Sign Up | Log In
GENERAL DISCUSSIONS
RE:
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:56 PM
PINGJING
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:49 PM
THEPISTONENGINE
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 7:01 PM
DAVESHAYNE
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:15 PM
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:54 PM
NOSADSEVEN
Quote:Originally posted by daveshayne: They did do Firefly, You can find it here, ...
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:18 PM
ARCADIA
Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:53 AM
ALLARTICULATE
Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:19 AM
NINAH148
Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:43 AM
Thursday, February 23, 2006 6:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by pingjing: Sweet! Guess I could have checked that myself, but thanks! I'm glad you're here for the lazy people, like me.
Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:15 AM
GRIZWALD
Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:43 AM
Quote:We stand at the graves, silent: Jayne, with his cigar, with his tears, whose muscle has finally learned to protect, to shield. Inara, beautiful, unchained, giving peace, giving sanctuary, giving earth's first and final blessing; healer of the soul, and of the body. Kaylee, the heart inside the politics of location, speaker for the ship, for the family, eternally body and eternally soul; eternal beautiful mind; the final reality of womanhood held up against the sun. Simon, the Alliance redeemed. River, the victim bathed in grace and strength, the low brought high, the downtrodden become the all-seeing, at peace. Mal, the prince of pain, of destruction, now the bearer of the truth. Transmitter of the signal. Zoe, reliant, the embodiment of trust, the bearer of loyalty. Soldier of the unit, holding the line. Wife. Lover. Mother. They stand, and they look, and they remember. And their rocket, small and made of paper, in memoriam to those that gave their lives -- not for freedom, not for politics -- but for this: for simple truth.
Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:09 AM
Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:56 AM
DERANGEDMILK
Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:01 AM
Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:27 AM
FLYINGTAMS
Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by allarticulate: Hmm, I read TWoP regularly and I have to say that was quite an odd recap. Heavy on the philosophy and lit crit and light on the snark. It was cool and all, but I wonder what one of my favorite recappers would have done with it. This guy obviously loves the show and noticed little moments that I didn't. Also, notice that the page header says "Firefly: Season 2, Episode 1" WAAA
Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:06 AM
Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:28 PM
GEESEJUGGLER
Friday, February 24, 2006 12:44 AM
NANOMOOSE
Friday, February 24, 2006 3:30 AM
ANA
Quote:originally posted by: Television Without Pity "Philosophy in practice is the science of governance. Politics is the ground from which we take flight, the disposition of the body politic -- a lot of ones combined into the many, a sea of the personal becoming the political as a consequence of sentience -- the highest application of philosophy. Welcome to hell, Operative. Shoulda watched Battlestar Galactica, you cryptofascist bitch."
Friday, February 24, 2006 7:11 AM
Friday, February 24, 2006 11:02 AM
RAWDATA
Friday, February 24, 2006 4:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Ana: Quote:originally posted by: Television Without Pity As for the rest of the review, I got through the first half. At some point, you have to say enough is enough. When I realized I was 15 pages into it, with more than half the movie still to go, I called it quits. Joss would be the first person to say that, first and foremost, a storyteller's job is entertaining people, not sending Big Messages. Not that there's anything wrong with doing so, but it can't be the main focus. Much as I appreciate the reviewer's love of the movie, I just get the feeling that he (she?) completely missed the point. Yes, the film raised some pertinent questions about governments and freedoms, but the reviewer obviously brought more than a little baggage to the analysis. I can't help thinking that Joss would get two pages into the review and start thinking, "Wow. Never would've thought of that!" It's similar to a problem I have with Shakespeare and literary analysts. Literary analysts spend years poring over a line of dialogue that Shakespeare dashed off in five minutes. He was a genius, no doubt about it, and he had greater insight into human nature than any other writer I've known. However, he was also a man just trying to get his play in by deadline, get paid and eat, and maybe entertain the masses for a few hours. The idea that his plays would be pored over, combed through, and finely sifted for meaning for the next 400 years would have been laughable to him. Interesting point you raise. I'm an art history grad student, so you could say I'm one of those analysts - Ipore over a painting maybe never intended to be more than a paycheck. On the other hand, analysts need paychecks too, and who's going to give them one if no one thinks this stuff is worth poring over? Seriously, though, during the lower points of the semester, I agree with you. At my happier (and more idealistic) moments, I like to think that pondering over different interpretations of a line poetry can unlock new ways of thinking, new meanings about life and the world. Sorry, that got a bit off-topic. [/hijacking my own thread] Julia
Quote:originally posted by: Television Without Pity As for the rest of the review, I got through the first half. At some point, you have to say enough is enough. When I realized I was 15 pages into it, with more than half the movie still to go, I called it quits. Joss would be the first person to say that, first and foremost, a storyteller's job is entertaining people, not sending Big Messages. Not that there's anything wrong with doing so, but it can't be the main focus. Much as I appreciate the reviewer's love of the movie, I just get the feeling that he (she?) completely missed the point. Yes, the film raised some pertinent questions about governments and freedoms, but the reviewer obviously brought more than a little baggage to the analysis. I can't help thinking that Joss would get two pages into the review and start thinking, "Wow. Never would've thought of that!" It's similar to a problem I have with Shakespeare and literary analysts. Literary analysts spend years poring over a line of dialogue that Shakespeare dashed off in five minutes. He was a genius, no doubt about it, and he had greater insight into human nature than any other writer I've known. However, he was also a man just trying to get his play in by deadline, get paid and eat, and maybe entertain the masses for a few hours. The idea that his plays would be pored over, combed through, and finely sifted for meaning for the next 400 years would have been laughable to him.
Friday, February 24, 2006 7:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pingjing: Seriously, though, during the lower points of the semester, I agree with you. At my happier (and more idealistic) moments, I like to think that pondering over different interpretations of a line of poetry can unlock new ways of thinking, new meanings about life and the world. Julia
Friday, February 24, 2006 7:45 PM
MONTANAGIRL
Thursday, March 2, 2006 4:03 PM
JAHZARA
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL