Recently watched movies

[Doctor X]

いえとんでもないです。

--j.d.

[Mike Covell]

Are we talking Akira Kurosawa?

Were you aware he is directing a remake of "The Seven Samurai"?

[Doctor X]

Yes.

The above is a [Pompous.--Ed.] way of saying, "oh no, don't mention it."

Ikiru is probably one of the greatest films ever made, period.

There have already been a number of remakes of The Seven Samurai. The most recent I am aware of is the anime Samurai Seven which, like most of that particular genre--"large robot-fu!--sucks the big diseased one.

I am unaware of any remakes in the proper jidai-geki genre the original was made, and Kurosawa is quite dead.

His daughter, however, does costumes and worked on Takeshi Kitano's phenomenal Zatoichi.

--J.D.

[Mike Covell]

Kurosawa is quite dead.

--J.D.

Here is the link J.D, from IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000041/

Showing someone using his name, directing and producing films!!

[Doctor X]

Here is the link J.D, from IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000041/

Showing someone using his name, directing and producing films!!

Ah, no! They are giving him writing credit. Hence the "(story)." This is why he is given credit for, apparently, an Australian version of Tsubaki Sanjuro. Similarly Umi Wa Miteita.

Since there is no detail, this may be only a "place-holder" of which there are tons on IMDB.

Interviewer: You are making a film with Marilyn Monroe?

Director: Yes.

I: Who died over twenty years ago?

D: Yes!

I: How?

D: We dug her up, gave her a screen-test--a mere formality in her case--

I: But is she actually in the film?!

D: She is in every scene.

I: How?

D: Lying on the bed, lying on the floor, falling out of the closet, scaring the children--

I: But I heard she was cremated!

D: Yeesssss . . . we had to use a stand-in actress for the close-ups?

I: Another actress?

D: Another dead actress actually!

I: Well, how can you say she's in the film?

D: She's in every scene.

I: What?

D: In the fire grate, in the ashtray--

I: So she's not really in the film at all!

D: No.

I: You're on of the filmworld's most arrogant queens! Not just a limp-wristed walking perfume shop!

--J. "I'm Not Dead!" D.

[Mike Covell]

I just heard the remake of Prom Night is number 1 in the USA!!

I love the origional, especially when Leslie Nielson starts dancing!! Scary!!

A few years back the orig was hard to get in the UK, but I managed to track a copy down and was quite excited about it, I visited the local record shop, as I was an MC and all the local DJ's and MC's met here, with my newly aquired copy. I got chatting to a promoter who was handing out flyers for a gig I was playing at, and she too was intrested in cheesy horror!

Fast forward 7 years and we are married with two kids!!

But we still love cheesy horror!

[Doctor X]

I generally hate remakes since they rarely improve the original. One massive exception is John Carpenter's The Thing. The original had all of the worse elements of the original story which was written by one of the more infamous hacks--if humans were not superior to the aliens, he would not publish your story!

Starring at a wall of FAIL at a rental store with a friend, I wondered why Hollywood has not tried to remake The Holy Grail--with . . . like . . . Will Farrell, Rob Schneider, and worse! It would make money, unfortunately.

I recommended the original to Star Wars--Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress with various other bits stolen from some of his other films and, yes, an anime or two--to a person who loved the series . . . he now states he can no longer watch Lucas.

"And another soul from Hell springs!"

--J.D.

[Maria]

I've been to Nazca. The lines are pretty cool, but anyone could have made them. In fact, I would say the Mississippian culture of middle America did more impressive things with ordinary piles of dirt.

Mike

The Good Michael:

No. Not everyone could have made them, since the purpose for these drawings its still very much unclear, and it is not a competition either, these were done by Native American cultures before Europeans arrived to steal their lands. Rather than understand their cultures, in the U.S. for example, they were practically wiped out and now the indigenous population has been marginalized in the least fertile grounds.

- Maria

I'm surprised to see Magpie calling Graham Hancock an ***hole (I read his Ark book and wasn't drawn to that conclusion) and Maria calling his conclusions silly. Perhaps some are (I've not read much of his work), but I must say the man has reasoning powers and knowledge the likes of which are sorely lacking in most fields of theory, including our very own. Can Mike Covell or anyone else who hasn't written off Graham Hancock as an ***hole recommend any other of his books?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Shouldn't this thread be called 'Recently Read Books and Conventions Attended'?

Tom,

I think you owe me an apology too, since I clearly said Von Danikken NOT Graham Hankock !!!

I have met Graham Hankock briefly on one of his lectures at the Fortean Times Un-convention. His lecture was spell-binding ! I do in fact believe in Hancock theories, specially the one about sunken continents and even though some astronomers do not agree with his conclusions about the Orion Mystery where he said that the pyramids were built on how Orion is lined up, I do, since the earth has moved from 3,000 years ago, the Egyptians worshiped the sun above all and the moon and the stars, so to me, it makes perfect sense.

Besides, Graham Hancock has gone to all these places and done under water diving and he has shown us the man made structures which are there to be seen, some of these, are perfect circular structures with man made steps, deep underwater, and also very tall walls well lined up that cannot be something whimsical appearing in nature.

Again, what I said about the Maya culture or the Nazca culture or the Inca culture its that it was not made by space aliens as Von Danikkan claims, that is stupid and baseless. O.K. ?

- Maria

[Doctor X]

Besides, Graham Hancock has gone to all these places and done under water diving and he has shown us the man made structures which are there to be seen, some of these, are circular structures of man made steps, deep underwater.

