|
Post by BKnight on Oct 2, 2004 4:13:27 GMT -5
My fav are the TNG series, particularily after they got their Sovereign class Enterprise. I haven't seen many eipsodes from the original series, but from what I've heard Bones and Spock argued a lot, and that was the best part of the show, am I right? So, if you enjoy ToS (the original series) could u answer me this? How did the NCC A got destroyed?
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on Oct 1, 2004 17:41:15 GMT -5
"To seek out new lives and new civilizations... To boldly go where no man has gone before..." I think everybody has seen at least one epsiode of this huge saga. At first, there was NCC-1701 A with Kirk and Spock aboard. After that, NCC-1701 D entered on stage with Picard and Data. Soon after, the D was replaced with an E. The Deep Space Nine series followed, with Sisko, Kira, Dax and some othet crew members. The Voyager soon followed and captain's Kathryn Janeway voyage home began. The latest series, I think, it's Enterpise with Scott Bakula, but I don't know many things about this. Anyway, if there are more trekkies here, let them speak and share opinions...
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on Nov 19, 2004 14:52:00 GMT -5
Before we return to the discussion of the film, let me say some words. Fiddler, although I was joking with the throats remark, I cannot help but notice that the your ideas, thoughts and writing style are very mature. I could even go as far as to guess that somebody iportant, or at least with a great word on the site's management just visited us. I won't begin here by sharing and cuting all the points that made me think that, but there's a very funny fact: do u know how I felt? Like a hobbit speaking with a vala. I'm not joking and I'm not ironic, and finally but not least I agree with u Fiddler.
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on Oct 1, 2004 16:29:07 GMT -5
Guys, guys, this is starting to be more of a political fight in the senate than the fair debate of a movie. So, stop jumping at each other throats, right? If we should remember only the bad things about one nation... we would get nowhere. I mean, yeah, the english killed Wallace and Joan (and I blame them for that) but on the other side they are the only nation that stood against the might of the Whermacht and its Blitzkrieg (with a little geographical help) and do not forget that Tolkien, Orlando B., Sir McKellen are english. The french stood agains the SPQR (aka romans) but failed to keep even their capital in 1941. And the germans, yeah they kinda started two world wars, but I bow before their technology and their methodical mind. Okay, I hope this will be the last of the political posts here.
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on Sept 11, 2004 15:14:53 GMT -5
The Maid of Orleans? Joan of Arc? She's french! And if I rememb correctly, during the 100 year war (actually 116 years) the english got their bottoms pretty whooped by the french. Now, don't get me wrongo! I hate french language, like very much english, though the both nations had their mistakes during the ages. And if we were to count invasions, I'm telling you, we romanians were invaded ten times more. Hey, am I making romanian ppl seem weak... If I do, then remember this: if it weren't for the romanians, the turks would have invaded Russia, discover America, and transform Notre Dame and Tower Bridge in nice little sinagogs, with pointy, goofy tops. Of course, this is one of my theories (not qed-ed yet), so feel free to fight it. But we are getting offffffffffff topic
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on Sept 10, 2004 16:04:35 GMT -5
Just being a romanian observer... The english killed Wallace, and Joan of Arc... That reminds me. I should start a post about Joan of Arc movie with Mila Johovich.
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on Sept 10, 2004 15:54:12 GMT -5
Well, I see that everybody has his own opinion. Anyway, as I have said the movie touched a deep chord inside me, made me rethink my value system, and made me do a lot of researh about scots and their history. And, to be honest, nobody is perfect, and if you are looking for flaws you are def going to find them. IMHO, it was the best movie about scots.
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on Sept 10, 2004 11:25:00 GMT -5
Nurumaiel, I'm always pleaased to chat, talk, with scots (even descendents). The movie is basically old, about 8-9 years old, so it won't be too hard to get a copy, rent a dvd, a video or anything. I wouldn't say that he's falling in love, but he has an affair with a noble lady. (do you want to know who she is?) I didn't understand it also, for a while. Keep in touch, Nuru. I don't know exactly, but isn't it spelled "Boadiceea"?
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on May 12, 2004 5:14:43 GMT -5
“They may take our lives… but they’ll never take… our FREEDOM!!!!!!” yells Mel Gibson in one of the best movies ever made. Although, many Scots told me that they are not very pleased with this movie (Mel not being a Scot himself and some of the facts not being historically correct) this remains a great film. Mel Gibson is at the same time director and actor. Interesting, no? For those of you who had not YET seen the film, here’s a synopsis: England, Middle Ages, Anno Domini 1290. The english abuse the Scottish people. A brave(heart) Scot, William Wallace, stands up to them. After his wife is killed by an english noble, he swears revenge and rallies all the Scottish clans against the invaders. After, years of constant fighting, he is captured and beheaded. But, the memory of his courage still lives in the hearts of his men, and at Bannockburn, in 1314 they defeat the english army and win their freedom. Mel Gibson won 5 Academy Awards with this movie (one for best director). I think, that I would be a little unhappy too, if an american or a french, or an english would star as a great leader of romainian history in a movie about my people. But, if the result would be so great as this I wouldn’t care. On the other hand, I think that the scottish people owe a little to Mel Gibson. If it hadn’t been for his movie I wouldn’t have ever found out about the Stirling battle, or about Bannockburn, or about some scottish customs (which I find very interesting and beautiful). I would have remained with the belief that the scots are some guys that dress in skirts and play that ridiculous bagpipe. But, after I’ve seen the movie, I decided to do a little research about Scots and their history. I found out that they have the coolest accent in the world and a most interesting history (mush like the one of my own people). Ah, I’ve nearly forgot: I love the bagpipe music now.
