 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
http://www.xkcd.com/224/
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:47839abb$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
Huh? Related how?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
>
> Huh? Related how?
"My God, it's full of CARs..." ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47839f0a$1@news.povray.org...
> >>>
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
> >> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
> >
> > Huh? Related how?
>
> "My God, it's full of CARs..." ;-)
The comic you linked to is titled Lisp, and wonders if god constructed the
universe using lisp.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>>>> http://www.xkcd.com/224/
>>> Huh? Related how?
>> "My God, it's full of CARs..." ;-)
>
> The comic you linked to is titled Lisp, and wonders if god constructed the
> universe using lisp.
Oh well, never mind then. It's certainly not the first time somebody has
told me I'm not funny.
[I thought the idea of a real person having a name like Sandy Beaver was
very amusing - but the entire NERV clan disagreed with me, so...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> For every Long Kiss Goodnight you get a Cutthroat Island though.
I honestly don't understand why Cutthroat Island was such a flop.
IMO it was ok. Definitely much better than many movies which profited
more.
I suppose the chaotic nature of the big audience cannot be predicted
(if it could be, every movie would be a huge success).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> [Altough there seems to be almost universal agreement that Star Wars III
> sucks beyond belief...]
The problem with SW3 (and the previous two) is not that it was bad (it
was quite good from all points of view, IMO), but that it failed to meet
fan expectations. If there weren't any expectations about it at all it
would have probably been considered an above average movie, perhaps even
a good movie, but big expectations and not meeting them ruined it.
IMO Lucas made a mistake with the way he did the trilogy. Basically he
didn't listen to what the fans wanted, but made what he wanted. While the
result was IMO quite good, fans didn't like it.
If I were Lucas I would redeem myself by making one movie more: A movie
for the fans. A movie about Darth Vader (which happens between episodes
three and four), a movie which is the epitome of all that is cool about
Darth Vader.
But I've got the feeling that Lucas is too proud to do that, unfortunately.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Does it 'star' Adam Sandler? > Yes > Go to next movie
>> Does it 'star' Vince Vaugn? > Yes > Go to next movie
>
> You don't seem to like cheesy comedies too much.
Only when they're actually funny. ;-)
I think there's a segment of the population that just doesn't find
watching other people's pain to be funny, even for fictional people.
> I thought 'The Long Kiss Goodnight' was good. Enough to perhaps even
> deserve a second watching at some point.
It was.
Me? I find only a handful of movies that are worth watching more than
once in the theatre, and many more that are worth watching many times at
home (especially while doing something else, perhaps).
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> but that it failed to meet fan expectations.
That, and the acting sucked. Which is hard to blame on the actors, given
how it was filmed.
In the later parts of 2 and 3, you wind up meeting every major character
from 4, 5, and 6, which felt jammed in. Some fans have retconned it to
make sense, implying that (for example) Chewbacca was using Solo as
cover for spying, rather than just being the first mate of the ship.
If you liked the cartoons about halflife and LotR, check this out:
http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/darthsanddroids/
You need to start at the beginning so you know who's playing what
characters for that strip to make sense, tho.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>>>> Personally, I think that if a movie is only enjoyable the first time you
>>>> watch it, then you shouldn't watch it at all.
>>> That would rule out 99.9% of movies.
>
>> Yes, but 99.9% of *those* are likely not worth watching even once.
>
> Perhaps in your opinion. Over half of the movies I have seen in my life
> have been worth watching at least once. (Note that this still leaves quite
> a humongous amount of movies which were so horrible that I would have not
> minded if I had never seen them...)
You said 99.9% of movies, not 99.9% of movies you've seen.
--
Cartoon Law: Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
