Isn't that Napoleon Dynamite's brother?

List from here:

0’00 - Roxanne, Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Gleaming the Cube, The Princess Bride, A Fish Called Wanda, Star Wars, The Wizard of Oz, Casino, Three Amigos, A Clockwork Orange

1’05 - Dolemite, Glengarry Glen Ross, Bad Santa, The Witches of Eastwick, The Big Lebowski, In Bruges, Full Metal Jacket, There Will Be Blood

2’05 - Toy Story, Casablanca, Encino Man, The Women, Predator, Army of Darkness, They Live, Uncle Buck, Big Trouble in Little China, New Jack City, Billy Madison

3’00 - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Departed, Carlito’s Way, In the Loop, Glengarry Glen Ross, Stand By Me, Grosse Pointe Blank, Duck Soup, Caddyshack, Planes Trains & Automobiles

4’00 - South Park, Napoleon Dynamite, Mean Girls, The Breakfast Club, As Good as It Gets, The 6th Day, Step Brothers, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Full Metal Jacket, City Slickers, Road House, True Grit, Shot Circuit

5’00 - Raging Bull, The Usual Suspects, Snatch, Caddyshack, The Last Boy Scout, Ghostbusters, The Sandlot, As Good as It Gets

6’00 - 48 Hrs, In Bruges, Silver Streak, Glengarry Glen Ross, A Fish Called Wanda, Goodfellas, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, The Mist, Trading Places

7’00 - The Warriors, Point Break, Gangs of New York, Reservoir Dogs, The Breakfast Club, The Cowboys, Full Metal Jacket, Dodgeball, Donnie Darko, Scarface, The Good the Bad and the Ugly

8’00 - Anchorman, Tropic Thunder, Sexy Beast, In the Loop, Get Shorty, Blazing Saddles, The Way of the Gun, Blade: Trinity, Clerks, The Boondock Saints, The Exorcist, What About Bob?, Weird Science

9’00 - Con Air, True Romance, In the Loop, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Lake Placid, The Front, Gone with the Wind

Ugh... I hate it when people quote the bible to me as if it has any authority on anything.

Why not quote the Koran, or the Egyptian book of the dead?

Oh, I forgot, your religion is "real" all the others are just delusional people who believe something wrong. And of course you know your little magic book is "right" because you "just feel it" or better yet "god told you so."

If I say that I talk to Napoleon Bonapart in my head, I get put away by the men dressed in white, yet a majority in this country believe they talk to some magic guy in the sky (and I'm not just talking about Christians here) and that is totally acceptable, even though he tells them to hate (or worse) their fellow human beings.

Religion needs to go.

Nope... no Nunchuck skills - Gosh!!
>> ^artician:
...Napoleon Dynamite's hero.

...Napoleon Dynamite's hero.

Right Farhad, coz nothing sells chicken like race hate.

As Napoleon said, Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/racist-fried-chicken-ad-dumped-after-us-outcry-20100107-lwr5.html?autostart=1

I liked the Eisentein reference. But this was little more than a blow-up fest with excellent CG. I'll be curious as to how they adapt it onto the big screen, and how it turns out. Keep in mind a lot of great movies have stemmed from shortfilms, including 9, District 9, Sin City, Napoleon Dynamite, Saw, etc. etc.

>> ^rychan:
No offense to Canada, but land area is not the best indicator of empire strength and influence. GDP would be good, or even population would be better.


Agreed, but on the other hand, it is one dimension of potentially interesting information. I took a high-level computer graphics course when I was going to university, and we spent some time talking about how difficult it is to add more dimensions of data to a visualization without making it more convoluted.

We studied one example of a chart by a French historian named Charles Minard showing Napoleon's march to Moscow that successfully included many dimensions of data while being fairly easily understood at a glance, with more information represented in details. Basically it is map with line width representing Napoleon's troop strength over time (420,000 march in, 10,000 leave) and color coded for initial advance versus retreat. It also shows the date and daily temperatures to link the effect of deaths from exposure. Academics will gush on an on about this work, calling it "the best statistical graphic ever drawn" etc. It is actually pretty cool, and watching this visualization made me wonder what a modern Minard would have done with animated computer graphics and this data. Then again, I am a nerd.

If that didn't all sound so very boring, you can check out the graph I am talking about in English here, and then perhaps a larger original version in French with better details here. The wikipedia article on the French Invasion of Russia also references the chart.

>> ^ponceleon:
I really liked Fry's analogy of the Catholic church's obsession with sex to that of food with anorexic or the morbidly obese.
As for the topic at hand... I really am not that interested in this level of minutiae. Those of you who know me from posting here know that I really don't see much of a difference between Catholics, Protestants, Scientologist, Satanists, and Zoroastrians. It is all just some stuff made up by some guy (usually a guy, except in very rare occasions) to control and tell others what to believe. No religion has any proof that they are right, anyone who claims they do is about as trustworthy as someone who says they are Napoleon.


There are two major problems here.

First, it's not possible to say that all religions are something that "some guy" made up. For a great many religions--Hinduism, Judaism, and Shinto are good examples--there is not one single individual one can trace the religion to. Rather, they seem to have arisen organically, on the basis of the agreement and common practice of communities and tribes. If they arose to control people, it was not the action of a single autocrat, but the same kind norm creation that goes on in any community.

Second, not all religions make onerous demands on belief. Again, Hinduism and Shinto are good examples. While particular schools of Hinduism may demand assent to certain beliefs, one may hold nearly any set of beliefs and be a good Hindu, so long as one meets a baseline set of behavioral norms. There are even atheist schools of thought. (There is even a patron god of atheism, strangely enough. Attributed to it by other schools of thought, of course.) Much the same is true of Shinto, though it is less philosophically sophisticated--atheism may not be as acceptable, but there is room for a great diversity of opinion.

Before Christianity and Islam, in fact, this non-belief-centric approach to religion was the norm everywhere Judea and a few Zoroastrian communities. The notion that religion demands belief is not the norm in human society--only in Christian and Muslim society.

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
*quality

Now join my cult...

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
I really liked Fry's analogy of the Catholic church's obsession with sex to that of food with anorexic or the morbidly obese.

As for the topic at hand... I really am not that interested in this level of minutiae. Those of you who know me from posting here know that I really don't see much of a difference between Catholics, Protestants, Scientologist, Satanists, and Zoroastrians. It is all just some stuff made up by some guy (usually a guy, except in very rare occasions) to control and tell others what to believe. No religion has any proof that they are right, anyone who claims they do is about as trustworthy as someone who says they are Napoleon.

*quality

Now join my cult...

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
I really liked Fry's analogy of the Catholic church's obsession with sex to that of food with anorexic or the morbidly obese.

As for the topic at hand... I really am not that interested in this level of minutiae. Those of you who know me from posting here know that I really don't see much of a difference between Catholics, Protestants, Scientologist, Satanists, and Zoroastrians. It is all just some stuff made up by some guy (usually a guy, except in very rare occasions) to control and tell others what to believe. No religion has any proof that they are right, anyone who claims they do is about as trustworthy as someone who says they are Napoleon.

I really liked Fry's analogy of the Catholic church's obsession with sex to that of food with anorexic or the morbidly obese.

As for the topic at hand... I really am not that interested in this level of minutiae. Those of you who know me from posting here know that I really don't see much of a difference between Catholics, Protestants, Scientologist, Satanists, and Zoroastrians. It is all just some stuff made up by some guy (usually a guy, except in very rare occasions) to control and tell others what to believe. No religion has any proof that they are right, anyone who claims they do is about as trustworthy as someone who says they are Napoleon.

You know exactly why the Pope, Napoleon, and 100 despots around the world made it illegal, don't you?

Because it raised people's awareness; it made them realize how badly they were getting screwed, and turned the riff-raff into rabble-rousers.

Love this movie and the book, but as a historian I felt it necessary to poke 2 holes in both. Napoleon is meant to resemble Stalin and all the horrific things he and his regime enacted. However I must bring into the picture that 1) in response to Napoleon being portrayed as a lover of lush things, fine dining, and expensive living costs; in reality Stalin lived a rather simple personal life. His own personal manor was no more fabulous than a member of the upper-middle class regardless of how revered he made himself out to be and 2) Stalin was made out to be an obsessive lover of Whiskey and liquor when in reality he very rarely indulged in them. Stalin actually would drink white wine or water and tell his comrades, whom he would invite to meetings to get drunk, that he was drinking hard liquor/vodka so they would get drunk while he remained sober. In this manner, Stalin was able to take advantage of his drunken counterparts and gain information from them they wouldn't ever dare tell sober. I'm not taking up for Napoleon (Stalin) by any account; they are both complete monsters. I am however pointing out some obvious holes in Orwell's theory while creating this fantastic tale.

"Napoleon.. you know why he had so much trouble? Because he was right at boob level."

That actually made me LOL and sounds like Seinfeld material.