This story would have ended sooooo differently...
... if it had been a Penny Arcade cartoon.
It's Friday, so we need no excuse to bring you the slightly strange tale of how this hack unexpectedly bumped into Cockfighter in a Spanish petrol station. The cover of the Spanish DVD release of Cockfighter Years back, I wrote a piece about Monte Hellman's 1974 cockfighting flick, which had to be pulled from the Edinburgh Film …
... if it had been a Penny Arcade cartoon.
I thought I'd have a look at my fave techie website to see if they'd picked up on today's Rasberry Pi video but it seems like I've stumbled into a film buff blog spiced with subtle references to "I'm sorry I haven't a clue".
Ah, its Friday. Carry on.
PS Eben just called your website simple. In a good way. As in loading / rendering.
Where does the chick with the long legs, well-formed breast and nice blonde plumage fit into the film?
check the cover text carefuly...it says "DRAMA"...she must be it.
I miss airbrushed (I do mean airbrushed, not photoshopped) movie posters of the '70s and '80s.
National Lampoon's Vacation is a favourite, though it is taking the piss out of the medium.
Check the image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lampoon's_Vacation
"Where does the chick with the long legs, well-formed breast and nice blonde plumage fit into the film?"
I assume fighting one of the others as the title suggests...
It's not airbrushed. It might be an oil painting but it's much more likely to be acrylic as it allows for a faster painting process.
> National Lampoon's Vacation
I read that as National Lampoon's Vatican.
I'd pay to watch that.
This is more and more like some random blog site by the day. It's pretty arrogant to think we give a shit about your movie taste, food taste, or just about anything other than technology. Youre a Journo, perspective.
As they say around here, ODFO. It's pretty arrogant to think that El Reg has to deliver just the content you're interested in. I like the Journo with a capital "J", though. Makes me feel all important and stuff... As a qualified journo, though, I can tell you it's written "you're", FYI, acronym boy.
Here's a thought: Get the fuck out, then!
I'm a tech for real and it can often really hurt your head all day long for weeks so a laugh at some random nonsense is required to (try) maintain my sanity actually!
It isn't a new feature, and nor is the mockery of humourless arses who whine about it.
I fear now - is their such a thing as a Bootnotes singularity and what sort of ruler would that be measured with?
Quite agree. Although I wonder why there was no word on Facebook's decision to do a G+, and lock out all accounts whose names they decided were not real. And them subsequently being hauled over the coals by the Irish Data Protection Authority.
Clearly you ain't from around here Mister.
The people train goes out of *snooort snooort* Stubbsville...
This here is Bootnotes. Last post come out sideways.
@Lester, I sure wish I could buy the team a cold beer or 10 for the weekend! Happy testing!
There are days when you miss the Moderatrix to point out the "bootnotes" relevance %sigh%
Did journo school "qualify" you as a film reviewer? As for the English lesson, have you seen the standard of proof reading on El Reg? Greenhouses and stones der boy.
"standard of proof reading on El Reg" - are you a sober genius or what? You should really try the Daily Mail if journo fail is your thing - hope that helps. OMG - I just admitted I've seen their website!
I'd certainly much rather be informed and entertained by this article than by another 'climate change is balls, here are some numbers we mis-use to prove it' article...
One too many cocks in this fight.
Confused: Because something somewhere is worse we shouldn't criticse this?
Reg hack nabbed by Customs for trying to import illegal DVD
(best rip it and upload it to your Dropbox now)
'me and Special Projects Bureau volunteer José María Pita', really, you're going to print an article with that in? It should at least be 'Special Projects Bureau volunteer José María Pita and me'. I know standards are slipping but really...
Well, me and the sub-editor say yes.
If its good enough for Kris Kristofferson...
[Me And Bobby Mcgee]
One must speak properly, mustn't one?
Not even a José María Pita...
If you're going to play this game, please try to learn and follow the rules.
Correct construction with a conjoined pronoun and noun in the subject of a sentence is "[the other person] and I"; in the predicate, it's "[the other person] and me". In either case, the conjoined nouns can be swapped without losing correctness; "I and [the other person]" is also correct in the subject, as is "me and [the other person]" in the predicate. The former is often awkward, the latter rather informal, but both are just as correct as the more commonly encountered forms.
How can you tell if it's right or wrong? Remove the conjoined "other person" and see if it still sounds right. For example: Joe and I went to the game becomes I went to the game and remains grammatical, whereas Me and Joe went to the game becomes *Me went to the game, and does not. Similarly, They came along with me and Joe becomes They came along with me, which is correct, while They came along with Joe and I becomes *They came along with I, which is obviously not.
Pronoun case in English: if you understand sentence structure, it is not as hard as it looks. (Bonus marks: write a sentence containing a correct use of 'whom'. Double bonus marks: explain why it's correct.)
"... and I." Surely?
Don't call him Shirley
"me was on a reccy in the nearby town of Béjar,"?
"Well, it may be that the chances [...]are a million-to-one..."
That *explains* it, didn't you realize?
What's your fun for next week? Badger baiting? dog fighting?
I fail to see any entertainment in this
Well, he did say it only lasted ten seconds, and everyone knows a cockfight doesn't really get good until one of 'em has brains leaking out a hole in its head.
You get an up vote for professional grade saddo baiting.
There isn't such a thing.
Thank you very kindly, sir. We do aim to please.
I agree. I am love El Reg's debunking outlook on life, but this is about nasty people revelling in animal cruelty. It is distressing that no-one else seems to find a problem with that.
Don't you have a battery farm to be protesting or something? Believe it or not, everybody in the whole damn world doesn't care to behave like so many Boston Quakers -- nor should -- and if that truly bothers you, sir, I would strongly recommend you go to the effort of acquiring a slightly thicker skin, because expecting the whole world to satisfy your prejudices so far transcends mere hubris that I'm not even sure I know a word for it.
What!!!!! Lester's cock only lasted 10 seconds..... Indeed a new low for Mr Haines.
Paris, do I have to explain why?
Monte Hellman was a guest at the Sodankylä film festival years ago (or rather decades) and at the time I was enough of a film buff to go there. This film was naturally in the programme, as were almost all other Monte Hellman films. I must admit I don't remember much of it, the round the clock filmathon + beer was taking its toll (at the time the festival is held, just before Midsummer, the sun never sets in Sodankylä, which lies in Lapland). I dimly recall the man himself claimed (in response to an audience question) that no cocks were actually killed during filming the fight scenes: The usual steels spurs attached to cocks were replaced by rubber ones.
he decided to write a nice article about a film extoling violence and animal abuse .. it could have been kiddy fiddling ...
Seriously, theres a reason films like this are banned in the UK .. its because in general we find them distasteful and abhorent, along with the people who enjoy them ...
If MacroRodent is correct and the cock fighting scenes were faked, how is this more abhorrent than gore-porn films like Saw which are regularly shown on mainstream television channels and depict horrific violence to humans?
MacroRodent is wrong. Look it up, not all the the fights were mock-ups although it wasn't down to Hellman. The producer Roger Corman wasn't happy with the film if it didn't have real cockfighting so went out and did some extra filming of real fights and also put in extra blood. Hellman himself was repulsed by the sport.
The abhorrent part is Lester's admission of going along to see a real cock fight, and placing bets on it. Congratulations Lester I'll be making sure I steer well clear of anything you write on here in future.
" theres a reason films like this are banned in the UK .."
AFAIK cock fighting and other similar forms of animal abuse are forbidden in all of the EU, but the UK is the only place I know of where watching a film depicting them is illegal. Now, following the reasoning used to ban this kind of films, and to be coherent, they'd have to ban also any film in which murder, burglary, theft, drug abuse or any other illegal activity is depicted.
Summarizing: Your government treats you as if you were retarded, and you applaud. Great!
If the comments about Roger Corman making additions to the film are correct, then surely the film is banned because it features actual cockfighting (regardless of the director's intent)? OK, the original ban may have come about because cockfighting=naughty (much like we couldn't watch Bruce Lee waving nunchucks about), but I would imagine that the ban has remained in force because what's on display is reality, not fantasy.