The mini series of Salem's Lot is fab. Really like that. Much better than the film. I'd love to see the original Kingdom Hospital. Not sure it's ever been released on DVD. I've got "King's" version. Pretty good. Can't beat the Langoliers though. Best King film ever.
I remember watching The Langoliers as a kid and thinking it was really creepy and tense, with an interesting mystery and a menacingly crazy bad guy. Then the Langoliers themselves show up and... oh dear :lol:
The mini series of Salem's Lot is fab. Really like that. Much better than the film. I'd love to see the original Kingdom Hospital. Not sure it's ever been released on DVD. I've got "King's" version. Pretty good. Can't beat the Langoliers though. Best King film ever.
the film deliberately deviates from the book - Its different and its BETTER
NO, it's not. The film only deviates to increase Nicholson's role and performance. Kubrick was totally the wrong man for the project. He basically butchered the story.
Kubrick did what Kubrick always did, put himself before the project.
King usually builds tension up over 400-500 pages before delivering his climax in the last 50, with very little action along the way. He tends to build up his characters so that when they do what they do at the end we know why. Trying to do this in a film would make it a box office disaster, so Kubrick made it into a slasher. And Nicholson is over the top in just about every film he's in!
Never read any of his books, but the film it seems to me is all about madness. The people he talks too in the film apart from his wife and child are projections or personifications of his (the character Jack Torrance ) own prejudices, paranoia and demons.
Kubrick was an accomplished film director because he could convey a numinous atmosphere, however he seems to have totally taken over whatever book he was making into a film, and given it largely his own atmosphere. So I am not sure: did he just need others books to make his own sort of film? It seems to me he did, and so I agree with what some are saying , he was not about really finding a way to make an authentic film version of someone else's novel, but really doing his own thing.
In any case a book for reading is never going to convert very well into a film these days. Only way would be for Stephen King or whichever novelist to write the screen play, and perhaps direct it. In fact they'd probably need to direct it. I'd rather see effort put into good spoken word versions. I'd have difficulty saying a film - ruined any particular book, or that any film is "better". Films sometimes ruin an audiences appreciation for a book. Reading itself is a skill, you have to get yourself out of the way. Hence Literary Criticism is primarily to help people read without reading their own culture into it. Its not really criticism of the literature, but to clear blockages that prevent someone receiving a work as the author intended. So the modern importance placed on "what does it mean to you?" is pathetic and people schooled in valuing only what something means to them, are the worst sorts of critics. If one hasn't even made a basic attempt to get oneself out of the way then really ones ability to read will remain pitiable.
Was Stephen King not just conveying something that was going on in the world - political scandal or corruption, a war, etc. - absorbing a period of history and then putting it into the form of a story in a manner to convey what the time felt like for people living through it? Salem's Lot wasn't about the Ervin committee, but just a fictional conveying of what that time was like in terms of fears. But I don't really know how well he (King) captures both the hopes and fears of any period in politics? Only his own I'd say. And I don't really want to waste time on the paranoid, incestuous, nihilistic fodder that I see in some film versions. Someone at school used to shout about how they "could have been reading steven king" instead of something else, and that pretty much put me off. I'd rather be reading the myths that most modern fiction when it is about anything are re-tellings of. I can't be bothered with people changing stuff, or worst of all confabulating and revisioning historical eras. That is why I hardly bother with new movies anymore. If they are worth their salt they will still be around in ten years time, if not I haven't wasted any time, or fogged my mind any further.
Ooh, cool. I only saw the few clips that were on King's "Access All Areas" Making-Of. Looked good. I guess it won't have Antibus in it, and I expect it'll be subtitled, but I'll seek it out. :)
I remember watching The Langoliers as a kid and thinking it was really creepy and tense, with an interesting mystery and a menacingly crazy bad guy. Then the Langoliers themselves show up and... oh dear :lol:
Yeah, they're not realised particularly well, but the design is still scary. I think the effects have actually improved over time though. We were very much aware that it was below-par CG back then, but last time I watched it, it was no worse than Lawnmower Man. You're right about the creepy atmosphere. Love the idea of a long, audible, impending doom.
The Shawshank Redemption is the best adaption of a King story. It's arguably the best movie ever made.
Lots of people say it's a rubbish version (even King himself doesn't think much of it), but in all honesty, the people I've seen slagging off the film mostly seem pretentious and look-how-clever-I-am-because-I-dislike-what-the-masses-like type people.
The film version is fantastic, with great dialogue, acting, and even without the surprise ending it's still a great story of human interest. It's probably my favourite non-comedy film (my favourite film is still Monty Python's Life of Brian).
BTW, if anyone hasn't seen The Shawshank Redemption, then you must, but don't discuss it with anyone beforehand in case they tell you the ending.
I have seen it before I knew anything much about it, but again I haven't read the book. Its a excellent film, story - very watchable and agree its best to see before you know much about it. But having seen it people do like to say what they thought of it and I don't really go for the "oh I wish it would have never ended" appraisal, or people who can only say "oh just superlative" . That puts me off - I'd rather hear good criticism of a good movie, than people swooning over it. If its good then say why?
I like the story for its moments when the institutional and brutal prison 'existence' are punctured by something almost transcendent but in the form of the ordinary, the struggle to maintain your spirit under such arid conditions.
The way it depicts the depravity of those 'higher up' in the system being envious of those who have lost their freedom, and ungrateful for simple things - everything is too much effort, except for the prisoners - and how something simple becomes like paradise for moments for those who have lost freedom.
But "best movie ever" puts me off even watching something. Maybe I am in the minority for countenancing others opinions if they differ from my own. It seems you have to just "like" nowadays. And woe if you want to express disagreement in some circles unless you dislike the 'right' things. If people didn't like it I'd still listen to what they said. Why can't people disagree civilly and thoughtfully. If someone didn't like it I don't automatically think they are "highbrow" it depends what they say - if they can convincingly explain that another film is better then I want to hear about it. But after it all leave me my own thoughts :-)
Things you only figured out after all these years............
That no one on wos likes me:grin:
I wouldn't go that far - but I had the same feeling at times, but the people here are quite longsuffering (at least as long as I have been here! :lol: )
Sorry for my rants, and verbosity, missing of the point, and failure most of the time to think of anything new to talk about.
Lots of people say it's a rubbish version (even King himself doesn't think much of it), but in all honesty, the people I've seen slagging off the film mostly seem pretentious and look-how-clever-I-am-because-I-dislike-what-the-masses-like type people.
I'll take your word for it but I've never met anyone who's seen it and hasn't enjoyed it, but then I don't go around asking everyone I meet if they like it :-) When it was first released it certainly wasn't a what-the-masses-like type of movie as it did pretty dreadful at the box office even though it was nominated for 7 oscars (and won none). It was only subsequent word-of-mouth when it was home-released that garnered it the success it has had.
I'd be interested to hear where you heard that King doesn't like Shawshank because every interview where he's asked about his favourite adaptions he lists Shawshank along with Misery, Stand By Me and The Mist. Interviews that I've read anyway.
The film version is fantastic, with great dialogue, acting, and even without the surprise ending it's still a great story of human interest. It's probably my favourite non-comedy film (my favourite film is still Monty Python's Life of Brian).
BTW, if anyone hasn't seen The Shawshank Redemption, then you must, but don't discuss it with anyone beforehand in case they tell you the ending.
The story goes that Darabont didn't want to include the ending, but finish it with Red on the bus, and had to be convinced to put it in. The ending is one of the reasons it's such an amazing film.
I'll take your word for it but I've never met anyone who's seen it and hasn't enjoyed it, but then I don't go around asking everyone I meet if they like it :-) When it was first released it certainly wasn't a what-the-masses-like type of movie as it did pretty dreadful at the box office even though it was nominated for 7 oscars (and won none). It was only subsequent word-of-mouth when it was home-released that garnered it the success it has had.
I'd be interested to hear where you heard that King doesn't like Shawshank because every interview where he's asked about his favourite adaptions he lists Shawshank along with Misery, Stand By Me and The Mist. Interviews that I've read anyway.
I can't remember where I read it (I seem to recall reading it in an essay or long introduction to something else, whatever, it was written by King himself) and I could be wrong about it, but I'm 99% sure he mentions how disappointed he was about it.
I thought I might have read it in Danse Macabre, but it's not that as it was written long before the film, and a quick google doesn't help either. I might be wrong, I don't know.
The story goes that Darabont didn't want to include the ending, but finish it with Red on the bus, and had to be convinced to put it in. The ending is one of the reasons it's such an amazing film.
Yes, but I'm just saying even without out the current ending (and don't worry anyone else, that's not really a spoiler) it would still be a great film.
Yes, but I'm just saying even without out the current ending (and don't worry anyone else, that's not really a spoiler) it would still be a great film.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you in the slightest. Without it it would still be amazing, but just that 20 seconds at the end tips it over into all-time greatness. You would have to be completely heartless not to be moved by it.
Incidentally, if anyone has seen Kingdom Hospital, when the guy get hit by a truck at the beginning, it's almost exactly what happened to Stephen King, even down to the model of truck used....
Originally Posted by zx1 Things you only figured out after all these years............
That no one on wos likes me:grin:
I like you ZX1, but that's not saying much, because everyone hates me !
That is saying a lot.
Its more threads about rock groups I have never heard of before I don't like - so pretty much everything except the "music you really hate" thread.:lol:
I think with me its that I feel most of the comments refer to some dumbass thing I said, like Monkey Island couldn't be converted to the Spectrum, or more likely "why don't you convert Monkey Island for the spectrum." Then it seems that people are actually teaming up to prove me wrong. Which is great for the ZX Spectrum.
Its all fine and dandy, but really you don't have to unless it interests you.
How easy and cheap it is to make your own baked beans just like the once you get in Britain. The US ones are overpriced and over sweetened.
Cheap Navy Beans (either from a tin or pre-soaked),
Tomato puree just enough to cover the beans,
Tea spoon of Molasses,
Tea spoon of Honey,
Tea spoon of sugar,
Tea sooon of onion powder,
Half tea spoon of garlic powder.
Cook on moderate heat for 10 mins.
Just like Heinz from Britain. Put em with some oven chips and I'm in hog heaven. My 4 year old likes it too, he calls it 'Mmmmmm food'.
How easy and cheap it is to make your own baked beans just like the once you get in Britain. The US ones are overpriced and over sweetened.
Cheap Navy Beans (either from a tin or pre-soaked),
Tomato puree just enough to cover the beans,
Tea spoon of Molasses,
Tea spoon of Honey,
Tea spoon of sugar,
Tea sooon of onion powder,
Half tea spoon of garlic powder.
Cook on moderate heat for 10 mins.
Just like Heinz from Britain. Put em with some oven chips and I'm in hog heaven. My 4 year old likes it too, he calls it 'Mmmmmm food'.
Awesome, I have a packet of Navy Beans here and this sort of thing is exactly what I've been wanted to do with them. I'm going to look into doing that, just one question though after reading the recipe, should there be some water in there at all? It looks like it needs some otherwise I imagine it being more pasty than saucy unless the honey/molasses do something I'm not catching in the consistency department?
As for a domestic brand store bought replacement for Heinz, I found here in Texas in HEB that their own brand Pork & Beans does a decent job of replicating the flavour, and before Albertsons (not sure if any of these are around you, HEB is definitely not to be found far outside of Texas) moved out from our area, their own brand was good too. Obviously that's no good if you're vegetarian, but I've been able to get normal sized tins of the Pork & Beans for 50?, which seems a pretty fair price when taking the cost of honey/molasses/puree etc.. into account. Sorry to be a home economic nerd here, but based on the recipe above roughly how much would that work out to be per tin? Although that depends on economies of scale of course, but if you were to make enough for dinner, which I'm assuming that that recipe is for.
I tend to make about half a mid sized pot full which is enough for 4 to 5 adult dinners.
The amount of molasses and honey and sugar is so small, it's worth it.
I don't put any water in there, but do let some but not all of the juice the navy bean go into the pot. Ensure you get the tinned tomato puree, not the super concentrated ones that come in small tins or tubes.
It can take as little as 7 mins to make once your practiced and up to speed. Beans here seem to be near a between 98c to $1.75 cents per tin and that only if you like cured bacon in it. I'm vegan so finding vegitarian beans puts the cost of to aprox $1.50 per tin which is crazy given I was buying them in the UK for 32p or four for a pound.
I tend to make about half a mid sized pot full which is enough for 4 to 5 adult dinners.
The amount of molasses and honey and sugar is so small, it's worth it.
I don't put any water in there, but do let some but not all of the juice the navy bean go into the pot. Ensure you get the tinned tomato puree, not the super concentrated ones that come in small tins or tubes.
It can take as little as 7 mins to make once your practiced and up to speed. Beans here seem to be near a between 98c to $1.75 cents per tin and that only if you like cured bacon in it. I'm vegan so finding vegitarian beans puts the cost of to aprox $1.50 per tin which is crazy given I was buying them in the UK for 32p or four for a pound.
That's how food pricing works here Scottie.
Regular brand name food = Extortionate unless on special that week.
Imported Brand Name + $3
Vegetarian + $1
Vegan + $2.50
Organic + $2
Gluten Free + $4
So if the can says something like delicious Heinz, organic, gluten free beans suitable for Vegans then it'll be about $12 a can :D
I tend to make about half a mid sized pot full which is enough for 4 to 5 adult dinners.
The amount of molasses and honey and sugar is so small, it's worth it.
I don't put any water in there, but do let some but not all of the juice the navy bean go into the pot. Ensure you get the tinned tomato puree, not the super concentrated ones that come in small tins or tubes.
Thanks, I guess for this you could get the cheapest honey rather than 'local' Texas honey, bought because it is said to be good for allergies due to the pollen coming from local flowers etc.. I do use the small tins of puree, so I guess I'll have to experiment with adding water which is fine, the only thing I don't have to hand is the molasses, but that's easily fixed.
It can take as little as 7 mins to make once your practiced and up to speed. Beans here seem to be near a between 98c to $1.75 cents per tin and that only if you like cured bacon in it. I'm vegan so finding vegitarian beans puts the cost of to aprox $1.50 per tin which is crazy given I was buying them in the UK for 32p or four for a pound.
Yeah, it must be a pain if you're vegetarian, I can't see why they aren't available minus the pork, which pretty much works out to be a tiny chunk of bacon fat per tin but still. That style of baked beans just aren't as popular over here I guess.
BTW; probably old news, but in case any ex-pats are still buying import tea, you can get the Tetley's British Blend, still not as cheap as you'd find in the UK mind, but a whole lot cheaper than import. And they should be carried in most supermarkets. Makes a nice cuppa.
In all seriousness about the cost of living here in the US I suggest coupons, not to the level of those crazy women you see on TV, but really coupons.
I haven't paid for razors, soap, shower gel, shaving foam/gel/soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes, dental floss, bubble bath, and the odd one out from that lot cereal for at least 4 years.
Infact I still have a load of hygiene products in a box under the bed that I've had since about 2011, we've only just got down to our last 2 tubes of toothpaste this week.
I still have about 20 boxes of cereal left over from a triple coupons deal from over a year ago, and some of it has been sitting there longer, infact I'm going to have to eat more cereal in general as most of it expires in April this year.
I know it's a big hassle to cut them out of magazine/flyers/newpapers etc, or print them out off the internet, but if your local supermarkets have double or triple coupon deals on, and the items you have coupons for are on special you can walk away from the store with hundreds of dollars worth of groceries for next to nothing.
Last triple coupons at our local supermarket that was any good was about 5 months ago, and we walked away with about $600 worth of stuff for about $24, on more than one occasion during the week.
It's not all crap either, but if they've got crap on special you might as well get it, especially if it ends up being free, if you won't use it donate it to the Sally Army or the foodbanks. Either way some good will come of it one way or another.
The supermarkets here sometimes allow you to use triple coupons, so if you say have a $4 item, and you have 3 coupons for $1 off said item you can use all 3 coupons against the item and get it for $1.
But if the coupons add up to the same or greater value of the item you get it for free, some places will even credit you if the coupons add up to more than the item, and some places will even give you the difference over back in cash...it's crazy :D
Its funny isn't it when for almost all your life you believe something to be true, and then after all these years realize it's not true, or never happened.
Recently I'd been listening to the Album Frankie Goes to Hollywood a lot and it got me thinking 'You know after all these years and all the hype I've still never watched that Frankie Goes to Hollywood film'. I now find out there never was one was there?
I think I assumed this because there was a video game and if there was one of them there surely must have been the film it was based off.
Silly me. Anyone else have anything similar happen to them?
No there never was a Frankie Goes To Hollywood movie, but the band was in the Brian De Palma movie Body Double :)
Comments
I remember watching The Langoliers as a kid and thinking it was really creepy and tense, with an interesting mystery and a menacingly crazy bad guy. Then the Langoliers themselves show up and... oh dear :lol:
Kubrick did what Kubrick always did, put himself before the project.
Kubrick was an accomplished film director because he could convey a numinous atmosphere, however he seems to have totally taken over whatever book he was making into a film, and given it largely his own atmosphere. So I am not sure: did he just need others books to make his own sort of film? It seems to me he did, and so I agree with what some are saying , he was not about really finding a way to make an authentic film version of someone else's novel, but really doing his own thing.
In any case a book for reading is never going to convert very well into a film these days. Only way would be for Stephen King or whichever novelist to write the screen play, and perhaps direct it. In fact they'd probably need to direct it. I'd rather see effort put into good spoken word versions. I'd have difficulty saying a film - ruined any particular book, or that any film is "better". Films sometimes ruin an audiences appreciation for a book. Reading itself is a skill, you have to get yourself out of the way. Hence Literary Criticism is primarily to help people read without reading their own culture into it. Its not really criticism of the literature, but to clear blockages that prevent someone receiving a work as the author intended. So the modern importance placed on "what does it mean to you?" is pathetic and people schooled in valuing only what something means to them, are the worst sorts of critics. If one hasn't even made a basic attempt to get oneself out of the way then really ones ability to read will remain pitiable.
Was Stephen King not just conveying something that was going on in the world - political scandal or corruption, a war, etc. - absorbing a period of history and then putting it into the form of a story in a manner to convey what the time felt like for people living through it? Salem's Lot wasn't about the Ervin committee, but just a fictional conveying of what that time was like in terms of fears. But I don't really know how well he (King) captures both the hopes and fears of any period in politics? Only his own I'd say. And I don't really want to waste time on the paranoid, incestuous, nihilistic fodder that I see in some film versions. Someone at school used to shout about how they "could have been reading steven king" instead of something else, and that pretty much put me off. I'd rather be reading the myths that most modern fiction when it is about anything are re-tellings of. I can't be bothered with people changing stuff, or worst of all confabulating and revisioning historical eras. That is why I hardly bother with new movies anymore. If they are worth their salt they will still be around in ten years time, if not I haven't wasted any time, or fogged my mind any further.
Ooh, cool. I only saw the few clips that were on King's "Access All Areas" Making-Of. Looked good. I guess it won't have Antibus in it, and I expect it'll be subtitled, but I'll seek it out. :)
Yeah, they're not realised particularly well, but the design is still scary. I think the effects have actually improved over time though. We were very much aware that it was below-par CG back then, but last time I watched it, it was no worse than Lawnmower Man. You're right about the creepy atmosphere. Love the idea of a long, audible, impending doom.
Lots of people say it's a rubbish version (even King himself doesn't think much of it), but in all honesty, the people I've seen slagging off the film mostly seem pretentious and look-how-clever-I-am-because-I-dislike-what-the-masses-like type people.
The film version is fantastic, with great dialogue, acting, and even without the surprise ending it's still a great story of human interest. It's probably my favourite non-comedy film (my favourite film is still Monty Python's Life of Brian).
