|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
Kevin Willoughby wrote: The instrument panels in the spacecraft are very similar to what we use nowadays. Careful about cause and effect. A while back, I read a story in an IEEE magazine about how some NASA researchers were developing next-generation displays based on the panels in the movie. Our present spacecraft and airliners control panel concepts came as an extrapolation of the the fighter plane control panels of the late 1970's-early 1980's with the idea that the pilot should have a interface with the instrument panel that required him to take his hands off of his throttle and control stick as little as possible, and be able to read all critical aircraft operating status items while looking at the instrument panel as little as possible, so he could keep his eyes up and scanning the sky for threats as much time as possible. This meant a multifunction CRT or LCD display at the center top of the control panel made sense. On the other hand, the layout of the bridge of the starship Enterprise is a dead ringer for the SOAS (Submarine Operational Automation System) proposed by Martin-Marietta and DARPA in the late 1980's- early 1990's...swiveling captain's chair and all. There are times when the distinction between fact and fiction gets very fuzzy. (Spinal Tap, for example.) I imagine you could dock a Pan-Am spaceliner to a space station the way it's shown in the movie, but I think a de-spun hanger area makes more sense. Only from the point of view of the pilot of Orion. From the POV of the designer of Space Station Five, a de-spun hanger has gobs and gobs of nasty engineering issues. I've already been jumped on this quite a few times since I posted the original thought on the subject; okay, I'm wrong... spinning the Orion up to enter the bay makes more sense than de-spinning the bay. BTW...who paid for the station's construction? It doesn't look cheap by any stretch of the imagination to build, and seems to support both private and government-controlled space operations from all around the world. Who put forward the capital outlay for its construction? Whoever built it seems to be doing well, if the new half under construction in the movie goes. Or, like Babylon 5, MIR, and ISS was it originally intended to be bigger, but ran into funding problems? If that's the case, then that was one hell of a prophetic movie. ;-) The big question is of course what exactly is the purpose of the big human presence on the Moon? Clavius Base is apparently huge, and one suspects the Russians have one of equal size. What makes that expendature of time and treasure worth it to the two countries? That's simple enough. Both the US and the USSR are mining the lunar mcguffins. (http://www.essortment.com/all/alfredhitchcoc_rvhd.htm) Dear God... Slaver Stasis Boxes! I should have known! Now, the origin of cellphones becomes clear! :-D Pat |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
Andre Lieven wrote: Indeed. A good home theatre system can do it some justice, but I can well recall my pleasure at seeing it at the end of 2001 in a 70MM film house. In spite of the fact that this was in NYC, just three months after 9/11, once that curtain went up and the film started, all that just left me for well over two hours. Ahh.... Saw the whole thing twice in 70 mm film and Cinerama As far as movies go, it's the cinematographic form of the "The Emperor's New Clothes". Spectacular as long you buy into the "revolutionary " aspects of its story. Other than that, a very expensive and unimaginative version of the "Forbidden Planet" school of Sci-Fi with a lot less imagination shown in its plot, portrayal, and story than "The Day The Earth Stood Still" or "It Came From Outer Space" - both of which managed to pre-describe the story concept of "2001" with far less screen-time and money spent on production. One of the top-ten most over-rated films ever done in American cinema - by Stanley Kubrick in particular; all of his other movies were masterpieces that are worth watching time and time again ....or at least worth watching once (I imagine I've seen "Dr. Strangleove" around 50 times, and immediately go to it or "Jaws" by the flip of a coin every time I see it running on TV because those are two of _The Great Movies_ ever done by great American director's in the past century. Any of Kubrick's other films makes "2001" looking pretty mediocre by comparison, when viewed with the space-fan blinders off. Pat |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 5, 12:28 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote: Indeed. A good home theatre system can do it some justice, but I can well recall my pleasure at seeing it at the end of 2001 in a 70MM film house. In spite of the fact that this was in NYC, just three months after 9/11, once that curtain went up and the film started, all that just left me for well over two hours. Ahh.... Saw the whole thing twice in 70 mm film and Cinerama As far as movies go, it's the