j
Sean O'Hara
2003-10-16 01:37:02 UTC
Permalink
In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Billy Todd declared...
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:22:51 -0400, Sean O'Hara
> <***@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
> >Huh? What? The *only* films I ever find creepy are the ones that
> >are unhinged from reality, the ones where things happen that
> >don't make sense. Realistic horror/thrillers like Silence of the
> >Lambs are completely unscary.
>
> It has never once occured to me that Silence of the Lambs was supposed
> to be Horror or even scary. Disturbing, maybe, but not scary.
>
The novel won the Bram Stoker Award in 1988, so apparently the
Horror Writers of America consider it horror.

http://www.horror.org/stokerwinnom.htm#1988

--
Sean O'Hara
Gibberish in Neutral: http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/
Jamie Bowden
2003-10-16 12:35:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Sean O'Hara wrote:

> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Jamie Bowden declared...
> >
> > You people need to get out more, it was a suspense horror flick that was a
> > nice two hour expose' of Ms. Watts. It was well done, but still far too
> > removed from reality to have any lasting creepiness value once the credits
> > are rolling.
> >
> Huh? What? The *only* films I ever find creepy are the ones that
> are unhinged from reality, the ones where things happen that
> don't make sense. Realistic horror/thrillers like Silence of the
> Lambs are completely unscary.

I didn't say it wasn't creepy, I said once the credits roll, you can
safely forget about it, the creep factor doesn't hold up past the end of
the flick.

Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <***@alaric.org.uk>
Michelle J. Haines
2003-10-16 00:03:46 UTC
Permalink
In article <Pine.SGI.4.44.0310150903030.290972-100000
@dragon.wdc.photon.com>, ***@photon.com says...
>
> You people need to get out more, it was a suspense horror flick that was a
> nice two hour expose' of Ms. Watts. It was well done, but still far too
> removed from reality to have any lasting creepiness value once the credits
> are rolling.

:P

We're lucky if we see two or three movies a year, but people who do
get out more than we do have also found it frightening. So there.

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)
Sean O'Hara
2003-10-14 23:46:26 UTC
Permalink
In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Richard Boye'
declared...
> So, I watched "The Ring" the other night on cable, and I enjoyed it even
> if it did scare the bejeezus out of me, but upon retropesction, I am
> absolutely baffled.
>
> But before we address my bafflement, let's all pause and reflect on what
> a beautiful woman Naomi Watts is.
>
>
> Okay. Moving on.
>
> Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
> spoilers are being addressed below...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How was Samora making the video? Same way she made the x-rays?
>
Presumably. She is supernatural and all.

> If I think I pieced together the mystery like a good little
> movier-watcher, Samora's parents wanted a child very badly. They
> did...something eldritch and unholy(?) to get one.

They went away from the island and came back with a child they
said was adopted even though the birth certificate clearly
lists the Morgans as the natural parents. Obviously they
did *something* they didn't want to talk about, but exactly
what remains a mystery.

> So, her mother put a bag over her head and dropped her down a well,
> where her Evil(tm) lingered and lingered.
>
Interestingly, in medieval folklore, wells were often the home
of spirits who liked to knock women up. I don't know whether
that myth's localized to Europe or if they have a variant
in Japan, but maybe Mama was just sending her back home.

> Rachel (Naomi Watts), her ex and her son all watched the tape, and thus
> all were given one week to live. But, only her ex (Jeff?) was killed at
> the end. What gives?
>
Apparently Samara wants to spread her evil so badly that she
spares anyone who makes a copy of the tape and shows it to
someone else. That's why Rachel was helping her son make a copy
in the last scene.

> Also, even though Rachel "rescued" Samora, she's still pissed off and
> Evil(tm)?
>
Yes, I thought that was a nice twist on the standard ghost story
(see A Stir of Echos for an example) where the spirit goes
away peacefully once her body's found. Samara, it turns out,
is just fucking evil.

--
Sean O'Hara
Gibberish in Neutral: http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/
MT
2003-10-16 05:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Richard Boye' <***@webspan.net> wrote in news:3F8B47F8.1077
@webspan.net:

> Can someone please explain to me what the hell was going on? Obviously,
> spoilers are being addressed below...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
First off, I highly recommend seeing the orignial Japanese movie "Ringu"
(Avaliable through Amazon or other places). It's photography and effects
aren't as good, but the story is far better, and more believable (if
believablility can be applied to the supernatural) than the American
remake.

I won't point out the differences in story here so as not to spoil those
who want to watch it, but suffice it to say that it draws on the
Japanese/Anime Demon/spirits/etc theme.

There are in fact five Japanese movies based on Ringu. You can find more
than you wanted to know about the movies here:
http://ringworld.somrux.com/
David Chapman
2003-10-16 08:50:23 UTC
Permalink
MT did not say this. MT was not here:

> First off, I highly recommend seeing the orignial Japanese movie
> "Ringu"

> I won't point out the differences in story here so as not to spoil
> those who want to watch it, but suffice it to say that it draws on the
> Japanese/Anime Demon/spirits/etc theme.

Though I must hasten to add that nobody gets tentacle raped.

--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
Jasper Janssen
2003-10-17 21:49:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:50:23 +0100, "David Chapman"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Though I must hasten to add that nobody gets tentacle raped.

And i was so looking forward to a live action version of that when I
watched Ringu[1] tonight.


Jasper

[1] I'm using this as shorthand for Japanese ring, as opposed to US Ring.
Michael Bruce
2003-10-20 17:37:44 UTC
Permalink
In <***@4ax.com>, Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:50:23 +0100, "David Chapman"
><***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Though I must hasten to add that nobody gets tentacle raped.
>
> And i was so looking forward to a live action version of that when I
> watched Ringu[1] tonight.
>
>
> Jasper
>
> [1] I'm using this as shorthand for Japanese ring, as opposed to US Ring.

It looks like your shorthand didn't work out so well.

--
Michael Bruce
http://log.ibruce.org/
Jasper Janssen
2003-10-21 23:02:15 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:37:44 -0500, ***@jhereg.net (Michael Bruce)
wrote:
>In <***@4ax.com>, Jasper Janssen wrote:

>> watched Ringu[1] tonight.

>> [1] I'm using this as shorthand for Japanese ring, as opposed to US Ring.
>
>It looks like your shorthand didn't work out so well.

If people only used acronyms that didn't need explaining the first usage,
there wouldn't be any.


Jasper
Loading...