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on May 28, 2004 3:52:05 GMT -5
I've just heard the news... Episode III is going to be called... THE BIRTH OF THE EMPIRE. I don't really know if this data is official, I've heard smt about a guy that works at Lucas said these things. And, in the end of the movie, we are going to see Obi-Wan (hopefully still played by Ewan McGregor) fighting Anakin (don't rememb now his name) on lava platforms, u know? Like some crazy lava-surfers! And, in the end Annie falls in the lava and becomes Darth Vader.... and from now on we know the story. BTW< the release date is may 2005.
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on May 10, 2004 3:54:57 GMT -5
Yes, it's the fifth episode. I didn't know about that idea. Unfortunately, my passion for SW decreased when LotR hit the silver screen. Though, it will always hold a special place in my heart. My fav would deff be the First episode. I lived that duel in the hangar. It was amaizing. And the effects were very cool too. Let's not start a SW-LotR poll; I'm telling you, it's a dangerous bussiness, Frodo, going out your... ahem... wrong quote. Let's get back to SW instead. Right, the second episode is not so great in the char development but, still, effects are to be considered; if I rememb correctly the TTT took the Oscar for best FX in 2002; that would be the year when SW II was released. I have to say that SW had then a serious opponent. Your turn, guys.
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on May 7, 2004 4:00:51 GMT -5
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... For almost 30 years this words enchanted thousands and thousands of souls. It is a wonderful story about honor, friendship, the eternal good-evil fight, our relations with robots and automatons and powerful empires and their downfall. The first SW was actually the fourth, Lucas had this crazy idea (ppl thought) to release the second trilogy before the first one. This proved to be a good idea after we've seen the special effects from Episode I and II. Episode IV was released back in 1977, the V in 1980 and the VI in 1983. The first in 1999, the second in 2002 and Episode III is coming in 2005. The titles were interesting: A NEW HOPE IV THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK V THE RETURN OF THE JEDI VI PHANTOM MENACE I ATTACK OF THE CLONES II ---not released yet---- III
Personally, I liked all the movies, although some ppl say that the old ones were better. I say that the light sabers duels were great.
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on Oct 2, 2004 4:05:37 GMT -5
Well, Nil, you know how they say... You can't have everything. In this particular case, u can't get everyone to like a partiular movie. I.E. I met guys that said the LOTR movies were for geeks and it's even worse if u read the books; and other guys made a way of life out of Tolkien's masterpiece. Some say that The Passion changed their life (I think those 2 guys that died were the most changed), and others like yourself, said it's overdone, too much blood, blah..blah. You know, those particulars guys that said the Passion was too bloody loved the opening scene one the Ghost Ship.
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on Oct 1, 2004 15:29:34 GMT -5
Nuru, what can I say? I'm speechless... I couldn't have expressed so... openly and truly like you. All those things that you have said are all true. I mean, I know this is not the theology section of the site but I can't help myself not sharing my view. Like Mel Gibson said, we got used only to see the religious icons in the churches depicting the Crucifiction and just imagine the whipping, the nails, the long road to Golgoth and the rest. And although we have seen more than one film about the Christ we haven't ever seen a movie so... real. It as close to reality as you can get... in parts seems to be taken from the very place of Golgoth's hill. It's the only movie that killed two persons, if I recall correctly. Heart attacks... The Pope himself said that's "as it was" and do remember that Mel G. went to great pains to make, sustain, advertise and support his movie. To be frank, the director introduced some bits than don't have a real base... like the part when Lord Jesus is thrown off that bridge by the soldiers and then easily pulled back up and some little bits at the Crucification. IMHO, it's the BEST RELIGIOUS FILM EVER, THE BEST MEL GIBSON MOVIE EVER. I can say that it changed something in me... the way I used to see the world has changed... And, as closing, the actress that plays Virgin Mary, Maia Morgenstern, is from my country... Romania.
|
|
|
Post by BKnight on Apr 26, 2004 3:46:50 GMT -5
I have recently seen this gorgeous film. I intend to buy it on the DVD to wash the sin of watching it on VCD. Anyway, I'm sure you all have heard about it. It's the latest Mel Gibson film, and the latest Biblical movie. So the director of Braveheart and The Faceless Man returns with another movie. Actually, Mel Gibson appears in the movie only with his left hand; holding the Lord's hand on the cross to be crucified; The movie is violent, yes, it's bloody yes... but I reckon that it's what it was, like the Pope said; So, it's a very realistic movie; actually I've heard that two viewers: an american and a brazillian had a heart attack and died when they saw the crucifiction (so, beware, if u have heart trouble). I had no problem watching the movie, except maybe the tears... but, that's another story. This is the kind of movie, u know, that makes you cry. Which is not necesarily a bad thing. All in all, it's a movie for the spirit, for the soul and I say everyone should see it. Don't you agree?
|
|