Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 12:27:03 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schanilec


Ah, the basketball player.


He probably wishes that's how people were going to think of him from now on.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Schanilec)
Post #: 91
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 12:58:12 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6377
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Didn't the 72 day marriage generate revenue somewhere in the vicinity of $18 million? Wonder how much he gets to keep of that loot, and that amount might be how he is known in the future.

Alfred

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 92
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 1:13:04 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Didn't the 72 day marriage generate revenue somewhere in the vicinity of $18 million? Wonder how much he gets to keep of that loot, and that amount might be how he is known in the future.

Alfred

I dunno. "9.73 Mill" just doesn't roll off of the tongue very well. It'll never catch on.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 93
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 1:16:33 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schanilec


Ah, the basketball player.


He probably wishes that's how people were going to think of him from now on.

Reminds me of a quote from the defunct animated series "The Critic".

When interviewing 'Rainier Wolfcastle'-a clear knockoff of Arnold Schwarzenneger-the critic was aghast at his latest film. In addition to being insulting to women it was also deeply insulting to the viewer.

The critic asked Wolfcastle, "How do you sleep at night?" To which Wolfcastle replied (in a thick Austrian-English accent, "On top of a big pile of money, surrounded by naked women".

Hey, ask a silly question...

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 94
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 1:17:44 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6377
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Didn't the 72 day marriage generate revenue somewhere in the vicinity of $18 million? Wonder how much he gets to keep of that loot, and that amount might be how he is known in the future.

Alfred

I dunno. "9.73 Mill" just doesn't roll off of the tongue very well. It'll never catch on.


How about, "Mr 9.73"?

Or we just round it up to "Mr 10"? Then he could rival Bo Dereck.

Alfred

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 95
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 2:04:04 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Didn't the 72 day marriage generate revenue somewhere in the vicinity of $18 million? Wonder how much he gets to keep of that loot, and that amount might be how he is known in the future.

Alfred


I've read lots of reports of a pre-nup, but I'm sure they were by people who don't know. Also that she bought her own ring. The $17 mil and change number seems widely reported, but into whose account it landed? I dunno.

Since I'm talking about a neighbor I should stop here.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 96
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 2:25:09 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25288
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Didn't the 72 day marriage generate revenue somewhere in the vicinity of $18 million? Wonder how much he gets to keep of that loot, and that amount might be how he is known in the future.

Alfred


I've read lots of reports of a pre-nup, but I'm sure they were by people who don't know. Also that she bought her own ring. The $17 mil and change number seems widely reported, but into whose account it landed? I dunno.

Since I'm talking about a neighbor I should stop here.

OK. That makes sense.

They're not my neighbor tho', so this bears some digging into.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 97
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 2:35:54 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8666
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

It was before I had a home computer and could play wargames?




A lot of us were into wargames before Steve Jobs even dreamed up the idea of a home computer...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 98
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 4:14:12 AM   
Knyvet


Posts: 138
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
I had a dream a few weeks ago where the entire dream was playing Avalon Hill's Luftwaffe with my brother - very distinctive counters.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 99
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 6:36:05 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 43395
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


1. No, no relative, nor does someone have to be for one to feel a sense of anger that the film makers have portrayed a real life person in such a way. Murdoch's decendents are alive and well and living in Scotland, and to have their relative treated in such a way - WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF - is frankly an abomination.

2. I said IMO, you having given yours. So the special effects and a few attentions to detail were better than that PH, so what? If you want a love story set against the background of the Titanic then no probs with the film at all. If you call a film Titanic, then I assume you want to portray what happened objectively without the kind of crap that essentially sees the British as the villains (as per Hollywood standard ) and the Orish as the poor victims of British brutality .

3. There was so much heroism and uplifting stories from that night - people that did their duty - it would have been nice had the film concentrated a little on that aspect.....


Two logic puzzles to me in your comments:
I am surprised the studio lawyers would have let Cameron portray a real character with living relatives in an unfavorable way "with absolutely no proof".

Cameron is Canadian, so why would a Canadian director set out to cast the British as villains and the "Orish" as the poor victims....
Warspite1

In answer to your points:

This was a statement attributed to Cameron:
"I think I have come to the realisation that it was probably a mistake to portray a specific person, in this case First Officer Murdoch, as the one who fired the weapon. First Officer Murdoch has a family, and they took exception to that, and I think rightly so".

I also understand he visited the family of Murdoch in Scotland after they protested at the portrayal, although refused to take out the scenes.

There is - effectively hearsay -a suggestion a member of the crew shot themselves. The person supposed to have commited suicide has been named as at least four characters - Murdoch included. Hardly conclusive, especially considering there are supposedly witnesses to Murdoch's death that tells an entirely different story (see below).

There is no clear evidence for the shooting of any passengers by anyone.

If, in the name of making the storyline more dramatic, Cameron wanted to show passengers being murdered, why use a real life person, who it seems can be used in that way only because he is dead?

Murdoch was by all accounts a good officer, the side of the ship for which he was responsible, got away more passengers than the other. There is an account that he was trying to get one of the collapsible lifeboats launched when he was sadly washed overboard. Cameron could have shown that - but that probably would have sold less bums on seats.

As to Cameron's nationality, I neither know nor care why he did what he did and I am not suggesting it was anything more than a bid to sensationalise the film. As someone who loves history, if such an incident took place [the shooting] then fine that should be shown and not glossed over. But film makers need to show a little restraint. Many people get their "history" from TV and films. People believe stuff like that which then becomes "fact" and feeds prejudices. Anglo Irish relations need that kind of **** like a hole in the head.




< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/10/2011 7:14:16 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 100
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 3:25:01 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25146
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Many people get their "history" from TV and films. People believe stuff like that which then becomes "fact" and feeds prejudices.


That is the horribly sad truth!

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 101
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 4:58:17 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1166
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


1. No, no relative, nor does someone have to be for one to feel a sense of anger that the film makers have portrayed a real life person in such a way. Murdoch's decendents are alive and well and living in Scotland, and to have their relative treated in such a way - WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF - is frankly an abomination.

2. I said IMO, you having given yours. So the special effects and a few attentions to detail were better than that PH, so what? If you want a love story set against the background of the Titanic then no probs with the film at all. If you call a film Titanic, then I assume you want to portray what happened objectively without the kind of crap that essentially sees the British as the villains (as per Hollywood standard ) and the Orish as the poor victims of British brutality .

3. There was so much heroism and uplifting stories from that night - people that did their duty - it would have been nice had the film concentrated a little on that aspect.....


Two logic puzzles to me in your comments:
I am surprised the studio lawyers would have let Cameron portray a real character with living relatives in an unfavorable way "with absolutely no proof".

Cameron is Canadian, so why would a Canadian director set out to cast the British as villains and the "Orish" as the poor victims....
Warspite1

In answer to your points:

This was a statement attributed to Cameron:
"I think I have come to the realisation that it was probably a mistake to portray a specific person, in this case First Officer Murdoch, as the one who fired the weapon. First Officer Murdoch has a family, and they took exception to that, and I think rightly so".

I also understand he visited the family of Murdoch in Scotland after they protested at the portrayal, although refused to take out the scenes.

There is - effectively hearsay -a suggestion a member of the crew shot themselves. The person supposed to have commited suicide has been named as at least four characters - Murdoch included. Hardly conclusive, especially considering there are supposedly witnesses to Murdoch's death that tells an entirely different story (see below).

There is no clear evidence for the shooting of any passengers by anyone.

If, in the name of making the storyline more dramatic, Cameron wanted to show passengers being murdered, why use a real life person, who it seems can be used in that way only because he is dead?

Murdoch was by all accounts a good officer, the side of the ship for which he was responsible, got away more passengers than the other. There is an account that he was trying to get one of the collapsible lifeboats launched when he was sadly washed overboard. Cameron could have shown that - but that probably would have sold less bums on seats.

As to Cameron's nationality, I neither know nor care why he did what he did and I am not suggesting it was anything more than a bid to sensationalise the film. As someone who loves history, if such an incident took place [the shooting] then fine that should be shown and not glossed over. But film makers need to show a little restraint. Many people get their "history" from TV and films. People believe stuff like that which then becomes "fact" and feeds prejudices. Anglo Irish relations need that kind of **** like a hole in the head.


warspite1,
your comments to the forums are nearly always very thoughtful. This one appeared to be a bit of a gut reaction so I was poking a little at it....

I don't disagree with you about the dangerous role motion pictures and television play in how 100s of millions view events. However, I still recall a debate my grandfather (professor of literature) and my father (physician) had when I was young. My father commented, "Fiction does not interest me, I prefer histories." Grandfather, "What do you think you are reading? All histories contain significant fictions just as most fictions contain much history." [accompanied by a "get over yourself look]

Since that day I have always tried to remind myself to have more intellectual humility. What we believe we know as the truth at a certain level of detail, no matter how well researched, at best falls into the category of "preponderance of the evidence". That does not excuse movies, TV shows, books, and political leaders who use this as an excuse to ignore those elements or events of history that are beyond reasonable doubt. The Holocaust and lunar landings come to mind. But at the level of what individuals did or why they did it, a reasonable degree of skepicism is warranted when seeing, reading or hearing any portrayal, regardless of the source. The most dangerous sources of are those that appear objective in style and voice, as these can most easily trap the unwary.

I apologize for feeling the need to provide a lengthy explaination of why I challenged your logic...

Mike

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 102
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 6:45:59 PM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3627
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nashvillen

Thank you, gents... I had been looking for who the picture was of since I disregarded it in another thread that shall be ignored.

I now need to see if I can find some of her movies!

Again, thank you.


I'm going to disregard this post.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to nashvillen)
Post #: 103
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/10/2011 9:36:11 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 43395
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


1. No, no relative, nor does someone have to be for one to feel a sense of anger that the film makers have portrayed a real life person in such a way. Murdoch's decendents are alive and well and living in Scotland, and to have their relative treated in such a way - WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF - is frankly an abomination.

2. I said IMO, you having given yours. So the special effects and a few attentions to detail were better than that PH, so what? If you want a love story set against the background of the Titanic then no probs with the film at all. If you call a film Titanic, then I assume you want to portray what happened objectively without the kind of crap that essentially sees the British as the villains (as per Hollywood standard ) and the Orish as the poor victims of British brutality .

3. There was so much heroism and uplifting stories from that night - people that did their duty - it would have been nice had the film concentrated a little on that aspect.....


Two logic puzzles to me in your comments:
I am surprised the studio lawyers would have let Cameron portray a real character with living relatives in an unfavorable way "with absolutely no proof".

Cameron is Canadian, so why would a Canadian director set out to cast the British as villains and the "Orish" as the poor victims....
Warspite1

In answer to your points:

This was a statement attributed to Cameron:
"I think I have come to the realisation that it was probably a mistake to portray a specific person, in this case First Officer Murdoch, as the one who fired the weapon. First Officer Murdoch has a family, and they took exception to that, and I think rightly so".

I also understand he visited the family of Murdoch in Scotland after they protested at the portrayal, although refused to take out the scenes.

There is - effectively hearsay -a suggestion a member of the crew shot themselves. The person supposed to have commited suicide has been named as at least four characters - Murdoch included. Hardly conclusive, especially considering there are supposedly witnesses to Murdoch's death that tells an entirely different story (see below).

There is no clear evidence for the shooting of any passengers by anyone.

If, in the name of making the storyline more dramatic, Cameron wanted to show passengers being murdered, why use a real life person, who it seems can be used in that way only because he is dead?

Murdoch was by all accounts a good officer, the side of the ship for which he was responsible, got away more passengers than the other. There is an account that he was trying to get one of the collapsible lifeboats launched when he was sadly washed overboard. Cameron could have shown that - but that probably would have sold less bums on seats.

As to Cameron's nationality, I neither know nor care why he did what he did and I am not suggesting it was anything more than a bid to sensationalise the film. As someone who loves history, if such an incident took place [the shooting] then fine that should be shown and not glossed over. But film makers need to show a little restraint. Many people get their "history" from TV and films. People believe stuff like that which then becomes "fact" and feeds prejudices. Anglo Irish relations need that kind of **** like a hole in the head.


warspite1,
your comments to the forums are nearly always very thoughtful. This one appeared to be a bit of a gut reaction so I was poking a little at it....

I don't disagree with you about the dangerous role motion pictures and television play in how 100s of millions view events. However, I still recall a debate my grandfather (professor of literature) and my father (physician) had when I was young. My father commented, "Fiction does not interest me, I prefer histories." Grandfather, "What do you think you are reading? All histories contain significant fictions just as most fictions contain much history." [accompanied by a "get over yourself look]

Since that day I have always tried to remind myself to have more intellectual humility. What we believe we know as the truth at a certain level of detail, no matter how well researched, at best falls into the category of "preponderance of the evidence". That does not excuse movies, TV shows, books, and political leaders who use this as an excuse to ignore those elements or events of history that are beyond reasonable doubt. The Holocaust and lunar landings come to mind. But at the level of what individuals did or why they did it, a reasonable degree of skepicism is warranted when seeing, reading or hearing any portrayal, regardless of the source. The most dangerous sources of are those that appear objective in style and voice, as these can most easily trap the unwary.

I apologize for feeling the need to provide a lengthy explaination of why I challenged your logic...

Mike
Warspite1

Mike, no need to apologise and I certainly don't disagree with the point you are making; although just one final clarification point before I sign-off on this subject:

"The truth" is misrepresented by filmakers all the time - always has been, always will and I accept that. A classic case in point is Gallipoli. A brilliant film. The anti-British nonsense grated, but didn't detract from an entertaining film, great musical score, and a heart-breaking ending. But my anger at Cameron and Titanic is different. Why? Because of the fact that he so badly treated a named individual without any proof of any wrongdoing. I have no doubt that as a senior officer aboard the ill-fated ship, he would have been aware sooner than most, that the ship was going to sink, and that with too few lifeboats to go around, he would be unlikely to see another sunrise. Despite that realisation, according to eye-witnesses, he did his duty to the end, getting lifeboats launched and trying to get the collapsible boats launched too. Which is the real Murdoch story? Cameron's version or the previously accepted truth? I know no more than anyone else - all I do know is that the decent thing would have been to give officer Murdoch the benefit of the doubt.

End of the day, Mr Cameron clearly knows what he's doing, after all he has some of the highest grossing films of all time, and I recognise I am in the minority with my view. So that's my 2 cents (and more) on the TFTSNBNcalledTitanic.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 104
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/11/2011 2:42:15 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8666
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
For those who are interested in how the war was won according to Hollywood, AMC is showing U-571 right now... 


EDIT: At least in the Pacific Time Zone, that is...

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 11/11/2011 2:43:05 AM >


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 105
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/11/2011 6:08:33 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21098
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
We've been discussing the portrayal of First Officer Murdoch in Titanic, and whether he was besmirched without sufficient evidence (any evidence?) to justify such grave assertions.

I just had a similar experience in reading Killing Lincoln, a recently released book by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard. The book moves fast because it doesn't go into great detail. The authors also leave readers with a suggestion - not an outright accusation, but hints that leave an aroma - that Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton might have been involved.

I find this remarkablaly cavalier. Making shocking allegations - even if veiled - should only be done carefully, with a thorough examination of the evidence, and then only ifthe evidence supports the allegation. To toss it into a rather "fluffy" overview of the Lincoln assassination was pretty poor judgment, IMO.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 11/11/2011 6:09:06 AM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 106
RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN - 11/12/2011 4:56:13 AM   
rader


Posts: 1072
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
Not a fan of 'that movie', but I do think Valkyrie is pretty good, even though it has awful Tom Cruise in the lead.

Pretty accurate, highly entertaining, and a lot of other good actors.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 107
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Time for our Periodic Visit to TMTSNBN Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172