|
Post by geode on Dec 17, 2018 19:22:30 GMT
Although I have not seen this one
it does look totally awesome from it's Wikipedia write-up .
Thanks so much faustus5 for this film recommendation
and your reply here too . I hate it. It is pretentious insipid tripe. Don't mince words, what do you really think?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 16, 2018 13:34:17 GMT
When I first encountered the poster you are talking to on the old board I assumed that he was a JW because his posting was almost 100% inline with being one. His non-Trinitarian stance and other things stood out. But some years ago I seem to remember him posting that he would be a JW but was not allowed to formally be part of them. It didn't really matter to me, and at the time there were a couple of JWs posting on the board that I interfaced with more. We often agreed on the subjects at hand, in fact I only remember one disagreement I ever had with a JW, where I disagreed with them in general. This was about blood transfusions, where I think they clearly misinterpret scripture. The JW posting at the time was advocating the benefits of shunning transfusions, linking to a JW site. I think that was the only time I might have been perceived as criticizing that denomination. I was in discussions about JW missionary work and shared some similarities to the missionary program of the church I used to belong to, the Mormon church.
I have criticized the Mormons more than any other church as I do not tend to criticize other religions other than the one I grew up in and left. I feel more justified in doing so. The irony was that when I posted about the Mormons excommunicating members that were protesting some of their practices a few weeks ago only one poster defended the Mormon church and that was CoolJGS. I didn't ask, but from what he wrote it sounded as if he agreed because The Mormons and JWs are perhaps the most similar in the way the handle dissidents out of all the Christian sects.
But that reminds me of the multiple occasions I have defended the JWs when somebody was calling them a cult. The JWs posting at that time replied to me in appreciation. I consider them to be a Christian sect.
My beliefs don't actually align with JW's which is why Isapop 'sinsistence if both funny and indicative of his ignorance of me and JW's. I am non-denominational primarily because of the trinity which I think is the most blatant misreading of Scripture out there and it is unfortunately shared by the two largest denominations since they sprout from the one. My church is a compromise as it doesn't bother putting any kind of focus on it and thus the teaching gravitates naturally toward God and Jesus being distinctly different. Anything that aligns with me and JW's is almost entirely based on Scripture interpretation because, as I said, I believe they are most accurate regarding it or at least believe it is more important to go by Scripture than by their tenets. However, NO church out there exists solely off off the Bible. They must create additional tenets and dogma in order to create an order, to abide by laws, & apply it to whatever timeframe the religion exists in. That's where they fall short imo. Everything they do has a Scriptural reason, but that doesn't mean they aren't overreaching. I defend Witnesses a lot because there's a lot of them in my family and I know them and I also know how easy it is to navigate the website which literally discusses everything about them belief wise. Me saying that Russia sucks for banning them should in no way indicate that I am one, it should indicate that Russia sucks for attacking pacifists. That said, there are worse things than being accused of being a JW. If it keeps Isapop humorous to me, he can accuse me all day long. His posts largely are "Derp! That can't be right because JW's don't think that! Derp!"
I am currently non-denominational as well. I think that although scripture is somewhat mixed as to the Trinity, that predominantly it indicates that God (as in the Father) and Jesus are separate. But I don't think that the New World translation is the best in terms of interpreting scripture. As I said, the JW interpretation about receiving blood transfusions is clearly wrong.
True, every church creates their own practices and theology to some extent. I find it difficult to argue against a pacifist stand. I understand defending JWs when unfairly attacked. I have done it myself and I am clearly not a JW. I do not feel it bad to be called a JW.
One can identify anyway they wish in terms of religious affiliation. Although non-denominational I do not regularly attend services as you do, and I am comfortable with worshiping with many Christian denominations even though I do not believe portions of their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 14, 2018 6:11:32 GMT
ive explained why I don’t reference my specific church. However, that in no way means that I would then lie. I keep waiting for some kind of proofs you have after I have repeatedly stated I wasn’t. If I were one of JW’s I would proudly announce it. You'd like to pretend we haven't been over this before. I can almost recite word for word what I've told you in the past, but it seems I must do it again. I have never said you are a JW. I know, formally by baptism, that you are not. On this board, that gives you a factual deniability.