He has done no such thing. He has lied about the evidence. The "steps" have been debunked to him, personally, so much that he behaves like Patricia dealing with Sickert. Both know how their meal tickets are punched.

One can start Here, and Here.

This rather summarizes Hancock:

The programme had created the impression that he (Graham Hancock) was an intellectual fraudster who had put forward half baked theories and ideas in bad faith, and that he was incompetent to defend his own arguments.

Adjudication: (The Commission) finds no unfairness to Mr Hancock in these matters.

BBC Adjudication

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Maria]

Doctor X:

The deep underwater structures in Japan do coincide with ancient Japanese legends that part of their island was sunk in a Typhoon hundreds and thousands of years ago. It is very hard for contemperary science to accept that big masses of land can be sank under the sea. Despite evidence and despite the recent changes in weather conditions and despite being known that tectonic plates do move and new continents emerge whilst others sink. You only have to think about Plato´s lost continent of Atlantis and ancient Santorinii being sunk under water. Nothing is stable you know... and Hancock is showing us the evidence, orthodox science does not want to admit it because some of these concepts contradicts their beliefs.

Just the same way that there are scientists out there, who are saying there are no global changes in the planet, when everyone can see that there are plain changes going on. Just because they say they are scientists, does not mean they are right when it is very clear to everyone that it did not snow in April, it is still snowing in April here in the U.K. People who challenge scientists are usually derided as cranks.

- Maria

[Doctor X]

The deep underwater structures in Japan do coincide with ancient Japanese legends. . . .

But not with the science, and the progenitors to the Japanese did not live in Japan "hundreds and thousands of years ago" and their language is not old enough to preserve such legends. "Ancient legends" also hold that the world is flat and exists in a "bubble" that holds back the waters. They also hold that everything was created out of the guts of a monster. Japanese legends hold the whole thing was created by the drippings off of of an oar.

So which is true?

It is very hard for contemperary science to accept that big masses of land can be sank under the sea.

No, science simply wants evidence.

Despite evidence. . . .

That is rather the point, the evidence shows that the structures are natural.

You only have to think about Plato´s lost continent of Atlantis. . . .

Which, like his cave, was a story.

. . . orthodox science does not want to admit it because some of these concepts contradicts their beliefs.

This reads rather like a Mason or Sickert proponent:

. . . orthodox Ripperologists do not want to admit it because some of these concept contradicts their beliefs.

Neat. However, it is not an argument nor a theory.

On the contrary, "orthodox science" [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.] merely wants evidence not fabrications. Why does Hancock fabricate? Why does he make up evidence. Should not have to do that if he is honest, yes?

Plate-tectonics was considered "contradicting orthodox science's beliefs"--oh my!--until the evidence demonstrated the validity of the model.

That science is studying things now does not make a fraud not a fraud.

Feel free, however, to show where those debunking links are wrong.

--J. "The Turtle Moves" D.

[Doctor X]

I will note, en passant, the misnomer that the addition of "orthodox" creates when added to science. Science is a process that either works or does not. There is no unorthodox science: there is only pseudoscience and failure.

To argue otherwise is to argue that reality changes depending on location or opinion.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Maria]

Doctor X

How about Isaac Newton when he put aside the work of the scientist Imanuel Velikovsky ?

Isaac Newton did not believe that the earth could be hit and destroyed by asteroids, he was a Christian so he dismissed the book " Worlds In Colision " by Imanuel Velikoksy. It is only recently that finally scientists have discovered that Velikovsky was right after all !!

It is only a few years ago that there were corporate scientists who were telling us that there is no green house effect. Whilst another group of scientists were propounding the green house theory, a third set of scientists were saying quite the opposite, that is... we are coming to a new ice age era. So which one is it then ? Who of these group of scientists is right ? and who is wrong ? as not all three groups are right.

Obviously, the corporate scientists are wrong but were only telling us this, in order to justify drillling for petrol in the artic, so that leaves the second lot and the third set of scientists who is right ? The second ones or the third ones ? Green house effect ? or a new ice-age era ? So do we start buying shorts and sun-tan lotion or do we start hording kerosene to keep warm ?

Only today, there was an article in all the newspapers that scientists are now saying drinking vitamins can shorten your life spam.... Maybe in a year´s time, a new lot of scientists will come up to say vitamines make you live 100 years.

- Maria

[Doctor X]

How about Isaac Newton when he put aside the work of the scientist Imanuel Velikovsky ?

Irrelevant. Newton was a dead long before Immanuel began his story telling. Newton also believed in astrology. That Newton was right about some things and wrong about others does not lend any credibility to another theory, particularly one that is contradicted by his valid theories.

That gravity thing. . . .

It is only recently that finally scientists have discovered that Velikovsky was right after all !!

Wrong. Astronomers knew of the possibility long before Immanuel; they also knew his delusions regarding Venus were impossible. This the old boy could never surmount. He lacked evidence. He failed to make up for it in bluster.

Makes a confession of faith regarding "corporate scientists."

Non sequitur with a dash of Poisoning the Well.

None of that gives credence to the fantasies of Velikovsky. They certainly do not rehabilitate a fraud such as Hancock.

You offer a variation of the "They Laughed at Edison!" fallacy. Actually, they did not until he started proposing absurd ideas that failed like cement homes equipped with cement furniture and "gravity shields." In other words, "they" also laughed at Bozo.

When you have evidence that support either, please do present it. Pleading is not evidence.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Gideon Fell]

Doctor X is one of my favorite movies.