|
|
Post by mrfatso on Apr 28, 2015 10:44:18 GMT
"Willis" (Todd Bridges) is very much alive. He did, however, have issues with crack cocaine for a while. Dana Plato, the actress who played his sister "Kim", did die of an overdose. Thanks for correcting me, I must have mixed up the two stories in my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 28, 2015 14:36:13 GMT
Bummer about sweeten. was appearing in the show related or just a way for people to have a connection? we'll probably never know. You are probably right, unless there is an inquest as we would have here, we will not no the real cause, but this is where I differ from Cyber, the list of former child actors that die from suicide or drug overdose is high, River Phoenix, the actor that played Willis in Different Strokes for example. There are other like Drew Barrymore who get into drugs , though she has manage to recover her life. If you look online thee are a number of lists of former child stars that have got themselves into,trouble or sadly died, it may be the fact they had too much money too young, or the fact their careers ended far too soon but I think there is something there. an inquest can't really answer that particular question, because the only person who can give answers that aren't just speculation is dead. (and really, he could only have speculated how his life would have been different without show business) |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 28, 2015 14:36:44 GMT
And maybe the irreverent humour. I LOVED the films, not so much because of the action, or the story, but the throw-away lines that made me pause the film until I could see through the tears of laughter... If anyone knows the scene, the Fork stuck in the wooden glass eye?... Who DIDNT laugh loudly at that?... Like the Matrix movies, the first was entertaining. The rest, not so much. Completely forgettable for me, in fact, and a waste of film/digital memory. I vaguely remember that the last "Pirates" wasn't completely awful, but I couldn't tell you the plot if you held a cutlass to my throat.  Your mileage may vary. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 28, 2015 15:11:04 GMT
And maybe the irreverent humour. I LOVED the films, not so much because of the action, or the story, but the throw-away lines that made me pause the film until I could see through the tears of laughter... If anyone knows the scene, the Fork stuck in the wooden glass eye?... Who DIDNT laugh loudly at that?... Like the Matrix movies, the first was entertaining. The rest, not so much. Completely forgettable for me, in fact, and a waste of film/digital memory. I vaguely remember that the last "Pirates" wasn't completely awful, but I couldn't tell you the plot if you held a cutlass to my throat. Your mileage may vary. plot??? why have a plot? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 28, 2015 16:11:23 GMT
Unfortunately I know too much about the Royal Navy of that period to avoid finding the Pirates films annoying.
And yes, it says a lot about me that the funniest part of the film was when a character was promoted to a rank that the Royal Navy didn't possess for another 300 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 28, 2015 16:27:22 GMT
Unfortunately I know too much about the Royal Navy of that period to avoid finding the Pirates films annoying. And yes, it says a lot about me that the funniest part of the film was when a character was promoted to a rank that the Royal Navy didn't possess for another 300 years. what part of "check your brain at the door" did you miss? |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 28, 2015 23:56:14 GMT
I see the problem. It's a movie based not on history, a famous novel, or even an original concept, but...an amusement park ride? As the MBs say: "THERE'S your problem!"  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 29, 2015 8:55:31 GMT
Unfortunately I know too much about the Royal Navy of that period to avoid finding the Pirates films annoying. And yes, it says a lot about me that the funniest part of the film was when a character was promoted to a rank that the Royal Navy didn't possess for another 300 years. Why let reality spoil history?... Anyone here know the problem?.. Spot what is wrong in the following... answers at the bottom of the post.   So the problems are?... Horns on helmets can be attributed to year 1800 approx opera fashion?... Adornments like that may have been on ceremonial hats, but in a fight, snagged by tree branch or stuck on a wooden shield or side of building may have hindered the wearer. The axe?... You put it on the pole the wrong way round. The long "spike" goes UPWARDS... that way, if its thrown, it sticks in things. Vikings and other warriors used Axes as dual purpose axe and spear, so either thrust it forwards or throw it, the spike sticks in, twist, rip, and release.... I know a few battle re-enactment archaeology groups who put such things to the test. However, "Hollyfoolswood" would have us believe the past was much more "Colourful" than we would believe. Including the thing I watched where my Missus said I was being pedantic, but the sailor clean shaven after a week or two voyage at sea with a simple boat and no obvious shaving equipment?... How?... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 29, 2015 13:59:38 GMT
actually, they made axes in both directions, depending on how it was to be used. as for the horns, the horns served the same function as the big gold dinner plate served for Christians. - it let you figure out who was a saint and who wasn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 29, 2015 15:45:30 GMT
The 'horns' were, I think, mentioned in regards Viking raiders during the dark ages. Of course those who did the writing were monks, so they may have been using 'horns' in the demonic rather than literal sense. They may also have seen, or been talking to those, who had seen Vikings who wore helms that had cheekguards that could be pushed upwards if the wearer wanted to cool down. As it is unlikely you'd keep the cheek-armour raised if there was a chance of being in a fight such a sight was probably at some distance.
Axes varied somewhat in design, but the basic Viking axe was a single cresent shaped blade on a straight wooden handle who's length was based on the height of the user. There were two general types, the 'everyday' wood axe you'd find every Viking owning and a 'war' version that was developed from the 'civilain' version. The war versions had a somewhat different edge to the blade, usually had metal reinforcement on the shaft and the shaft was sometimes curved to allow for a more powerful swing. Both versions were designed to be usable one-handed with a shield or two handed without a shield - the reinforcements on the shaft were there to allow the weapon to parry blows without damaging the shaft. Axes also tended to have a leather wrist strap (as did swords) which allowed the weapon to be dangled off the wrist while you did something else with the hand, probably hold a spear or bow, and then bring the weapon back into the hand with a flick of the wrist. This might also have been a way to switch between a sword and axe given that swords had/have a nasty habit of bending or breaking if you go around hitting things with it.
'War' axes were for the more professional warriors, which would most likely have been those who conducted many of the Viking raids. Likewise swords were more status symbols that weapons of choice for most warriors due to being very expensive. It seems that the 'average' Viking was more likely to be armed with a shield, spear, axe, a Sax (a short sword or long knife depending on your point of view) and a bow.
We have, of course, to be careful at making too many generalizations as to the design of Viking weapons as this changed over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Apr 29, 2015 17:34:57 GMT
The local movie theater is dumping "The Longest Ride", "Monkey Kingdom", and "Get Hard" to free up more screens for "Avengers: Age of Ultron".
It's rare for them to dump a film before it's had a full month, let alone three such films at once.
Either these three tanked hard locally, or they're expecting Avengers to be just that huge.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 30, 2015 0:33:46 GMT
The 'horns' were, I think, mentioned in regards Viking raiders during the dark ages. Of course those who did the writing were monks, so they may have been using 'horns' in the demonic rather than literal sense. They may also have seen, or been talking to those, who had seen Vikings who wore helms that had cheekguards that could be pushed upwards if the wearer wanted to cool down. As it is unlikely you'd keep the cheek-armour raised if there was a chance of being in a fight such a sight was probably at some distance. Axes varied somewhat in design, but the basic Viking axe was a single cresent shaped blade on a straight wooden handle who's length was based on the height of the user. There were two general types, the 'everyday' wood axe you'd find every Viking owning and a 'war' version that was developed from the 'civilain' version. The war versions had a somewhat different edge to the blade, usually had metal reinforcement on the shaft and the shaft was sometimes curved to allow for a more powerful swing. Both versions were designed to be usable one-handed with a shield or two handed without a shield - the reinforcements on the shaft were there to allow the weapon to parry blows without damaging the shaft. Axes also tended to have a leather wrist strap (as did swords) which allowed the weapon to be dangled off the wrist while you did something else with the hand, probably hold a spear or bow, and then bring the weapon back into the hand with a flick of the wrist. This might also have been a way to switch between a sword and axe given that swords had/have a nasty habit of bending or breaking if you go around hitting things with it. 'War' axes were for the more professional warriors, which would most likely have been those who conducted many of the Viking raids. Likewise swords were more status symbols that weapons of choice for most warriors due to being very expensive. It seems that the 'average' Viking was more likely to be armed with a shield, spear, axe, a Sax (a short sword or long knife depending on your point of view) and a bow. We have, of course, to be careful at making too many generalizations as to the design of Viking weapons as this changed over time. there may be something to the cheekguard theory - some of the fancier norse helms did appear to have hinged cheekguards - which were mainly to allow a closer fit. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 4, 2015 20:39:40 GMT
"The Gunman" is now toast.
It made just under $11m domestic on a $40m production budget, and officially left theaters back on the 30th of April.
It's going to need strong overseas sales to get out of that hole, but with Furious 7 and Avengers I doubt that'll happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 5, 2015 10:21:07 GMT
The what-man?....
(Wikipedia)
Erm... snooze button on that 'till it gets to TV I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on May 5, 2015 20:52:54 GMT
It did not do any better here so I doubt overseas sales will help much, it was released and left cinemas in about the same time scale.
Sean Penn tough guy, yeah right.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 6, 2015 0:29:17 GMT
It did not do any better here so I doubt overseas sales will help much, it was released and left cinemas in about the same time scale. Sean Penn tough guy, yeah right. this IS the same Sean Penn who used to beat up photographers isn't he? |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on May 6, 2015 4:17:19 GMT
It did not do any better here so I doubt overseas sales will help much, it was released and left cinemas in about the same time scale. Sean Penn tough guy, yeah right. this IS the same Sean Penn who used to beat up photographers isn't he? Throwing punches at paparazzi is not exactly The Rumble in the Jungle. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 6, 2015 4:20:39 GMT
this IS the same Sean Penn who used to beat up photographers isn't he? Throwing punches at paparazzi is not exactly The Rumble in the Jungle. true. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 6, 2015 7:39:11 GMT
Throwing punches at paparazzi is not exactly The Rumble in the Jungle. true. ...and some of those paps bloody well deserved it. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 6, 2015 14:43:36 GMT
...and some of those paps bloody well deserved it. but still more physical than running them over with a car, as some of our celebutwits do. |
|