cinematographic form of the "The Emperor's New Clothes". Spectacular as long you buy into the "revolutionary " aspects of its story. Other than that, a very expensive and unimaginative version of the "Forbidden Planet" school of Sci-Fi with a lot less imagination shown in its plot, portrayal, and story than "The Day The Earth Stood Still" or "It Came From Outer Space" - both of which managed to pre-describe the story concept of "2001" with far less screen-time and money spent on production. The point is that 2001 blended the Clarkian story with the then current NASA no emotion crew images. Further, it told an SF story in a visual medium where the humans do not succeed in interacting or understanding the aliens and their civilisation and motives. Its far too conventional a trope of much visual SF that the humans and aliens will be able to interact, communicate, and deal with each other on comparable planes. Yet, the very real possibility also exists that we won't be able to do with, and that at least some aliens are so alien as to give us no real basis for communication. If for nothing else, 2001 is a valuable addition to the visual SF patheon for that very reason. The rest is all gravy, albeit very nice gravy. One of the top-ten most over-rated films ever done in American cinema - by Stanley Kubrick in particular; all of his other movies were masterpieces that are worth watching time and time again ....or at least worth watching once (I imagine I've seen "Dr. Strangleove" around 50 times, and immediately go to it or "Jaws" by the flip of a coin every time I see it running on TV because those are two of _The Great Movies_ ever done by great American director's in the past century. Any of Kubrick's other films makes "2001" looking pretty mediocre by comparison, when viewed with the space-fan blinders off. I would somewhat disagree with that conclusion, but I do come to 2001 with the SF fan " sensawonda " view. I'm quite pleased to own the 2 DVD copy. Andre |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
Andre Lieven wrote: NASA no emotion crew images. Further, it told an SF story in a visual medium where the humans do not succeed in interacting or understanding the aliens and their civilisation and motives. Its far too conventional a trope of much visual SF that the humans and aliens will be able to interact, communicate, and deal with each other on comparable planes. Remember how well humanity interacted with the Martians in Pal's "War Of The Worlds"? We held up a white flag; they burned us down to ash with a heat ray. Then they started taking out everything with their meson charge nullifier. They had no more concern about us understanding them, or them understanding us, than a person trying to figure out what the ants in their yard were thinking when the insecticide hit. Even in "The Day The Earth Stood Still" our relationship with a alien race consisted of: "Take our advice, or this solar system is going to have a asteroid belt between Venus and Mars as well as one between Mars and Jupiter. We can do that; it'd cost a lot to do, but believe me, we can do that. We did it before regarding the planet that used to be outboard of us; we can do it again regarding the one inboard of us." They should have put that in the movie, that would have really shaken people up. :-D If for nothing else, 2001 is a valuable addition to the visual SF patheon for that very reason. The rest is all gravy, albeit very nice gravy. Boring. "Silent Running" had a better story, better visual effects, and came in at around 1/10th the cost. "Forbidden Planet" beat either of those movies for outright imagination, and a intriguing storyline. "2001's" ending was very cryptic in its meaning (at best). "Forbidden Planet" was a examination of Lord Acton's concept of "power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely" driven forward as not only as a challenge to Prof. Morbius...but to all humanity, by realizing what had happened to the Krell's civilization. That's a pretty deep concept when you come right down to it. Is the end of technology to be gods of gold with feet of clay? "Silent Running" had the profound concept of "don't give a tree-hugging loon access to nuclear detonators, or all hell is going to break loose". Rush Limbaugh has been warning us about this for over a decade. Both concepts sure beat the hell out of split-screen filming technology with reversed colors over Alaskan ice fields, a old fart dropping his wine glass, and a fetus hanging around in HEO. Good News - there are other forms of life than us in the universe, far more advanced than we are, that wish to bring us their knowledge. Bad news - that knowledge consists of the concept: "Acid is groovy man! Dig this endsville star-trip we are laying on your heads. Fetus _FLYING AROUND_ your planet! Can you dig it, man? Can you REALLY dig it? It's a pure Zen super-mellow brain-change." Babylon 5 addressed the problem far better in regards to the Vorlons and humanity. The Vorlons are trying to tell