Andrew1

I'm bored so what the hell? Let's do this again.... -War Paint -The Body Electric -Cygnus X-1 -Manhattan Project -The Enemy Within -Double Agent -The Necromancer -Turn The Page -Earthshine -La Villa Strangiato That's more than 5 and I'm just getting started. Why do you people do this to me?

QUOTE (farcryoverspilledmilk @ Jun 21 2010, 12:58 AM) It was on the 3rd leg of the tour. Subdivisions (dropped 5/27/92, replaced by Vital Signs beginning 5/31 or 5/29) No shit? I never knew that. How in the hell do I not remember that? I just went back and checked the dates and you're absolutely right. They replaced 'The Pass' with 'The Analog Kid' as well and I remember them playing that. It's saying that 'Mr. Big' opened for them too but I don't remember an opening band at all. That I can understand because I think I was partying out on the lawn beforehand. Dude, I'm sitting here in disbelief right now. I have no recollection of that song whatsoever and that should have been one of the songs permanently seared into my memory. I was third row at that show too. Strange, because that was before my hard drug days. Damn it! I'm so disappointed. What the fu#k????????

I think you might be right. I hope so, because I've been wanting them to play that again for 20 years. It's one of their best songs live in my opinion. Jacob's Ladder? That's what I'm looking forward to the most right now. 15 days.....

QUOTE (hughes&kettner @ Jun 16 2010, 04:05 PM) THIS JUST IN... is going to KICK ASS on this tour! How in the fu#k did you get this information? This better not be a joke dude.

QUOTE (quickfree @ Jun 19 2010, 08:17 PM) Its is a great song having seen it before on VT Leg 1 in 2002. I still think the 92 version on the Bones tour, with Alex's extended solo is probably the best they ever did with this song as for the live performance. Roll The Bones was good for something. I think I'm missing something. Are you saying that 'Vital Signs' was played on the RTB tour?

On second thought... Out Of The Cradle. Ged and Neil tear it up at the end of that song. I would love to see that live.

Earthshine. The shittiest song off of VT.

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 31 2010, 11:20 PM) Both are very fine songs. I'm very pleasantly surprised by the relative heaviness and mid-to-up tempos. Love the keyboard flourishes and less of the "oooh-ahhh" bg vocals this go 'round. As far as the songs go, I actually give the edge to BU2B. It's just a great melody...perfect combination of a heavy riff and a more lilting and atmospheric chorus. As a song I think this one works better. That said, Caravan is badass and far more musically interesting. It'll be the favorite overall because of the breakdown as much as anything else and rightfully so. From 3:25 through to the return to the chorus it's pure Rush bliss. Now hopefully the rest of the album will live up after MONTHS and MONTHS of getting familar with these two tunes. They'll have a lot to live up to. Kudos to the boys and Nick for putting these together so quickly and not sounding at all rushed. I was going to post something about that "Rush bliss", but you beat me to it. That is a wicked jam. I skipped back and replayed that part about 15 times in a row today. Awesome.

QUOTE (KillerInstinct @ May 27 2010, 05:21 PM) Am I the only one voting for War Paint? Come on, its a good song No! You're not the only one KillerInstinct. What's wrong with these people?!

QUOTE (Xanadu93 @ May 28 2010, 05:19 PM) I think "War Paint" and "Presto" are my top two songs that I'd like to hear live. I'd also like to hear "Show Don't Tell", "Chain Lightning", "The Pass", "Scars", or "Available Light". Yes! Good call on 'War Paint' Xanadu93! What about the song do you like when its played live? I'm assuming you've checked it out on YouTube or something....

Has anyone even seen 'War Paint' live? Go to YouTube and check out the Mountain View performance on 6-27-1990. I don't get it. That song just kicks ass live. Maybe it's just me. That is definitely the song to represent Presto.

QUOTE (iluvgeddy05 @ May 24 2010, 06:53 PM) According to the Syracuse Post Standard: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/201...e_most_exp.html Actually, the article is about Aerosmith being paid $1million to play the fair but they list the other big acts. Take it as you will. Personally, I feel they earn every penny but I know there are plenty others who think otherwise. Not sure the dynamics of this "paycheck" and what they get from tickemaster, etc. No clue at all how it's broken up.. When I first saw the title of this thread, my first thought was, "That's all?!" Then I saw the Aerosmith reference and it made more sense. That's just how it goes in this industry. To someone like me, comparing the figures seem grossly unjust, but that's just how it is and I totally get it. What pisses me off is that they're taking $450,000 to play at a fair, but passing on Indianapolis for the first time in their touring history. They added another show in Chicago too, and that frustrates me even more. We are about 300 miles south from there. Instead of adding another Chicago show, why not just play a show one state over? In a city you've been playing in your entire career? And if I'm not mistaken, the Chicago venue is completely out in the open and on a lake. Again, I might be mistaken. What if there is a thunderstorm? Our venue is outside as well, but the pavillion has a roof at least. Score Out has mentioned in a previous thread that Indy isn't one of their bigger "draws" financially but still... The Time Machine Tour is a big deal for some of us. I'm going regardless, but come on dude! I've read in one documentary where Indianapolis was one of their biggest draws at the beginning of their career and from what I've seen personally, the crowds haven't been dwindling over the years. Again, I love this band. Rush is MY band. Some of you might not see it my way. I guess I'm just frustrated. I read a lot here. I read all the bitching and pissing and moaning about Rush just in it for a "paycheck". I always blow that shit off and I'll never believe that. Ever. But sometimes, I'll read some shit that makes me wonder. Any comments on this anyone? + or - , I'll take it....

It was entertaining. Nothing I would buy and add to my collection, but entertaining. What really bugs me though.....Taylor Swift's teeth. My god, they're huge. When she smiles, that's all I notice. She looks like a f***ing beaver. Don't get me wrong, she's a pretty hot chick, but I could never date her. It bugs the hell out of me for some reason!

QUOTE (RobW @ May 18 2010, 04:05 PM) Time and Motion

QUOTE (GrandDesigner @ May 21 2010, 10:53 AM) I also just absolutely do not see them ever doing The Body Electric again. It's just TOO 80's for them to pull out. Kid Gloves would make way more sense. If it is true (you never know...), I'm a little disappointed to see so many 'obvious' songs - SDT, Big Money, Trees, etc. But overall, I like it! Too 80's? No way dude. The Body Electric kicks ass. I'll shit my pants if they play that. I will be pissed if they play Kid Gloves instead of that. I'm kind of hoping they bust out Red Lenses just so I can hear Ged go off on the bass at the end. Killer groove.

QUOTE (Slaine mac Roth @ May 17 2010, 01:33 PM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Mar 21 2010, 01:57 PM) Oh, and rule number one of Video Vertigo is: Thou shalt not compare any director to the great and wonderful Ridley Scott! Not even Ed Wood? On a more serious note, I'll put my hand up and say that I thoroughly enjoyed Sunshine. For me, it made a pleasant change for Sf cinema to go back to the 60s/70s style of lower key, character driven cinema (2001, The Andromeda Strain, et al) as opposed to the Independence Day/Armageddon 'let's see how many explosions we can get on screen per minute' popcorn fodder we've had lately. While Sunshine wasn't perfect (and what film is?), it was certainly more thought provoking then the majority of films that are made these days and, for this alone, the cast and filmakers certainly deserve to be lauded. Very well said! I never even thought about it like that. It's one hell of a movie and very thought provoking. Thanks for commenting. It really is worth a second look. That's what did it for me!

QUOTE (tick @ May 17 2010, 09:59 AM) I don't know if I can find the words to really express what this movie did to me. First off, I have never seen a movie like it. It was riveting. It made me angry. It make me sad. It left me disturbed, dazed and confused. The cinematography was amazing in this movie. It was quite a move although it was not an easy movie to watch at times. What did you think of this movie if you saw it? I would be curious as to its effect on people? The book was disturbing as well, and at times, hard to get through. Very much like the film. I was totally thrown off when I saw that Peter Jackson would be directing. Lord of the Rings to The Lovely Bones? I didn't get it at first, but then I remembered he directed The Frighteners and it made a little more sense, but not much. After reading the book, the last thing I expected was for it to be made into a film. Especially by Jackson. The cinematography was very good which I expected, but overall, I thought it was unnecessary. I liked the movie, but I'll never watch it again. How was I affected? It did make me sad and angry at times, but nothing I would recommend to anyone. Well... I shouldn't say that. The film is so off-the-wall, that I would recommend it to certain people. Wahlberg's performance was a little weak and that really surprised me because I'm a fan. I don't know anything about the making of this film, but I'm guessing there were several changes in the screenplay. I'm thinking that this would be a very difficult book to make into a film, and I got the feeling that the writers and director struggled at times. I give it a B-.

