MovieChat Forums > Costumer > Replies
Costumer's Replies
That actually makes some sense. It doesn't explain why people think weasels and ferrets are rodents.
Thanks for a thought out and considerate reply.
Kowalski is quite correct. Movies have been remade since the first films began. Remakes are not new, or even middle-aged. They are quite old as films go.
I might also note that this is a different story than the two previous live-action films. (and it has quite a few differences than those two as well. Enough that it could be considered a reboot.) But by your logic any sequel is a remake.
I have no trust in critics. They are often stupefied by their own self-determined "brilliance." I haven't seen the film yet, though I have seen the stage musical. I'll make my own determination when I see the film. However, the story as arranged for the stage is as I have described it.
No. I will assume you are serious. The musical comes from the stories and poems of T.S.Elliot collected in Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats.
The various vignettes are varied and cover many different topics; rambunctiousness, the theater, magic, thievery, old age, and many others.
In the musical a framing story is set up regarding the cats being judged to earn ascension to the heavyside layer and have a new life.
Off the top of my head I don't recall any deeply involved in love and none with an overt sexual connotation.
And, having had many cats (twenty living and passed), they twitch their tales for many different reasons.
No problem. Names changing genders is common, but very difficult to keep track off. It just happens to be an interest of mine.
Sorry, typo. Meant 20th century. I'll edit.
Ashley has been predominately a male name since it first appeared. For a time, with the spelling changed to Ashleigh, it also served as a female name in Britain.
Ashley as a female name in the US didn't become common until the late 20th century. It is still also used for males, though it has become less common. At the time Margaret Mitchell wrote her book (and at the time of the action) it would have been an almost exclusively a male name.
I hate this consistent error. Otters are not rodents. Weasels are not rodents.
Both are in the family mustelidae and they are carnivores. That is they are in the same order as canines (dogs and wolves), felines (small and big cats) and ursidae (bears).
I have no idea why people think they are rodents.
The standard was not to sedate. They could control the others. The physical arrangements of their cells were sufficient to prevent their escapes. They realized Glass was different. He was physically weak and fragile. Any physical restraint should hold him. It was his brain that was his power and that is what had to be neutralized.
I have no idea why that posted twice.
A poster who often frequents Oz boards loudly proclaiming that Wicked is an cannon addition to the Oz oevre. He or she is loud, obnoxious and refuses to explain how such a story which directly contradicts huge swathes of Baum's books can be cannon.
That part of the comment was a self-indulgent insertion that was probably not necessary. My apologies.
A poster who often frequents Oz boards loudly proclaiming that Wicked is an cannon addition to the Oz oevre. He or she is loud, obnoxious and refuses to explain how such a story which directly contradicts huge swathes of Baum's books can be cannon.
That part of the comment was a self-indulgent insertion that was probably not necessary. My apologies.
By 1939 all 14 Oz books written by L. Frank Baum had been published.
In the books, as opposed to the 1939 film, Oz was real. Due to perceptions of audience reactions by the studios, the film showed it as a dream. (Apparently it was thought that audiences in 1939 couldn't handle Oz as a real place.)
Return to Oz might have been intended as a continuation of the 1939 film, but failed, in my view. Removing the musical aspects and now claiming Oz was real contradicts with the earlier movie. On its own merits I thought it was a decent, if rather dark, rendition.
I don't see Oz the Great and Powerful as having any connection to the movie or book continuity. It got a few things okay, but the Wizard's relationships with the witches is contradicted in the books.
And for KristenStewartforever, Wicked is an odd and depressing pastiche of the Oz books and should be disregarded in any vein other than a pastiche.
You have to listen to the musical.
However, I hate it when people slap that down as an answer to a question. The answer is:
Cats have three names.
1. The name the family calls them: Peter, James, Oedipus, whatever. This name can be simple or fancy. But everyone knows it and many cats can have those names.
2. Cats have a name that is particular and never belongs to any other cat. That would be the names you hear in the musical: Rum Tum Tugger, Mr. Mistofflelees, Skimbleshanks, Mungojerrie or Rumpleteazer. Cats consider these more dignified. (You may think them silly, but think of names in other cultures. You may think those names are silly too, but the cultures they come from likely consider your name silly.)
3. The name you will never discover. The name that is known to the cat that bears it and only that cat. A cat will never confess to their secret name. In the musical (and the original poem) when a cat sits staring, whether into the air or at a wall or whatever, the cat is contemplating their secret name.
The definition of arrogance does not imply lack of ability. The definition is (from Dictionary.com)
adjective
1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
2. characterized by or proceeding from arrogance, or a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement: arrogant claims.
Merriam Webster's is slightly different:
Definition of arrogant
1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner an arrogant official
2 : showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance an arrogant reply
What I read from these definitions is that one boasts of one's abilities. It does not imply (though you might read that into Merriam's first definition) that one does not have the ability to back up one's boasts.
Take two brilliant physicists, equal in ability. One tells you constantly how great he is and the second downplays his abilities; both produce brilliant work. The first is arrogant, the second isn't.
To arrogate is, indeed, defined as you say and it is certainly related to arrogance. However, you are making the error of assuming the meaning one word carries over precisely to a related word.
To answer your question, Ned was snapped as well, as were Flash and MJ. No, this does not violate probability. As is made clear in Far from Home, the class Peter is in is a mixture of kids who were snapped (and are thus still 16 years old and back in school) and kids who were not snapped and were 10 to 13 when the snap happened and have aged in the meantime.
Odd comment since I don't believe the detective is a Doctor. As I understood it he was a professional private investigator.
It didn't have to erase it, and I don't think they said it did. It was simply scrambled enough so it couldn't be used. They couldn't tell if a car had left and which car it was.
It would, but the point was made that the "help" never called him Ransom. He insisted they call him Hugh.
Since I didn't have the film to check, I did not make a comment on your point since it would be meaningless. I can't verify the movements, so cannot say if you are correct or not or if there was a reasonable explanation.
As for the spelling; I am an archivist and editor by nature (not profession). I've seen all too many not care if they are spelling or using grammar correctly. These types of errors distract from a person's comments.
And yes, I have made errors, typographically or otherwise. When I make them I try to correct them. It is not uncommon for me to go back and edit posts when I notice an error.