us something, and their way of thinking and communicating and our way of thinking and communicating are so completely different that both sides are very confused about what one is trying to tell the other. To us, their statements seem cryptic and evasive; to them, our statements probably sound about as comprehensible as gibbering baboons. Imagine if we could actually crack the complete dolphin language, and ended up with a whole pile of info on water depths, size of squid schools, and how thermal layers in the water affect your nose sonar...with philosophical insights based on those inputs? It might be very profound to the dolphins and their world view, but we'd be very hard-pressed to interact with them in any form that wouldn't completely confuse them as to what we were trying to talk about. Christ, it would be like William F. Buckley sitting down to have a insightful heart-to-heart conversation with ex-president George W. Bush. (I leave the extraordinary possibilities of that surreal event to the reader's imagination; Buckley wisely died at the right time, which is more than can say about Dubya... that time, in his case, being during his infancy. Where's SIDS when you really need it? The little tike might have rolled over in his crib, gurgled out something about wanting a cup of "aw-aw", emitted a snide snicker, and turned blue.) Now, let's run into a alien race. Sure, we could agree that 2+2 = 4, and maybe that pi is pretty difficult thing to put a end on...but beyond anything concrete like that, we are going to be a real morass regarding anything subjective in regards to our world views because we are different species with brains wired to work in different ways. It might be like this: "You have the ability to destroy stars, aren't you concerned that some of those stars might evolve species that could be friends to you at some future point from the planets around them?" And we are expecting a answer like this: "We are very conservative... we consider any species that might evolve in the universe to be a potential future threat to us and destroy those stars as a means to protect ourselves against that possible future threat." But instead we get back: "Total energy to destroy a selected star is lower than the energy our Bussard ramscoops derive from traversing the hydrogen bubble created by the star's destruction. Are you saying that you intend to pose a threat to us at some future point? The energy required to destroy your star, "Sol", is more than the hydrogen bubble created by its destruction would generate. We do not understand why you would suggest you are a threat to us that would lead us to destroy your star, as the math is not in our favor. You are a very confusing species, and we don't understand what you are trying to tell us." One of the top-ten most over-rated films ever done in American cinema - by Stanley Kubrick in particular; all of his other movies were masterpieces that are worth watching time and time again ....or at least worth watching once (I imagine I've seen "Dr. Strangleove" around 50 times, and immediately go to it or "Jaws" by the flip of a coin every time I see it running on TV because those are two of _The Great Movies_ ever done by great American director's in the past century. Any of Kubrick's other films makes "2001" looking pretty mediocre by comparison, when viewed with the space-fan blinders off. I would somewhat disagree with that conclusion, but I do come to 2001 with the SF fan " sensawonda " view. I'm quite pleased to own the 2 DVD copy. I want to see the monkeys getting violent, then wake me up when HAL goes crazy. I'll happily sleep through all the rest. Pat |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
Pat Flannery writes:
Saw the whole thing twice in 70 mm film and Cinerama I too was sure I saw it in Cinerama, but it was filmed in Super Panavision 70, not Cinerama's 3-camera extravaganza. Through the wonders of renaming brands, however.... [You can read Wikipedia for just a hint of the confusion..] I've seen it maybe a dozen times since 1968, and saw the new "anniversary" print at the Uptown in DC, the last real theater around.. it was still & always stunning.... ACC and Kubrick could not have asked for a better legacy. -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 5, 4:27 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote: NASA no emotion crew images. Further, it told an SF story in a visual medium where the humans do not succeed in interacting or understanding the aliens and their civilisation and motives. Its far too conventional a trope of much visual SF that the humans and aliens will be able to interact, communicate, and deal with each other on comparable planes. Remember how well humanity interacted with the Martians in Pal's "War Of The Worlds"? Yep. g We held up a white flag; they burned us down to ash with a heat ray. Then they started taking out everything with their meson charge nullifier. They had no more concern about us understanding them, or them understanding