Comments on: Seven ways to have fun this weekend

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

A quick plug for the film “Lost in Translation.” It’s IMO of the same caliber as “In the Bedroom”, i.e. an Oscar contender. It’s Sofia Coppola’s second film after “The Virgin Suicides”, a great film on a much smalller budget. It strikes me as tonally flawless.

By: GreyDuck

GreyDuck — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Unless I’m mistaken (which is not only possible but probable!) that’s Jackie-O. And yeah, that does look like the template for every in-motion windblown-look modern model-based advert of the modern age, doesn’t it?

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

That scene in Tolkien in its original form is sufficiently vague (though I love LOTR) to leave fans endlessly debating whether the Balrog had wings. I think it says it does. Or else it had two shadowy projections like wings. Or something. I just looked it up–yep, there are wings there. I take it back–the confusion is entirely the fault of careless readers.

Of course the movie settled the issue for those unwilling to go back to the book and read it closely. The Balrog had wings, but clearly nonfunctional ones, perhaps vestigal leftovers from the days when it was a Maiar working around Aule’s forges and had to fly over carelessly spilled pools of molten metal or something.

By: Reba

Reba — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

The woman in the picture is Jackie O. And ways that the picture differs (besides the afformentioned clothing of the “model”): There is no ugly jewelry anywhere on her person. No piercings or tattoos can be seen by the casual observer. She doesn’t look like a heroin addict. Her clothes fit and look good on her. She is not heavily made up, nor is she affecting boredom. Her smile is genuine.

Lord, but I miss her!

By: PinkDreamPoppies

PinkDreamPoppies — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Donald — I’m not ready to blame careless reading quite yet (although I do lean that way). In one of the paragraphs following the one I quoted in my post, the balrog is mentioned as having “[a] shadow about it [that] reached out like two vast wings,” which implies that the wings are metaphorical (actually a similie) for the cloud of shadow that surrounds the creature. Two paragraphs later, however, the Tolkein says that “its wings were spread from wall to wall,” which implies that the wings are literal. [shrug] I’m willing to accept the movie’s balrog, which looked fantastic, and drawings of the balrog sans wings. But I’m curious… Do you feel like an über nerd, yet?

Reba — You nailed it for a lot of the ads I see, but some of them are so close to Jackie O.’s picture that I momentarily didn’t know that that picture was taken in the seventies and not a couple weeks back. I think that has a lot to do with black and white being in Vogue right now (sorry, couldn’t help myself) along with ribbed sweaters and hip-hugger jeans, as she is wearing.

By: Melanie

Melanie — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Ok, it’s already been pointed out that it’s Jackie O. But I found one difference no one else has mentioned– her breast are in proportion to her body . . .Geez, I think they might even be real . . .