Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 01, 2024, 02:01:16 PM

Show Posts

* Messages | Topics | Attachments

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - columba

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Animal training / cruelty
« on: June 05, 2006, 09:31:38 AM »
How about the cock fight? (Don't worry I don't have a problem with the chicken scenes in this film, the BBFC do though).

So why is this cruel scene vital to the film?

Other Films / Re: Westerns:Eastwood versus Peckinpah
« on: June 05, 2006, 05:53:11 AM »
I'm probably showing my ignorance here and possibly missing out on some goodies but the only non-sw's i'll bother to record and keep apart from say Magnificent 7 and some Budd Boeticher(for sw stars likeLVC/Coburn) are Clint Eastwoods and Sam Peckinpahs(which i've only kept hold of in case i change my opinion!).
     If i had to choose between those two directors movies i'd say that Eastwood wins hands down.Apart from his films obviously starring himself and giving a massive head start in terms of coolness,alot of Eastwoods westerns retain the spirit (and sometimes the style)of Leone and though in places his westerns can be brutal this  is handled with imagination and subtlety like the best of the Italian westerns-unlike Peckinpah.Eastwoods westerns are never overlong,tedious,cynical to extreme and cruel lengths and the attention span never drops unlike when i watch PecKinpahs movies.I liked Ride The High Country but everything after sucks.

Just to add to this I think the self indulgent violence in Peckinpah's films adds nothing to the story.  The nature of sw's means there has to be a certain amount of violence but too much is off putting.

Sergio Leone News / Re: New Spaghetti
« on: June 02, 2006, 05:57:55 AM »
Has anybody heard any more news about this?  I'm looking forward to this and it's taking ages!

Are you going to do a full length sw then Firecracker and if so can I have an invite to the premier? ;D

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Animal training / cruelty
« on: June 02, 2006, 05:17:22 AM »
I'm glad that you don't like cruelty to animals and sure there's nothing we can do about past films but , although I don't always agree with censorship, I'd rather not see an animal in obvious distress; I can't see how it aids the film.  cgi would have it's place say if you were having to shoot say a snake or rabbit as killing any animal, however it's regarded, for entertainment is definitely not on.  If we wouldn't do it ourselves or do it to ourselves we have no right to ask an animal to do it.  Having said that I'm not a fan of cgi either but it does have it's place if well done and not overused.
Some animals enjoy learning tricks, some don't, those that don't should not be forced to do so.  If it is forced to do something against its will then that is cruel - if it's taught gently to do something and it's happy to do so then that's ok. 
As for animals being kept for movies I don't see the problem with this as long as they're kept in natural/normal conditions, do not want for basic needs and get the love and attention they require and deserve.  Some animal rights people do go over the top but if you could see some of the things we do to animals it's easy to see where they're coming from even if you don't agree with the way they go about doing things.  They don't regard dressage as cruel and that after all could be considered a series of tricks, but what they say about racing issues is all too true.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: My dog died
« on: June 01, 2006, 08:40:23 AM »
Not that any of you will be overly concerned, but my dog Frisky, a black Lab-mix who we've had for over twelve yars, died this afternoon.  We had to dig a grave in the middle of a thunderstorm through mud, water, and bedrock and then bury him.  And, our basement flooded.

So I'm having a terrible day.

It may not seem like it at the moment but every day/week it will get a little easier.  Go with your feelings it's all part of the healing process.  I don't know if relating this will be of any help and I know it's very different but when my dad died his last words to me were 'Remember I don't want to be looking down and seeing you all miserable young lady.  It'll be better for me to see you happy.'  Not easy; if not near impossible to put into action but worth a thought?!  This comes with a virtual hug.  Take care,

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Animal training / cruelty
« on: May 29, 2006, 04:41:31 AM »
I read a Clint Eastwood biography and he's meant to love animals so much that if he witnesses even the slightest cruelty such as a spider getting squashed by one of his employees,he'll fire them.
The often quoted story of Clint having punched and knocked out a horse is thankfully a fabrication!