us, than a person trying to figure out what the ants in their yard were thinking when the insecticide hit. I have to disagree, because we understood the power of their technology, and, when we finally saw them dying at the end of the movie, we also understood their situation and what was doing them in. The aliens in 2001, we got nothing. I wonder if that non depiction in 2001 inspired Carl Sagan, both in his Cosmos sensawunda and in not showing the aliens in Contact - we only saw one human form manifestation of them. Even in "The Day The Earth Stood Still" our relationship with a alien race consisted of: "Take our advice, or this solar system is going to have a asteroid belt between Venus and Mars as well as one between Mars and Jupiter. We can do that; it'd cost a lot to do, but believe me, we can do that. We did it before regarding the planet that used to be outboard of us; we can do it again regarding the one inboard of us." They should have put that in the movie, that would have really shaken people up. :-D How many movie watchers back then do you suppose knew that our system had an asteroid belt ? g If for nothing else, 2001 is a valuable addition to the visual SF patheon for that very reason. The rest is all gravy, albeit very nice gravy. Boring. Majestic. "Silent Running" had a better story, better visual effects, and came in at around 1/10th the cost. Once again, the story in SR was fairly pedestrian, being about only the humans. It was a good story, but, it wasn't hitting the Big Question: If theres anyone out there, what are they like ? Can we understand them ? "Forbidden Planet" beat either of those movies for outright imagination, and a intriguing storyline. Oh, I grant that, though they did rip off Baco... Shakespeare... "2001's" ending was very cryptic in its meaning (at best). Indeed: That was the point. "Forbidden Planet" was a examination of Lord Acton's concept of "power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely" driven forward as not only as a challenge to Prof. Morbius...but to all humanity, by realizing what had happened to the Krell's civilization. Sure. When I speak positively about 2001, don't take that to mean that I'm dissing any other films; Its just that the other films didn't take on the key theme of 2001. That's a pretty deep concept when you come right down to it. Is the end of technology to be gods of gold with feet of clay? "Silent Running" had the profound concept of "don't give a tree-hugging loon access to nuclear detonators, or all hell is going to break loose". Rush Limbaugh has been warning us about this for over a decade. Well, a side lesson there would be, don't give your prophets unlimited prescription drugs... Both concepts sure beat the hell out of split-screen filming technology with reversed colors over Alaskan ice fields, a old fart dropping his wine glass, and a fetus hanging around in HEO. Oh, I grant that I would love a remastered SPFX sequence there. But, given what audiences had seen up to 1968, it was kewl. Good News - there are other forms of life than us in the universe, far more advanced than we are, that wish to bring us their knowledge. Bad news - that knowledge consists of the concept: "Acid is groovy man! Or, much of what you will see will simply not be understandable in any form to us 2001 era humans. We often saw the flip side of that point in TOS, when aliens would take human form to interact with us puny humans. But, thats because they saw us as being worth talking with, that 2001's point is that thats not a given. Dig this endsville star-trip we are laying on your heads. Fetus _FLYING AROUND_ your planet! Can you dig it, man? Can you REALLY dig it? It's a pure Zen super-mellow brain-change." Babylon 5 addressed the problem far better in regards to the Vorlons and humanity. Well, we also never saw the Vorlon homeworld. The Vorlons are trying to tell us something, and their way of thinking and communicating and our way of thinking and communicating are so completely different that both sides are very confused about what one is trying to tell the other. But, once again, they're an enigmatic alien race that sees humans as being worth talking with. The point in 2001 is that those aliens *don't* share that viewpoint. To us, their statements seem cryptic and evasive; to them, our statements probably sound about as comprehensible as gibbering baboons. Imagine if we could actually crack the complete dolphin language, and ended up with a whole pile of info on water depths, size of squid schools, and how thermal layers in the water affect your nose sonar...with philosophical insights based on those inputs? It might be very profound to the dolphins and their world view, but we'd be very hard-pressed to interact with them in any form that wouldn't completely confuse them as to what we were trying to talk about. Christ, it would be like William F. Buckley sitting down to have a insightful heart-to-heart conversation with ex-president George W. Bush. (I leave the extraordinary possibilities of that surreal event to the reader's imagination; Buckley wisely died at the right time, which is more than can say about Dubya... that time, in his case, being during his infancy. Where's SIDS when you really need it? The little tike might have rolled over in his crib, gurgled out something about wanting a cup of "aw-aw", emitted a snide snicker, and turned blue.) bg I dare say that that event would have saved a lot of lives... Now, let's run into a alien race. Sure, we could agree that 2+2 = 4, and maybe that pi is pretty difficult thing to put a end on...but beyond anything concrete like that, we are going to be a real morass regarding anything subjective in regards to our world views because we are different species with brains wired to work in different ways. It might be like this: "You have the ability to destroy stars, aren't you concerned that some of those stars might evolve species that could be friends to you at some future point from the planets around them?" And we are expecting a answer like this: "We are very conservative... we consider any species that might evolve in the universe to be a potential future threat to us and destroy those stars as a means to protect ourselves against that possible future threat." But instead we get back: "Total energy to destroy a selected star is lower than the energy our Bussard ramscoops derive from traversing the hydrogen bubble created by the star's destruction. Are you saying that you intend to pose a threat to us at some future point? The energy required to destroy your star, "Sol", is more than the hydrogen bubble created by its destruction would generate. We do not understand why you would suggest you are a threat to us that would lead us to destroy your star, as the math is not in our favor. You are a very confusing species, and we don't understand what you are trying to tell us." So, when are you writing the novel that comes from that premise ? :-) One of the top-ten most over-rated films ever done in American cinema - by Stanley Kubrick in particular; all of his other movies were masterpieces that are worth watching time and time again ....or at least worth watching once (I imagine I've seen "Dr. Strangleove" around 50 times, and immediately go to it or "Jaws" by the flip of a coin every time I see it running on TV because those are two of _The Great Movies_ ever done by great American director's in the past century. Any of Kubrick's other films makes "2001" looking pretty mediocre by comparison, when viewed with the space-fan blinders off. I would somewhat disagree with that conclusion, but I do come to 2001 with the SF fan " sensawonda " view. I'm quite pleased to own the 2 DVD copy. I want to see the monkeys getting violent, then wake me up when HAL goes crazy. I'll happily sleep through all the rest. Thats OK, I'll be doing enough grokking for the both of us... g ( When 2001 first came out, I was around 10. I got my dad, who was a very good and supportive dad, to take me to it twice in the first week or so that it was out. He was very SF friendly for me. ) Andre |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
David Lesher wrote: ACC and Kubrick could not have asked for a better legacy. Kubrick's best-remembered film won't be that; Kubrick's perfect legacy will be "Dr. Strangelove"... one of the most brilliantly funny movies ever made. It's been said that the major problem with filming it was that the entire cast and crew (Kubrick included) found it almost impossible not to start laughing out loud when Peter Sellers was doing one of his multiple roles, and a lot of film stock was wasted due to laughter showing up on the soundtrack. Kubrick was reported to have laughed so hard at some points while filming Sellers that he was actually crying and almost falling out of his director's chair. Many people who saw 2001 left the theater confused or bored, and didn't feel they had gotten their money's worth...that was certainly not the case with Dr. Strangelove... the audience knew they had gotten every penny of ticket price paid back in full, and then some. One thing that did come up in interviews with audiences that saw 2001 was that they thought Heywood Floyd had gone to some place called "Clavius" rather than the Moon, as it's not specifically mentioned that Clavius crater is the site of the US base on the Moon. It might have helped if the had put the base on the Moon at someplace where people had heard of, such as Copernicus crater. This isn't exactly helped by the fact that the people on the Moon in the movie walk and move as if they are at full Earth gravity, rather than 1/6 G, so you might think they are on the surface of some other planet that has near Earth strength gravity. Pat |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 5, 9:46 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
David Lesher wrote: ACC and Kubrick could not have asked for a better legacy. Kubrick's best-remembered film won't be that; Kubrick's perfect legacy will be "Dr. Strangelove"... one of the most brilliantly funny movies ever made. Sure. More to the point, its a satire of a topic that most people would have previously bet was unsatirisable, nuclear war. I would call The Mouse That Roared more of a farce, in the strict sense. It's been said that the major problem with filming it was that the entire cast and crew (Kubrick included) found it almost impossible not to start laughing out loud when Peter Sellers was doing one of his multiple roles, and a lot of film stock was wasted due to laughter showing up on the soundtrack. Kubrick was reported to have laughed so hard at some points while filming Sellers that he was actually crying and almost falling out of his director's chair. I've heard that Chloris Leachman said similar things about some of her best work on Blazing Saddles. Many people who saw 2001 left the theater confused or bored, and didn't feel they had gotten their money's worth...that was certainly not the case with Dr. Strangelove... the audience knew they had gotten every penny of ticket price paid back in full, and then some. I was too young to see Strangelove in a theatre, but I liked it once I did see it, but I can't really compare the two films, they're so massively different, in almost every way. And, thats a point that marks Kubrick as one of the great directors, in that his films could be, well, anything. One thing that did come up in interviews with audiences that saw 2001 was that they thought Heywood Floyd had gone to some place called "Clavius" rather than the Moon, as it's not specifically mentioned that Clavius crater is the site of the US base on the Moon. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A524477 2001: A Space Odyssey Another factor was that Arthur C. Clarke felt that there was no need to educate the audience, as the contemporary astronomical events that were happening at the same time as the film was being made was doing it instead. Arthur C. Clarke's response to what the film is about is his novel, "2001: A Space Odyssey", although he has also said "If you understood 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered". Stanley Kubrick's response to people asking what the film is about was to say: "I don't like to talk about 2001 much because it's essentially a non-verbal experience. Less than half the film has dialogue." It might have helped if the had put the base on the Moon at someplace where people had heard of, such as Copernicus crater. I'm not sure that the list of people in 1968 who had heard of either crater would have been that different. This isn't exactly helped by the fact that the people on the Moon in the movie walk and move as if they are at full Earth gravity, rather than 1/6 G, so you might think they are on the surface of some other planet that has near Earth strength gravity. There were, after all, limits to 1968 SPFX technology. Plus, don't forget, as of 1968, no member of the public had yet seen humans walking on the Moon, so there was nothing immediate to visually compare to. Obligatory space history factoid: NASA was, at the time work on the film started, spending the same amount of money as 2001's budget every day - $10,500,000. Andre |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
Andre Lieven wrote: The aliens in 2001, we got nothing. I wonder if that non depiction in 2001 inspired Carl Sagan, both in his Cosmos sensawunda and in not showing the aliens in Contact - we only saw one human form manifestation of them. They did think about putting them in the movie, but couldn't decide what they should look like. There's one scene during the "big trip" at the end where the space pod is being escorted by flying tetrahedral things; I always wondered if those were the aliens. Pat |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
On Apr 4, 11:28*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Saw the whole thing twice in 70 mm *film and Cinerama As *far as movies go, it's the cinematographic form of the "The Emperor's New Clothes". Pat Interesting how many film critics, historians and buffs disagree with you on that. In the every 10 year critics poll that the British Film Institute does, 2001, jumped out of nowhere to 6th place as the best film of all time. To me it is the deepest film about time and space and biological evolution, all that BIG THINKS stuff H.G. Wells spoke of. A very difficult film and totally ground breaking if taken seriously..... which I think many people are not willing to do, to much thought has to be put into it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mariner IV Mars fly-by 40th anniversary | kucharek | History | 2 | July 16th 05 11:44 AM |
Congratulations Proton on its 40th Anniversary! | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | July 15th 05 09:37 PM |
Kubrick 2001: The Space Odyssey Explained | Scott M. Kozel | History | 10 | March 6th 05 10:50 PM |
Kubrick 2001: The Space Odyssey Explained | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 7 | March 6th 05 10:50 PM |