nothing rhymes with orange
Mar. 2nd, 2004 01:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oiranSo, I finished painting Kicky's living room. After my firm rejection of her traffic-cone orange supershiny paint, I had "our" (i.e., my) original choice mixed in a softer finish. Unfortunately, this color also sucked. The color chip was the color of pumpkin pie. On the wall, however, it was a yellow-orange reminiscent of Kraft Dinner, Velveeta, Cheetos or Tang. I put a coat of it on the walls anyway, then yesterday I went and made the paint chicks at Home Depot add raw umber to it until it turned the color of a nice curry. Which was what I wanted in the first place. Er, I mean, it's what she wanted. Mr. Glove went from saying mean stuff about XTREME!!!!! nacho flavor to liking the color, so I guess I did good after all. Kicky and her family return home this afternoon, and I'll have the final verdict then.
That most trusted non-friends thing? I did it, but everyone on the list was someone I actually had on MY list at one point. They either ignored me for so long that I lost interest, or were out-and-out hostile (i.e., making posts announcing things like, "All of you who recently friended me should know that I only friend back people who make interesting meta posts and jump through my arbitrary and fickle flaming hoops of pretend friendship.").
I've had arguments about whether or not I "should" view/understand the purpose of the FL the way I do, but it's my list, yes? I don't think the people on the list are my actual "friends," but I do think a mutual friending is a sign that we share an interest and have no overt animosity. Personally, I don't read any journals I don't have friended, and I tend to operate as though everyone else does the same. Which, of course, is not true, and gets me into trouble.
Betas still owed: 1
Websites unfinished: 3
Press kit unfinished: 1
E-mails unsent: oodles.
Comments unanswered: oodles more.
Days of FL unread: 5 or 6
I accidentally watched some Oscars. I'm pleased for all the LotR fans. I knew Lost in Translation wouldn't win best picture, so I was really happy when Sofia Coppola got the Oscar for screenplay. I was disappointed that Bill Murray didn't win best actor, but I was even more disappointed that Billy Crystal tried to make a stupid joke out of it. I've never much enjoyed Mr. Crystal's humor, but am I mistaken in thinking that he was especially lame this go-round?
Of the dresses I saw, I initially disliked Jennifer Garner's if only due to the ruffle on the end of her train (I thought it would have been better plain). However, after seeing most of the rest of the dresses, I did like hers after all--wonderful color, and it was just one ruffle, after all. Other good dresses: Sofia Coppola, Annie Lennox, Scarlett Johansson, Liv Tyler. What was up with all the trains this year, though? I am imagining much tipsy dress-stepping and staggering at the post-award parties. Worst dresses: Uma Thurman (used Kleenex and old lace curtains) and Sandra Bullock (cross between Barbie dress and toilet paper roll cover).
And because of the LotR sweep, I've got a question: I have seen the first 1-1/2 of the 3 films. They are truly lovely and beautifully done. The acting is, so far as I can tell, without noticeable flaw. However, I didn't care. I got bored. Halfway through the second film, I wandered out of the room with the TV (we rented it--didn't see it in the theater) and did something else.
I read The Hobbit when I was about eight. I liked it, though I thought it was a little bit scary. I was discouraged by my father from reading the trilogy, but I think that was because he was reading the books at the same time. The hobbit I was familiar with (if you'd call vague, ~30-year-old memories "familiar") was Bilbo. Frodo was a complete unknown when I saw the first LotR movie, and I didn't get any good sense of him before he was off on his quest and in some degree of thrall to the ring.
The entire premise seemed vague to me, and then a bunch of characters were introduced, and then everyone was galloping off to engage in battle or hide or…well, I wasn't ever really sure why characters were doing what they were doing. It's a huge story, and while there isn't a cast of thousands, it seems pretty close. I kept wondering why we had to have yet another new character thrown into the mix and then would remember that, obviously, this character existed in the text so we couldn't just have one of the people we'd already met carry out a task…
Clearly, based on the way fans have responded to the films, the decision to keep as many of the characters from the books in the films as possible was the right one for Peter Jackson to make. Considering that the theater cut makes an 8-9 hour movie, it's pretty clear that a version that would introduce each character and develop him or her would be something like a week-long event. However, for me, it was just way too many characters who meant far too little emotionally and/or in terms of function.
I've read comments from others saying that they loved the films and hadn't read the books. I'm just wondering if anyone else, like me, was pretty much completely unmoved despite wanting to enjoy the spectacle.
That most trusted non-friends thing? I did it, but everyone on the list was someone I actually had on MY list at one point. They either ignored me for so long that I lost interest, or were out-and-out hostile (i.e., making posts announcing things like, "All of you who recently friended me should know that I only friend back people who make interesting meta posts and jump through my arbitrary and fickle flaming hoops of pretend friendship.").
I've had arguments about whether or not I "should" view/understand the purpose of the FL the way I do, but it's my list, yes? I don't think the people on the list are my actual "friends," but I do think a mutual friending is a sign that we share an interest and have no overt animosity. Personally, I don't read any journals I don't have friended, and I tend to operate as though everyone else does the same. Which, of course, is not true, and gets me into trouble.
Betas still owed: 1
Websites unfinished: 3
Press kit unfinished: 1
E-mails unsent: oodles.
Comments unanswered: oodles more.
Days of FL unread: 5 or 6
I accidentally watched some Oscars. I'm pleased for all the LotR fans. I knew Lost in Translation wouldn't win best picture, so I was really happy when Sofia Coppola got the Oscar for screenplay. I was disappointed that Bill Murray didn't win best actor, but I was even more disappointed that Billy Crystal tried to make a stupid joke out of it. I've never much enjoyed Mr. Crystal's humor, but am I mistaken in thinking that he was especially lame this go-round?
Of the dresses I saw, I initially disliked Jennifer Garner's if only due to the ruffle on the end of her train (I thought it would have been better plain). However, after seeing most of the rest of the dresses, I did like hers after all--wonderful color, and it was just one ruffle, after all. Other good dresses: Sofia Coppola, Annie Lennox, Scarlett Johansson, Liv Tyler. What was up with all the trains this year, though? I am imagining much tipsy dress-stepping and staggering at the post-award parties. Worst dresses: Uma Thurman (used Kleenex and old lace curtains) and Sandra Bullock (cross between Barbie dress and toilet paper roll cover).
And because of the LotR sweep, I've got a question: I have seen the first 1-1/2 of the 3 films. They are truly lovely and beautifully done. The acting is, so far as I can tell, without noticeable flaw. However, I didn't care. I got bored. Halfway through the second film, I wandered out of the room with the TV (we rented it--didn't see it in the theater) and did something else.
I read The Hobbit when I was about eight. I liked it, though I thought it was a little bit scary. I was discouraged by my father from reading the trilogy, but I think that was because he was reading the books at the same time. The hobbit I was familiar with (if you'd call vague, ~30-year-old memories "familiar") was Bilbo. Frodo was a complete unknown when I saw the first LotR movie, and I didn't get any good sense of him before he was off on his quest and in some degree of thrall to the ring.
The entire premise seemed vague to me, and then a bunch of characters were introduced, and then everyone was galloping off to engage in battle or hide or…well, I wasn't ever really sure why characters were doing what they were doing. It's a huge story, and while there isn't a cast of thousands, it seems pretty close. I kept wondering why we had to have yet another new character thrown into the mix and then would remember that, obviously, this character existed in the text so we couldn't just have one of the people we'd already met carry out a task…
Clearly, based on the way fans have responded to the films, the decision to keep as many of the characters from the books in the films as possible was the right one for Peter Jackson to make. Considering that the theater cut makes an 8-9 hour movie, it's pretty clear that a version that would introduce each character and develop him or her would be something like a week-long event. However, for me, it was just way too many characters who meant far too little emotionally and/or in terms of function.
I've read comments from others saying that they loved the films and hadn't read the books. I'm just wondering if anyone else, like me, was pretty much completely unmoved despite wanting to enjoy the spectacle.