QUOTE (ReRushed @ May 14 2010, 09:55 PM) QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 14 2010, 09:09 PM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 14 2010, 06:57 PM) Sorry all, that last post was rather provocative of me. I do get riled when someone starts a slagging match then throws a hissy-fit when someone answers back. No-one enjoys a good old back-and-forth war of words anymore, and that's a shame. Anyway, apparently we're getting a release on an Avatar 2 date in the coming months! Any thoughts on whether the current plans for the second film are going to be any good? (not named for spoiler purposes) No apologies necessary. I'm the same way in case you haven't noticed. It can get very irritating. You guys obviously have no idea what you are talking about! That's what I keep telling my psychiatrist.

QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 14 2010, 06:57 PM) Sorry all, that last post was rather provocative of me. I do get riled when someone starts a slagging match then throws a hissy-fit when someone answers back. No-one enjoys a good old back-and-forth war of words anymore, and that's a shame. Anyway, apparently we're getting a release on an Avatar 2 date in the coming months! Any thoughts on whether the current plans for the second film are going to be any good? (not named for spoiler purposes) No apologies necessary. I'm the same way in case you haven't noticed. It can get very irritating.

QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 13 2010, 10:26 PM) Ultimately who cares what anyone else thinks? If you like it, great. If you don't, that's fine too. I've liked far dumber films than Avatar and vastly disliked far smarter ones too. I got out of Cameron's film what I get out of almost all of his movies...I was entertained visually for 2 hours. Aliens didn't "enlighten" me and T2 didn't play up my intelliegence. I simply enjoyed the films. They were visceral rollercoasters. No more, no less. Honestly I think people say such things (as above) to make themselves look more intelligent. Good on you if you feel that way. I'm not impressed...and I fully disagree. Like I said....

QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 13 2010, 08:26 PM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 13 2010, 08:10 AM) QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 12 2010, 06:55 AM) QUOTE (Mandalorian Hunter @ May 12 2010, 04:04 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 11 2010, 11:45 PM) Also, "Just a movie" is not an excuse. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. The setting is in what year? I think that combat craft would have glass capable of resisting Thundercat-Smurf arrows by then. BTW, "Exit wounds" are those things that happen when a projectile exits the other side of the object that it comes in contact with. Futuristic weapons would do that sort of thing to the blue f*cks. Again. IT IS SCI-FI. SCIENCE-FICTION. MEANING IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TRUE. NOTE THE FICTION PART. How boring would Star Wars be without noises in space. How boring would the last Star Trek have been without noises in space (even if it did stick to it for a while). Stuff like this happens in movies all the time so get used to it. If you want realism, well, it's right outside your door. And graphic exit wounds on a film Cameron intended all to see (including kids)? Yeah, that's a really good way to getting loads of money. In addition, I can't believe you're having a dig at the science in this Cameron film, and you've seen his others, and you seem astounded it could be so bad in Avatar. Time-Travel? Load of balls. Aliens and all that stuff in space? Give me a break, it 'doesn't work' (as you say) now, so how can it work in the next century. Also, how do you know Glass will be a great deal stronger in that time? You can't have a go at a film about a fact you don't even know about yet. I agree with this post 100%. It's sci-fi. You have to suspend disbelief since many of these technologies either don't yet exist (and may never) or don't exist in the future the way it does now. Either way, sitting back and analyzing a film like this is ridiculous. If some of these scientific details are a big reason this film seems bunk to you (general you...no one specific), I suggest giving up entirely on the sci-fi genre and getting into something else altogether. There was an entire program devoted to the technolgies of Star Wars not too long ago and most things there are absurd at the moment. Things like a light saber with a finite "end" of its laser. Wouldn't the light just travel on??? Sound in space, which MH brought up above. Fire in space. But it's a movie. That's not an excuse, it's what it is. It's not a science documentary. Cameron made the film to be entertaining first. You can pretty much throw out the Terminator too, based on existing "time traveling" technologies and other such details that are purely and wholly speculative and hopeful at best. Still you can do that with Aliens as well. So point that criticism at his other beloved films if you're going to call out a film like Avatar for being the height of ridiculous. But what the f**k fun is that?? Is that why Cameron made Avatar...to be scientifically accurate? Here's the truth. It's a movie you either didn't like or have no interest in, so the only way to make any kind of argument is to piss all over the details of it. It's sure a lot of time devoted to something you didn't enjoy or have no interest in, which then seems more like people with chips on their shoulders and not points to make. Sorry guys, but Astromancer is right. Let's look at this using a little thing I like to call "logic": The Marines in the movie use kinetic energy weapons (that's "guns that fire bullets") so therefore the people that they have fought in the past used them, too. If they use kinetic energy weapons and are used to fighting people who use them, then the windshields on their ground and air craft would have been capable of resisting projectiles fired from kinetic energy weapons and anything capable of resisting that kind of force could easily resist an arrow fired from a bow. I can suspend my disbelief but I get pissed off when the filmmaker assumes that I'm a dumbass, which is the case here. Thank you, Mr. Aubrey. The filmmakers did assume the viewer is a dumbass. And they were right when it comes to the majority of the people who saw it.The fact is that Avatar was engineered to pander to the lowest common denominator of viewer. Not just children, that would be a different story, but to make every person to walk out of the theater feel that they had "gotten" some complex allegory which, in reality, was completely simplified and obvious. It faked being the greatest thing ever made, and the masses devour it. "So much style without substance So much stuff without style It's hard to recognize the real thing when it comes along once in a while" Avatar is not the real thing. Just style without substance. Damn dude! Are you saying that we're dumbasses? It's an arrow that went through glass. I never even thought anything about it until you brought it up a couple of days ago. You see shit like that in every movie. I see where you're coming from but some others here might not feel the same. There are some intelligent people here who liked AVATAR. I'm cool with you, but they might not be. Simply because of the "dumbass" remark. All I'm saying is be ready for the backlash.

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ May 12 2010, 08:08 AM) QUOTE (Andrew1 @ Mar 21 2010, 09:39 AM)Danny Boyle has been a favorite of mine for some time. My opinion? He's right there with Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and Paul Verhoeven. Paul Verhoeven? "Robocop" was a good one, but can the guy who directed "Showgirls" and "Starship Troopers" really be mentioned in the same breath as Ridley Scott, or even James Cameron? It's just my opinion. I love Verhoeven. He's directed some of my favorite movies. You didn't think 'Total Recall' was one of the best movies ever!? I think Cameron and Scott would agree with that. He had a great run in the 80's and 90's. Like I said, it's just an opinion. I love his style. Great entertainment and he makes me laugh.. 'Starship Troopers' and 'Showgirls' were cult hits. You either got them or you didn't. I thought they were great. He knew what he was doing when he made those and he had a lot of fun doing it. Putting Verhoeven up there with Scott and Cameron may seem like a joke to you and I get that. What can I say? He's one of my favorites and I think Danny Boyle is on his way up there as well.

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ May 12 2010, 12:36 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 11 2010, 06:45 PM) QUOTE (Andrew1 @ May 11 2010, 05:33 PM)QUOTE (Presto-digitation @ May 11 2010, 07:57 AM) QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 10 2010, 07:46 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ May 8 2010, 06:14 PM)QUOTE (Astromancer @ May 8 2010, 03:30 PM)Wow, really? f**k this movie. Very, very disappointed in Cameron. I've seen every Cameron film except Titanic, and this was just a flashy dud. Weak dialog, WEAKER story, weak "allegory", weak space marines. Watch Aliens, okay? The space marines in that movie would have had Navi hanging upside down, skinned, from goddamned soul trees. PS: How the f**k did the Smurf's arrows pierce the windows of the gunships? How did that one pilot bitch go "I didn't sign up for this", and fly away without being shot down or court marshaled? How did the protagonist ass block the Kernel dickhead's mechsuit at the end of the movie without being turned into a big blue stain(I know they have carbon fiber level of strength bones, it wouldn't have helped that much)? How did the floating mountains float? Where were the exit wounds(i don't care about the rating)? Why are so many people Avatards? Hmmm, it sounds like maybe this movie would be more appropriate for you? http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u170/Triskaidekaphobe/2008-03-27/AngerManagementPoster.jpg Go watch "The Land Before Time", that's about as appropriate for an Avatar fan as anything else, based on the plot. A simple plot doesn't necessarily make a dumb or unsuccessful (in terms of ability to convey it properly) or unenjoyable film. The basic story of Star Wars, for instance, is very simple....not terribly original...and rooted in archetypes you can pick and pluck from dozens of classic. That's also the reason the film is so accessible, because it's not lost up its own ass with convoluted ideas and pretentiousness. Both films are visual marvels which is a good thing, since film is a visual medium. Oh man! I'm chomping at the bit! I can't wait to respond to this! O.K. dude, where do I start? ALIENS is one of my favorite movies by the way. Kick-ass movie. I'm with you on that one. You've never seen Titanic? Statistically, you should have seen it by accident after 10 years. What have you been doing for the past decade? Studying mountain gorillas in Africa? Anyway..... I'm guessing the arrows pierced the glass of the gunships because they hit dead on. Trajectory? Line of sight? Physics? Fantasy? Just a movie maybe? The Navi' are 10 feet high and obviously much stronger. Can you imagine