BTW, if anyone hasn't seen The Shawshank Redemption, then you must, but don't discuss it with anyone beforehand in case they tell you the ending.
I like the story for its moments when the institutional and brutal prison 'existence' are punctured by something almost transcendent but in the form of the ordinary, the struggle to maintain your spirit under such arid conditions.
The way it depicts the depravity of those 'higher up' in the system being envious of those who have lost their freedom, and ungrateful for simple things - everything is too much effort, except for the prisoners - and how something simple becomes like paradise for moments for those who have lost freedom.
But "best movie ever" puts me off even watching something. Maybe I am in the minority for countenancing others opinions if they differ from my own. It seems you have to just "like" nowadays. And woe if you want to express disagreement in some circles unless you dislike the 'right' things. If people didn't like it I'd still listen to what they said. Why can't people disagree civilly and thoughtfully. If someone didn't like it I don't automatically think they are "highbrow" it depends what they say - if they can convincingly explain that another film is better then I want to hear about it. But after it all leave me my own thoughts :-)
That no one on wos likes me:grin:
It's cos' everybody is terrified of your pizza :p
:lol:
Sorry for my rants, and verbosity, missing of the point, and failure most of the time to think of anything new to talk about.
I'll take your word for it but I've never met anyone who's seen it and hasn't enjoyed it, but then I don't go around asking everyone I meet if they like it :-) When it was first released it certainly wasn't a what-the-masses-like type of movie as it did pretty dreadful at the box office even though it was nominated for 7 oscars (and won none). It was only subsequent word-of-mouth when it was home-released that garnered it the success it has had.
I'd be interested to hear where you heard that King doesn't like Shawshank because every interview where he's asked about his favourite adaptions he lists Shawshank along with Misery, Stand By Me and The Mist. Interviews that I've read anyway.
The story goes that Darabont didn't want to include the ending, but finish it with Red on the bus, and had to be convinced to put it in. The ending is one of the reasons it's such an amazing film.
I like you ZX1, but that's not saying much, because everyone hates me !
I wouldn't say everyone hates, you. I remember the response you got when you reappeared after what seemed like years away from the site.
I can't remember where I read it (I seem to recall reading it in an essay or long introduction to something else, whatever, it was written by King himself) and I could be wrong about it, but I'm 99% sure he mentions how disappointed he was about it.
I thought I might have read it in Danse Macabre, but it's not that as it was written long before the film, and a quick google doesn't help either. I might be wrong, I don't know.
Yes, but I'm just saying even without out the current ending (and don't worry anyone else, that's not really a spoiler) it would still be a great film.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you in the slightest. Without it it would still be amazing, but just that 20 seconds at the end tips it over into all-time greatness. You would have to be completely heartless not to be moved by it.
oh yes it is
eez behind ya!
Things you only figured out after all these years............
That no one on wos likes me:grin:
I like you ZX1, but that's not saying much, because everyone hates me !
That is saying a lot.
Its more threads about rock groups I have never heard of before I don't like - so pretty much everything except the "music you really hate" thread.:lol:
I think with me its that I feel most of the comments refer to some dumbass thing I said, like Monkey Island couldn't be converted to the Spectrum, or more likely "why don't you convert Monkey Island for the spectrum." Then it seems that people are actually teaming up to prove me wrong. Which is great for the ZX Spectrum.
Its all fine and dandy, but really you don't have to unless it interests you.
Cheap Navy Beans (either from a tin or pre-soaked),
Tomato puree just enough to cover the beans,
Tea spoon of Molasses,
Tea spoon of Honey,
Tea spoon of sugar,
Tea sooon of onion powder,
Half tea spoon of garlic powder.
Cook on moderate heat for 10 mins.
Just like Heinz from Britain. Put em with some oven chips and I'm in hog heaven. My 4 year old likes it too, he calls it 'Mmmmmm food'.
Awesome, I have a packet of Navy Beans here and this sort of thing is exactly what I've been wanted to do with them. I'm going to look into doing that, just one question though after reading the recipe, should there be some water in there at all? It looks like it needs some otherwise I imagine it being more pasty than saucy unless the honey/molasses do something I'm not catching in the consistency department?
As for a domestic brand store bought replacement for Heinz, I found here in Texas in HEB that their own brand Pork & Beans does a decent job of replicating the flavour, and before Albertsons (not sure if any of these are around you, HEB is definitely not to be found far outside of Texas) moved out from our area, their own brand was good too. Obviously that's no good if you're vegetarian, but I've been able to get normal sized tins of the Pork & Beans for 50?, which seems a pretty fair price when taking the cost of honey/molasses/puree etc.. into account. Sorry to be a home economic nerd here, but based on the recipe above roughly how much would that work out to be per tin? Although that depends on economies of scale of course, but if you were to make enough for dinner, which I'm assuming that that recipe is for.
The amount of molasses and honey and sugar is so small, it's worth it.
I don't put any water in there, but do let some but not all of the juice the navy bean go into the pot. Ensure you get the tinned tomato puree, not the super concentrated ones that come in small tins or tubes.
It can take as little as 7 mins to make once your practiced and up to speed. Beans here seem to be near a between 98c to $1.75 cents per tin and that only if you like cured bacon in it. I'm vegan so finding vegitarian beans puts the cost of to aprox $1.50 per tin which is crazy given I was buying them in the UK for 32p or four for a pound.
That's how food pricing works here Scottie.
Regular brand name food = Extortionate unless on special that week.
Imported Brand Name + $3
Vegetarian + $1
Vegan + $2.50
Organic + $2
Gluten Free + $4
So if the can says something like delicious Heinz, organic, gluten free beans suitable for Vegans then it'll be about $12 a can :D
Thanks, I guess for this you could get the cheapest honey rather than 'local' Texas honey, bought because it is said to be good for allergies due to the pollen coming from local flowers etc.. I do use the small tins of puree, so I guess I'll have to experiment with adding water which is fine, the only thing I don't have to hand is the molasses, but that's easily fixed.
Yeah, it must be a pain if you're vegetarian, I can't see why they aren't available minus the pork, which pretty much works out to be a tiny chunk of bacon fat per tin but still. That style of baked beans just aren't as popular over here I guess.
BTW; probably old news, but in case any ex-pats are still buying import tea, you can get the Tetley's British Blend, still not as cheap as you'd find in the UK mind, but a whole lot cheaper than import. And they should be carried in most supermarkets. Makes a nice cuppa.
I haven't paid for razors, soap, shower gel, shaving foam/gel/soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes, dental floss, bubble bath, and the odd one out from that lot cereal for at least 4 years.
Infact I still have a load of hygiene products in a box under the bed that I've had since about 2011, we've only just got down to our last 2 tubes of toothpaste this week.
I still have about 20 boxes of cereal left over from a triple coupons deal from over a year ago, and some of it has been sitting there longer, infact I'm going to have to eat more cereal in general as most of it expires in April this year.
I know it's a big hassle to cut them out of magazine/flyers/newpapers etc, or print them out off the internet, but if your local supermarkets have double or triple coupon deals on, and the items you have coupons for are on special you can walk away from the store with hundreds of dollars worth of groceries for next to nothing.
Last triple coupons at our local supermarket that was any good was about 5 months ago, and we walked away with about $600 worth of stuff for about $24, on more than one occasion during the week.
It's not all crap either, but if they've got crap on special you might as well get it, especially if it ends up being free, if you won't use it donate it to the Sally Army or the foodbanks. Either way some good will come of it one way or another.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
The supermarkets here sometimes allow you to use triple coupons, so if you say have a $4 item, and you have 3 coupons for $1 off said item you can use all 3 coupons against the item and get it for $1.
But if the coupons add up to the same or greater value of the item you get it for free, some places will even credit you if the coupons add up to more than the item, and some places will even give you the difference over back in cash...it's crazy :D
No there never was a Frankie Goes To Hollywood movie, but the band was in the Brian De Palma movie Body Double :)