When I first encountered the poster you are talking to on the old board I assumed that he was a JW because his posting was almost 100% inline with being one. His non-Trinitarian stance and other things stood out. But some years ago I seem to remember him posting that he would be a JW but was not allowed to formally be part of them. It didn't really matter to me, and at the time there were a couple of JWs posting on the board that I interfaced with more. We often agreed on the subjects at hand, in fact I only remember one disagreement I ever had with a JW, where I disagreed with them in general. This was about blood transfusions, where I think they clearly misinterpret scripture. The JW posting at the time was advocating the benefits of shunning transfusions, linking to a JW site. I think that was the only time I might have been perceived as criticizing that denomination. I was in discussions about JW missionary work and shared some similarities to the missionary program of the church I used to belong to, the Mormon church.
I have criticized the Mormons more than any other church as I do not tend to criticize other religions other than the one I grew up in and left. I feel more justified in doing so. The irony was that when I posted about the Mormons excommunicating members that were protesting some of their practices a few weeks ago only one poster defended the Mormon church and that was CoolJGS. I didn't ask, but from what he wrote it sounded as if he agreed because The Mormons and JWs are perhaps the most similar in the way the handle dissidents out of all the Christian sects.
But that reminds me of the multiple occasions I have defended the JWs when somebody was calling them a cult. The JWs posting at that time replied to me in appreciation. I consider them to be a Christian sect.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 14, 2018 5:48:19 GMT
The original producers are coming back.
I wonder what they have in mind, a sequel or a redo.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 12, 2018 16:20:20 GMT
William Castle films from the late 50's and early 60's are in a class of their own and they have a true cult following. And then there is "Mant"...
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 11, 2018 17:29:28 GMT
I remember when this came out. Some of the parody was mildly amuzing, as Wang the Perverted threatens the earth with sex rays. Some interesting Jim Danforth stop animation.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 11, 2018 7:41:48 GMT
Thunder Road / Arthur Ripley (1958) Repo Man / Alex Cox (1984) Bedtime For Bonzo / Frederick De Cordova (1952) Frankenstein Unbound / Roger Corman (1990) Ace Ventura: Pet Detective / Tom Shadyac (1994) A couple of “head in the lab pan” movies The Brain That Wouldn’t Die / Joseph Green (1962) Re-Animator / Stuart Gordon (1985) The last two have me pondering....
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 9, 2018 17:26:37 GMT
How good is the transfer? pretty darn good. No complaints from me. I'll have to pick it up.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 8, 2018 20:16:57 GMT
Picked up the blu-ray for $8 and thoroughly enjoyed it again after all these years. Favourite Hammer! How good is the transfer?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 7, 2018 16:58:56 GMT
Notice that Randall's voice changed when he is delivering the final line. The accent was gone. During the movie he dropped it at strategic times. I think the accent is gone at the end because the last lines are more as if they are coming from a narrator than the title character. It is more a commentary on the whole narrative that preceeds it.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 7, 2018 6:50:37 GMT
Why, because it has a Trinitarian construction? This shouldn't bother Trump as he ckaims to be Presbyterian. i don’t read anything religious unless I ascribe to it. I wouldn’t see the point and there is a danger of it being against my beliefs so why take the chance? As a politician Trump has a higher requirement of interfaith diplomacy than I do, but even without it, he should recognize who he campaigned to. That said, I think this is a case of people looking for something outrageous. He shouldn’t be admired for behaving himself but he may literally not know protocol and I would be shocked if he paid attention. You don't know whether or not The Apostle's Creed is against your religious beliefs? I have Mormon friends who would not recite it because their church teaches against the use of such creeds. This one makes them uncomfortable due to the Trinitarian sounding construction.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 6, 2018 19:17:10 GMT
Knockout.....but I liked her before she became one....in "No Highway in the Sky" No Highway in the Sky 1951 Thanks so much geode for this movie recommendation . I actually haven't seen this film before but will be looking out for this one on the channel TCM now . Did you see "No Highway in the Sky" yet?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 6, 2018 19:11:56 GMT
I wouldn't read it either but I wouldn't run a campaign pretending to value it's virtues or beliefs. Why, because it has a Trinitarian construction? This shouldn't bother Trump as he ckaims to be Presbyterian.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Dec 4, 2018 18:11:31 GMT
Yes I've seen it. Going in it seemed like a movie that I would love but I didn't. Don't get me wrong I liked it but I didn't love it. Tony Randal is terrific in it and Barbara Eden is gorgeous as always but there was just something lacking in the overall story and execution. I should watch it again. I last saw it decades ago. How would it compare now to my first viewing in first release?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Nov 29, 2018 15:22:39 GMT
I think I'll pass.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Nov 23, 2018 16:44:09 GMT
His beliefs ended up being his own folly unfortunately.
The care, compassion and empathy just radiates from every Christian pore of your being. Well I’m the only one on this thread who has shown any “care, compassion and empathy“ towards the victim in this report that much is obvious. No, I showed empathy and compassion for his loss.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Nov 23, 2018 15:47:12 GMT
An unfortunate occurrence and I am sorry that the poor fellow died. I doubt he was stupid even though he did a foolish act. If I understand the situation correctly he wished to help the people of an isolated tribe, not thinking through the fact that he was far more likely to do harm than good. How did he think he could communicate with them about Christianity? But perhaps some good can come from this as it can be an example to others to stay away, and to fishermen not to aid others to make similar attempts.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Nov 22, 2018 9:31:27 GMT
You are welcome, mszanadu! I have never seen "Rocky Horror Picture Show". I went to a midnight showing of it once, but there was all the audience participation and I was not able to actually watch it. I should rent it some time. But I also really liked "Xanadu". Olivia and Gene have some chemistry. And the ELO soundtrack is just about the best soundtrack ever! My favorite ELO song is "The Fall" and it's from this movie. "Carnival of Souls" is good, too.
I actually do highly recommend watching
in the comfort of home alone without interruptions
it's a way better experience IMPO .
There is so many excellent musical scenes and memorable dialogues
in it not to be missed so
it's definitely well worth a most
proper viewing from the start .
I have only ever watched it
at home many times over the years
and only once at the Drive In too but prefer home viewing on DVD myself .
IMPO - I believe those midnight showings are for folks
who have already watched it many times before on DVD or VHS
and really know the movie by heart to have a lot of fun along with it .
it also has a special place in my heart over the years
and also enjoyed it for
it's refreshing storyline , the memorable actors ,
it's wonderful music , and dreamy atmosphere too ( also IMPO it has a positive yet innocent quality that I most admired - and still do ) .
Thanks so much again dirtypillows for your replies .
W
|
|
|
Post by geode on Nov 21, 2018 8:06:49 GMT
When it first came on I was very disappointed in it so I only watched a few episodes. It came across as "Twilight Zone Lite" to me. I never got back to it. IMPO - If you do decide to re-watch this show again
don't watch the TV Versions those are the syndicated ones
and not the true episodes those were ruined by the network . The best versions to watch is on DVD only . This show is actually quite different than Twilight Zone was
because it deals more on the side of horror and not the 5th Dimension
Also as Rod Serling has mentioned
this show was not his and he only hosted it . Although I still highly recommend giving it a second chance
definitely watching it again
but with the correct episodes on DVD of course . Thanks so much geode for your reply . I remember Rod Serling talking about it all those decades ago and if I remember correctly he has trying to disown it to some extent. I think another problem for me was the multiple stories in each show without proper time to develop enough plot or depth. Perhaps its leaning towards horror was another reason I found it less interesting. I have been where there is no access at all to the show, so it seldom has seldom come to mind in decades.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Nov 21, 2018 7:55:19 GMT
The film was dated the moment it hit the screen. Sort of like Superman III. It is entertaining and amusing, but it is no Superman or Superman II - The Lester version. When I heard that a Donner version was being assembled I thought it almost certain I would prefer it to the Letter version. I was surprised to find I felt just the opposite after watching it. Margot Kidder had said it would be better, yet some of her very best scenes in any of the films were directed by Lester.
|
|