the draw-back force on one of those bows? Here's one for you? How did the APC in ALIENS blow a trans-axle by going over a bump? That was a lot worse if you want to get technical. Next...the "space-marines" you refered to in AVATAR are not Marines at all. They're mercenaries on contract. Given, a lot of them are ex-military but this isn't a military operation. It's the RDA's baby. They call the shots. When Trudy abandoned her post during the attack on Hometree, she didn't break any rules so no action was taken against her. Also, she piloted a transport and not a 'Scorpion' gunship. So why was she even there you ask? Because it was supposed to be a shock and awe campaign. They were sending a message so they brought everything to appear more menacing I guess. The mountains float because they contain huge amounts of unobtainium. Unobtainium floats. The blow the protagonist Jake takes from "Kernel" Colonel Quarithch's AMP-suit? Low gravity probably reduced the downforce and he deflected it off to the side instead of taking the full force of the blow. Good move. Jake is an ex-marine you know. I don't know what you're talking about when you mention "exit-wounds" though, but I'm sure I have an explanation. What else do you have for me? This is James Cameron's world anyway. Stop picking the movie apart and just enjoy it for what it is. An entertaining film and one I thought was well written. So what about that APC's trans-axle in ALIENS? And why didn't they keep extra magazines for the pulse rifles on it? I can go all day long with this shit. Do your worst..... The APC in Aliens rolled over a lot of Xenomorphs, which, if you'll remember have concentrated acid for blood. Seems like that would f**k up a trans axle, huh? There was probably a clip shortage because Goreman was an asshole, but if you'll remember, they all had loaded pulse rifles in the rest of the scenes where they were still alive (albeit, that's not many scenes). Also, if Unobtainium floats, why where the samples in the mercenaries base just f***ing rocks? They didn't float. Your magical force deflecting protagonist would have been ripped apart by COLONEL Archetype's mech, no matter low the gravity. If your in even zero gravity, an object with high speed and large mass still has speed and mass. In fact, in lower gravity the mech would swing even faster and easier. If Blue bastard's strong bones somehow didn't break from a hit, they would have been disconnected, completely intact, from the rest of his body. Also, "Just a movie" is not an excuse. If something doesn't work, it doesn't work. The setting is in what year? I think that combat craft would have glass capable of resisting Thundercat-Smurf arrows by then. BTW, "Exit wounds" are those things that happen when a projectile exits the other side of the object that it comes in contact with. Futuristic weapons would do that sort of thing to the blue f*cks. P.S.- Dances With Smurfs featuring Hornets from Halo 3 and Mechassault QUOTE Also, if Unobtainium floats, why where the samples in the mercenaries base just f***ing rocks? They didn't float. I can answer that one. If you recall, Giovani Ribisi's character describes the unobtanium as "a room-temperature superconductor", and superconductors float when they are exposed to a magnetic field which is why Ribisi had to place his sample of unobtanium above the disc-shaped object on his desk for it to float, the disc-shaped object was a magnet. We can conjecture that the Hallelujah Mountains floated because they were above a large deposit of naturally-occuring magnets (lodestones), which also explains the "flux" that wreaked havoc with the pilot's instruments. Wow! And I thought I was the AVATAR guru! Doing lines of unobtainium is over rated. It costs to much and doesn't last very long. Good stuff Jack Aubrey!

Really!? Am I the only person that thinks this is a great movie?