It's really good to know that some people do care - especially the ones with influence.  It's also good to hear that he takes this as far as spiders, which lots of people totally disregard.  I realise spiders was just an example but...  Are there any others out there or is Clint Eastwood unique?
It's obvious from the horse / rider interactions and from the horses facial expressions that some actors are more animal friendly / sensitive than others but then some may have just learned to ride for the part and have no intention of doing so again (though I find it hard to imagine not wanting to ride again!).  there's an ending to one sw where a ride is totally flapping and booting his poor old neddie into a gallop (I assume at the directors orders and I can see why those orders would have been given) surely the actor, who is usually on of the better ones with animals, should just turned round and said no ( I'm sure they wouldn't have give the part to another).  I know that some horses can be more than a bit of a handful, some riders have electric bums and you can squeeze some horses until your legs meet in the middle and I'm sure in some cases this is the case but in others it's often painfully obvious that it isn't.  Today tricks, such as falling onto the near fore etc are taught kindly to horses that are receptive to it but I'm well aware that this wasn't always the case.
So what do people think about the way animals are used in films, there must be some people with views out there after all horses, at least, are fundamental to sw's They add such a lot to films shouldn't we should treat them with the kindness and consideration they deserve?

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Favourite Carry On Movies!!!
« on: May 26, 2006, 09:29:50 AM »
I think Carry on Screaming just gets the vote for me.

Not sure about the new Carry On London film though - I think they'd be better off doing another set of comedy films in their own right.  The last new Carry On didn't do it for me as it just didn't seem to gel.  Carry Ons can't really be recreated - they're just not the same without the old cast. 

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: A Fistful of Music
« on: May 26, 2006, 09:23:17 AM »
My other music hates are the tunes you get left with when the receptionist puts you on hold and mobile phone tunes - especially that bloody frog!

Sometimes sampling and cover versions boarder on plagerism.  It should be made really clear where these samples etc originate from, while some attempt is made ( a bit like small print that people tend not to read) it's clearly not enough.  when I ask the kids of friends and work collegues what they think of the original tune they are mostly quite shocked to find out it's a cover version.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Favourite Carry On Movies!!!
« on: May 26, 2006, 01:02:16 AM »
my my such innuendo.

but suitable for a Carry On topic!

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Favourite Carry On Movies!!!
« on: May 26, 2006, 01:01:23 AM »
Well us hardened musicians are used to being able to improvise around these tuning problems! ;)
practice makes perfect then?!

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Favourite Carry On Movies!!!
« on: May 25, 2006, 09:46:14 AM »
Becareful of the tuning mechanism of that banjo of yours - if you spill beer on it it might go off like a damp squib!  ;D  ;D

C'mon of course all this "Paul Is Dead" stuff is a nonsense ;D

Banjo, some of us might like solving riddles and enigmas - the reality of it is of no consequence!

the idea that the cover up was strictly financial.

I didn't mean strictly - it was just a hypothesis nothing more!

The first question would have to be why would anyone want to cover up his death; then I guess the answer could be obvious - if he'd died at that time then sales and potential sales may well have crashed.  When it comes to the pop world things usually boil down to finances.  Although bands do go through different line ups, replacing him probably wouldn't have gone down to well with lots of fans.
so why would the rest of the band and his friends and family have agreed to the cover up?  Various answers I imagine anything from pay offs to the fact that they thought it would have been how he wanted it (the clues then coming from a feeling of guilt?).  That thought may have come from one of those rambling conversations that come about from too many joints (not that I had a mis-spent youth or anything!).  I suspect the fan that caused the crash would be to concerned about the bounty on her head to confess.
That of course is assuming the conspiracy is true.  If not then it's one really great mass wind up and at some point the truth/punch line will be known as I can't believe they wont want to see the reaction that will cause!  Let's face it wind ups are good fun!
there are ways of finding out though by getting gentic codes of the living Paul and comparing them with his family and that of the impersonators family  should be fairly decisive.  As would getting permission to exhumate the grave on the hill - assuming there is one.
I'm not really sure but I suspect it's a joke.  :-\  ;)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4


SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines