The Others

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Thru December 2001: The Others
By Heiko on Saturday, September 15, 2001 - 04:01 am: Edit

Anyone interested in filesharing networks forget everything else and remember two words: Direct Connect

It's faster, it's better, I know it since two hours and already love it!

By _Blackjack on Monday, September 10, 2001 - 09:12 pm: Edit


Why spend a load of money on something you don't need just in order to have it?

The same reason I own a car with a 500 cubic-inch engine, I guess...

By Heiko on Monday, September 10, 2001 - 04:07 am: Edit

"Why spend a load of money on something you don't need just in order to have it? How many people actually need a super fast system with all the latest modern gizmos?"

I absolutely agree - most people use their computers as an "internet-typewriter" and don't need most of the computational power a new system offers. I don't "need" a good PC neither, but it's my hobby to work with audio and video files, tune the PC to make it a fast graphics engine and some other ('useless') stuff. When working with video files, it's easy to make the CPU work at 100% for 10-20 hours, but if I had a faster CPU, I could apply some more filters and still only need 10 hours.
That means: No matter how fast my PC is, I will always find tasks that would make a faster PC necessary. These tasks are surely not Word, Internet or Emailing...

By Bob_Chong on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 07:55 am: Edit


RE: Almost Famous: if you, the Hippie MC, didn't get more T&A in the 70's on a daily basis than was depicted in the entire movie for all the rock'n'rollers combined, then I don't know what to believe anymore. Too whitewashed.


By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 07:18 am: Edit


As long as I can write letters on it using Word, prepare a few bits and bobs for my classroom, save onto floppy discs, play a couple of basic games (although nowadays my system doesn't meet the requirements of the most recent games, which means I'll spend my time doing more useful things), very ocassionally use an Access database, pick up a few e-mails and use the internet (if rather slowly) then what else do I need?

Why spend a load of money on something you don't need just in order to have it? How many people actually need a super fast system with all the latest modern gizmos? It's all a con. Bill Gates and the chairmen of IBM, Toshiba etc. etc. have enough money, I'm not going to contribute to their fortunes by buying something I don't really need.


By Etienne on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 04:49 am: Edit


I'm pleased to see that I'm not the only one on the forum that doesn't have a high-tech racehorse to post on. My ancient machine does become a bother now and then, (especially in the last thirty seconds of an eBay auction), but generally we get along just fine, thank you.


By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 02:55 am: Edit


"btw. you don't have a disc burner? How can you live without one? That's not possible! ;-)"

You haven't seen my computer. I like the way I can pop downstairs, put the kettle on and make myself a cup of tea in the time it takes my computer to download a dozen or so e-mails (without attachments). I kid you not.


By Zack on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 02:04 am: Edit


Yeah, how you feel is the bottom line I guess. I do take a rather extreme stance with these things. However, I think there are basically 2 types of film (as with music): Art/High culture and Mainstream/Pop/Hollywood/Low culture
And, I do appreciate mainstream film and music, in a simpler way...BUT when it is disguised as Art I have a hard time with that. (Call it crossing-over or whatever)

I can watch a high-flying Kung Fu movie and probably enjoy it for, just that...but if you scribble a love story in the margin of the script and peddle it as fine foreign cinema I'm gonna puke on it.

By Marc on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 01:46 am: Edit


I enjoy some mainstream Hollywood films. Cameron Crowe makes entertaining films that are well-written, well-acted and often insightful.
Scorsese, Coppola, DePalma, Kubrick and Lynch are all commercial filmmakers. I like alot of what they do.

I also appreciate Stan Brakhage, Russ Meyer,
Jean Eustache, Godard, Von Trier, Mario Bava
and many more non-Hollywood filmmakers.

Film, like rock and roll, is a popular art.
Some is less popular than others. I dig Madonna, but I also like Cat Power and p.j. harvey.
Its all about how it makes me feel.

By Zack on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 01:31 am: Edit


I feel the same with film as I do with all art...If it doesn't have to be made then it shouldn't be made. Economic incentive is a plague on film. You, as an artist, know when you have created something that needs to be shared. Cranking out half-assed work because you need to eat is understandable, but doing it constantly is just awful. It contributes nothing new to the world and just adds another layer of shit to dig through to find something good.

By Marc on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 01:22 am: Edit


what kind of film is "necessary"?

By Zack on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 01:18 am: Edit

Those are all of the movies he has made. However, I'm not going to criticise them individually...I still haven't been able to sit through the whole of one of them. However, judging by what I have seen, he is pure Hollywood. Not that it is totally bad, but to me that sort of film-making is unnecessary...If I just want to 'feel good' I can jackoff a lot quicker than 2 hours, for free.

By Marc on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 01:02 am: Edit

Cameron Crowe has made several fine movies:
Jerry McGuire, Say Anything, Singles, Almost Famous. He wrote Fast Times At Ridgemont High.

By Zack on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 12:46 am: Edit

The movie that Penelope Cruz and Tom Cruise have been shooting for, Vanilla Sky, is a remake of Open Your Eyes. I have never seen the original, but I'm sure Cameron Crowe can fuck it up.

By Marc on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 12:06 am: Edit

I saw THE OTHERS several weeks ago and found that it lingered for days in my psyche. Its like an eerie dream that colors your subconscious, an image bobbing up from time to time. Its an accomplished film by a young Spanish director who shows great promise: Alejandro Amenabar. He also directed a tight psychological thriller called
OPEN YOUR EYES starring Penelope Cruz. It was recently released on DVD.

By _Blackjack on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 05:35 pm: Edit

I'm just using the server from my ISP, which is actually outsourced to SuperNews. The only problem is that it is rate-capped at 128kb/s, which is annoying when I have a 1.5 Mb/s downstream pipe. That may make getting a private usenet account worth the trouble, for me.

By Heiko on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 05:30 pm: Edit

"Unless there is a part missing"

I guess you must be using a paid newsserver. With the free ones I have tried, there were always posts missing even if it was only 50 parts. I don't think you'd have a chance to get a 650mb file from there.

Is it maybe worth it spending money on a good binary-newsserver?

By _Blackjack on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 05:03 pm: Edit

If you use Agent, it automatically assembles all of the parts for you. Unless there is a part missing, it is totally transparent and looks like a single file in the message listing.

By Chrysippvs on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 03:26 pm: Edit

I concur Heiko....

By Heiko on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 03:24 pm: Edit

You mean download a movie in 1200 parts of 512 kb each? In the end there are one or two parts missing and you can forget the whole thing...
Or are there newsservers where you can post 650MB files?

You're right with the TV - I've watched some of my files on a tv screen recently and was amazed how good some low quality VCD mpeg looked. On the other hand, a high quality divx - much better on a monitor - didn't look that much better.

By _Blackjack on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 03:23 pm: Edit

What an incredibly useful site! I've always leaned towards Usenet for binaries, but this Binnewz thing takes almost all the pain out of the process. I wonder how long it will be before the MPAA or the record companies catch on and their lawyers go insane because there is nobody to sue...

But, yes kids, pay money to see independent films and buy CD's from independent artists, because they really DO suffer the direct effects of piracy. However, I don't think anybody is going to starve if I download Shreck...

By Dread on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 02:25 pm: Edit

The easiest way to download movies (IMHO) is from usenet (news servers). I check out what is available from a web site ( and then use Free Agent to download the movie from the appropriate newsgroup.

Typically I find the quality to be less than what I prefer but have found that watching it on a TV makes it look a little better. If you want to watch it on TV you need a video card that supports TV out or (in my case) a laptop that has S-video output.

By Heiko on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 09:56 am: Edit


if you buy a new PC, don't worry about HD space - the cheapest HDs you can get right now are 40 Gig drives - but it's not possible to directly burn a download (well, maybe with Win XP and a BurnProof writer? I'm not sure).

If you want to watch DivX movies, you need a good PC anyways. The last one I had (a PIII 450 with a Matrox G200 graphics card) was just good enough to play most divx stuff. With HQ divx (high resolution and high datarate) it was too slow...

btw. you don't have a disc burner? How can you live without one? That's not possible! ;-)

By Tavarua on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 08:49 am: Edit

It is getting about time to pick up a new PC. Maybe I will go with the disc burner option. They are relatively cheap at this point, I believe. I guess my next question is, is it possible to burn the DVD while you are downloading it.


It was a kind of in between. It wasn't scrachy and the sound was good, but the picture wasn't crystal clear.

By Melinelly on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 08:31 am: Edit

more like a cd, tav.

By Tavarua on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 08:27 am: Edit

Would it be possible to copy these movies on a Zip Drive, without it eating up your Hard Drive?

By Heiko on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 08:18 am: Edit

The fun thing about movies from the web is: I d/l and watch a movie that I maybe never would have watched in my life. Never even heard of...

I've seen "Remember the Titans" that way recently. I swear I had never even heard of this movie. How could I have spent money on it?

btw. it's more kind of a "I'm able to d/l movies from the web" - thing than ripping off someone.
If I really like a movie, I buy the DVD - it beats any copy in quality and options.

When I copy a DVD myself, it's only a hobby - usually I never watch it again (because I've seen it on DVD once or twice before)

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 08:16 pm: Edit

"blows away watching a cam flick on my dinky 32" monitor."

What an insecure individual. Why didn't he just say "Girls!!! I have a really small penis" ?

By Bob_Chong on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 08:12 pm: Edit


Where I am, the "Universitaet" has gigantic network temp spaces that are purged every 24 hours. Believe me, 700 MB ist gar nichts.


By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 08:11 pm: Edit

On the topic of movies I agree. For different reasons though. Seeing them at the theatre blows away watching a cam flick on my dinky 32" monitor.

They'll make plenty of money with or with out me.

By Marc on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 08:05 pm: Edit

If you're going to steal movies then steal the crappy stuff like Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor.
Good films, like The Others, have a tough enough time recouping their investment without greedy little punks ripping them off. I am happy to contribute, via buying a ticket, to the success of a good film.

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 08:01 pm: Edit

Those hackers! Modern day Robin Hoods. Bless 'em.

(Some pious person may now chime in with THIEVES THIEVES ALL!!!)

By Admin on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 07:57 pm: Edit

And speaking of which, the Chapel Perilous' original sponsors were a couple of Italian hackers who ran a domain, DeELiTe. In the days when I didn't have enough money to host my own, and webhosting was very expensive and there were no freebies, they took pity on my art and smut collection and hosted the infant site for me for a good six months.

Bless 'em.

By Admin on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 07:51 pm: Edit



as well as "bork! bork! bork!" now supports a Hacker language preference. Just go to preferences and select your language.

By Chrysippvs on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Just a side note to all broadband users I highly recommend getting Download more than halves your DL time from Http sites....killer app so to speak..

- J

By Chrysippvs on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 06:08 pm: Edit

I am on cable and if I can find a http site I can get a movie file in like 15-15 min, from a good FTP or a good connection on Aimster or Morpheus I get them in around half an hour to 45 min depending on the quality/format etc...

Movies are pretty easy to find, the only bad thing is waiting in line, but with a dedicated connection you can just leave it on all night and wake to to your new copy of whatever.

All the movies I DL have to be atleast 350x* (depending on if it is letter box). Some DIVX files are great while some are not so great, I perfer mpg but that is just too big most of the time. The copy of the others I have is great, the only bad things about pirates are the subtitiles in Chinese etc at the bottom. I personally have never DLed a camcorder version, you can usually tell these a mile away due to file size, a good movie will take 2 CDs, a good one in DIVX will certainly fill a CD up.

GoD BlEsS WaReZ (or so the 13 year old script kiddies say)

By Heiko on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 05:03 pm: Edit

these students can't be too intelligent if they leave all kinds of stuff in a temp folder with public access.
btw. I don't think you'll find any 650-700MB movie files in a temp folder...

" if you don't have a fast connection, it can take forever."

I'm on a 10Mbit LAN, but I've never taken off any movie files from gnutella with more than 20k/s. Most were running at about 3-6k/s and the d/l needed about 40 hours...
btw. gnutella clients are shit, anyways. At least with win 98 they all fill your memory until, after a few hours, it needs half a minute to maximize a window and the network speed goes down extremely.
It's more fun to copy dvd's yourself anyways :-)

By _Blackjack on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Ghost World was wonderful.

If you want to download current run movies, do a Google search for "moviez" and you will find tons. Most are poorly compressed copies of camcorder recordings, but there are a few that are made from review copies and such.

Be prepared, tho. Most moviez/warez sites will deluge you with porn pop-up ads, sometimes enough to crash your system. Also, the files are usually at least half a gig in size, so if you don't have a fast connection, it can take forever.

You can also find such files on filesharing systems like Gnutella, and on IRC. This takes a little more technical knowhow, but there are more files to be found and less ads, not to mention that the sources are much less likely to disappear.

By Bob_Chong on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 01:24 pm: Edit


If you have access to a large university nearby (especially one with lots of int'l students, particularly Asian), go to one of the computer labs and search some of the temp storage spaces on the university computer network. You'll find all kinds of stuff.


By Admin on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Oh yeah, I caught the similarities to to "Turn of the Screw" too ... but it's not an adaptation (for other folkses who haven't seen it), just lends itself to the genre.

Dang! My other favorite movie that just came out, "Ghost World". Funny how I'm beginning to relate to the Buscemi character instead of the teenage girls. Another Brilliant flick filled with sardonic twists.

By Heiko on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 12:25 pm: Edit


are you talking about an mpeg/divx of the Matrix that was filmed with a camcorder at the movie theatre, or a really good, DVD-like version?

When Star Wars Episode 1 came to US theatres, I got a copy of it that someone had made with a camcorder (I didn't download it myself and don't know where it was from). It was cool because I knew the movie half a year before it came to German theatres, but the picture quality wasn't good and the sound was awful.

If you're looking for divx movies, search irc channels or gnutella. I've never had a pre-release again, but some nice dvd-rips (better quality anyways).

By Admin on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 12:15 pm: Edit


ha! I was just going to post a review, honest, like in the next few minutes.

I went and saw it last night.

"The Others" ... Tis lovely. Tis spooky. Tis an old fashioned haunted house story. They've used alot of Hitchockian sound effects, which heightens the classic aura of the film. It is exquisitely shot in an old Jacobean Manor, very atmospheric. My favorite thing is it is not filled with a bunch of fake spook outs. When you jump, the plot delivers. I thought it was indulgent, lovely and creepy. All in a good way.

I might even see it again. Anyone up for it?

By Tavarua on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 10:55 am: Edit


Actually, I was going to check it out, but the PG rating turned me off. How can you have a spooky movie with a PG Rating.

How would one go about downloading movies still in the theatre? I had a good friend in college who downloaded "The Matrix", after it had just come out in the theatres, over his computer one night, for a bunch of us to watch. He refused to tell me how it was done, and where he went to do it and he was a GOOD friend. He was acting cloak and dagger about it. Lousy, secret, subgroups. Anyway, could you at least tell me a good starting point for this. Maxim Magazine did a short write up about it, but didn't want to go into any detail.

By Chrysippvs on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 10:41 am: Edit

Just downloaded this and watched it...anyone else seen it. I thought it was a masterful retelling of an old story (The turn of the screw).

On the otherhand I saw "Re-Animator" the other night and that almost made me cry. Why do movie constantly manage to put out "Screams" and "Last Summers" and when they get ahold of a Lovecraft flick they manage destory everything good about the story and then make a movie (the only exception is Evil Dead etc. it goes without saying that this is one of the greatest movies ever.).

Sorry to chime in on the forum about flicks and a rant...but I was just wondering. Marc, I am sure you have a good opinion...anyone else?

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation