My last con was Magnum Opus Con in 1989 when I rode in an elevator with Nichelle Nichols. To my regret, when the elevator doors closed I should have said "Bridge."

I rode in an elevator with Nichelle Nichols back in 1989 at Magnum Opus Con in Greenville, South Carolina. I was starstruck.

Thppt.
Should have had a Deathtongue soundtrack.
Typical Opus, hogging the limelight.

Your video, The magnum opus of art and animation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Oh man, Zardoz! Did anyone else see Sean Connery's magnum opus in a theater? *promote some great references to some awful movies.

Michael Bay will hit his peak when he makes a film composed completely of single frame cuts. When they're selling buckets of Ritalin in the lobby, instead of popcorn, you'll know he's achieved his magnum opus.

That's pretty endearing how oblivious all of them are to the issue initially.

The more I think about it, Scarlett Johansson does have qualities that match the character well. In the Arise series you see that the major once had a much more sensible body prosthetic that was physically more like an average Japanese woman. And you get the sense that the choice of her new body was an ostentatious and personal one. She didn't need to be tall, statuesque and impractically sexy, but that's the persona she choose.

Check out the only still from the movie and tell me she's not physically pretty close, race aside.

http://opus.fm/_assets/entries/scarlett-johanson-ghost-in-the-shell.jpg

This is the original acapella poem that Opus III ripped from Jane and Barton "its a fine day"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g9byxXox-I

And Orbital ripped the vocals in the Grammy award winning soundtrack to Hackers "Halcyon on and on"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV-hSgL1R74

A classic, but still a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Opus-III-Its-a-Fine-Day-1992

Invocations (dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Opus-III-Its-a-Fine-Day-1992) cannot be called by Zawash because Zawash is not privileged - sorry.

"Opus Dei Cum Pecunia Alienum Efficemus"

They've got a sense of humour, I'll give 'em that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I disagree. QT knows exactly what he is doing. Some of his films are dialog driven (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown) and some are genre and/or action driven films (True Romance, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds). I have no doubt he is capable of writing another Pulp, and that one day he probably will, but for now he is doing high-art pastiche of the classic exploitation dramas he grew up with. This is not to say that these action films are less good than his dialog films, they just have different aesthetic criteria.
He is much like Speilberg in this way, if polar opposites in dialog and style. Speilberg has his serious movies, and he has his homages to the serial action films of his youth.
Prediction: Eventually Quentin will eventually get his fill of action films and create another magnum opus, and likely get himself an Oscar in the process. I would absolutely love for him to take his favorite film of recent times, Battle Royale, and make an American-culture-specific version - not a remake of the film, but a remake of the concept as it would occur if it played out with American high schoolers.
Also, comparing QT to Shayamalan is blasphemy. Even Shayamalan's best work was an average film with a great twist. Shayamalan has never shown even an ounce of the writing or directing skills that QT has. Take it back. TAKE IT BACK!!1!>> ^lucky760:
Win.
I no longer have any confidence Quentin will make another Reservoir Dogs- or Pulp Fiction-caliber film, and I've made my peace with that, but I will still eagerly await every one of his new projects with fervent anticipation.
(I just hope he never descends as far down as M. Night Shyamalan.)



I think even he knows he's lost something. Politely disagree, sir. *tip hat*

I disagree. QT knows exactly what he is doing. Some of his films are dialog driven (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown) and some are genre and/or action driven films (True Romance, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds). I have no doubt he is capable of writing another Pulp, and that one day he probably will, but for now he is doing high-art pastiche of the classic exploitation dramas he grew up with. This is not to say that these action films are less good than his dialog films, they just have different aesthetic criteria.

He is much like Speilberg in this way, if polar opposites in dialog and style. Speilberg has his serious movies, and he has his homages to the serial action films of his youth.

Prediction: Eventually Quentin will eventually get his fill of action films and create another magnum opus, and likely get himself an Oscar in the process. I would absolutely love for him to take his favorite film of recent times, Battle Royale, and make an American-culture-specific version - not a remake of the film, but a remake of the concept as it would occur if it played out with American high schoolers.

Also, comparing QT to Shayamalan is blasphemy. Even Shayamalan's best work was an average film with a great twist. Shayamalan has never shown even an ounce of the writing or directing skills that QT has. Take it back. TAKE IT BACK!!1!>> ^lucky760:

Win.
I no longer have any confidence Quentin will make another Reservoir Dogs- or Pulp Fiction-caliber film, and I've made my peace with that, but I will still eagerly await every one of his new projects with fervent anticipation.
(I just hope he never descends as far down as M. Night Shyamalan.)

Wow, you're smart. You must be a master debater. But you clearly have no sense of humor.>> ^my15minutes:

on the chance that your concern for my well-being was genuine,
let me first assure you i'm not the least bit angry, in general or at opus.
in the (more likely, imho) event that you were attempting to somehow
defend opus, my advice would be, don't. it presupposes that he is defenseless
or disadvantaged, when he is neither. he has just as much of a brain as i or anyone
else, and is just as capable of using it, before typing something regretfully absurd.
a little training in debate would do him great service, however.
this is equally true of you, if you were attempting to come to his aid,
as you managed to commit the same mistake - ad hominem.
you compounded the problem by begging the question.
the question in this case being, "is he angry?"
i see nothing in my text you replied to, that could be misunderstood
as an indicator that i was angry. my little smiley face there was authentic,
because his ad hom indicated that he realized he couldn't back up his previous assertion.
again, if your reply was genuine, then thanks for your unwarranted concern,
and i apologize for believing it unlikely.
in either case, i would humbly ask that any further replies on this matter,
from yourself or opus or anyone else, be directed to my homepage instead of this page,
as what we're discussing has absolutely nothing to do with a funny clip about gay rights.
thanks. - owen
>> ^sickio:
Wow, I'd find someone to talk out your anger issues with if I were you.
>> ^my15minutes:
oh, excellent! an ad hominem attack. thank you. blahblahblah.

on the chance that your concern for my well-being was genuine,
let me first assure you i'm not the least bit angry, in general or at opus.

in the (more likely, imho) event that you were attempting to somehow
defend opus, my advice would be, don't. it presupposes that he is defenseless
or disadvantaged, when he is neither. he has just as much of a brain as i or anyone
else, and is just as capable of using it, before typing something regretfully absurd.

a little training in debate would do him great service, however.
this is equally true of you, if you were attempting to come to his aid,
as you managed to commit the same mistake - ad hominem.

you compounded the problem by begging the question.
the question in this case being, "is he angry?"
i see nothing in my text you replied to, that could be misunderstood
as an indicator that i was angry. my little smiley face there was authentic,
because his ad hom indicated that he realized he couldn't back up his previous assertion.

again, if your reply was genuine, then thanks for your unwarranted concern,
and i apologize for believing it unlikely.

in either case, i would humbly ask that any further replies on this matter,
from yourself or opus or anyone else, be directed to my homepage instead of this page,
as what we're discussing has absolutely nothing to do with a funny clip about gay rights.
thanks. - owen
>> ^sickio:

Wow, I'd find someone to talk out your anger issues with if I were you.
>> ^my15minutes:
oh, excellent! an ad hominem attack. thank you. blahblahblah.