 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:30:29 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
>
>> Try reading the book. The first sequel's also good, not sure about the
>> other 2.
>
> There were other sequels? I only knew about 2010 (which I quite liked).
>
> Jim
2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time). I
couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo when
I tried to read it?).
It just seemed like preachy atheist propoganda written for 5 year olds.
Mind you, that was only the first two chapters - I never read the rest :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
> news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
I don't get the appeal most of these pictures. I mean, the pictures are
cute, and I understand what they're "trying" to say, but I feel like my
IQ drops about 10 points every time I look at comedy that tries to be as
uneducated as possible.
Tom Lehrer, in one of his songs, mentions the unfortunate fact that many
people equate illiteracy with charm. To me, this is one of the most
disturbing facts about our culture today.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sense was IMO the best of them.
Agreed.
> Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good
Way, *way* too long. If they'd chopped out 40 minutes or so, it would
have been excellent.
> Signs was just a confusing mess IMO.
It wasn't too confusing to me. It was trying to be scary or something,
or suspenseful, but it failed that too. The only good bit of acting was
when the brother or whoever it was was watching the TV and saw the
creature and jumped back. *That* was convincing acting.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I just found the actors to be (for the most part) wooden.
Or, to describe it a different way:
Luke: Impetuous, eager, noble.
Leia: Concerned, good hearted, Will do what it takes.
Solo: Good bluffer, soft inside.
Vadar: Brutal, uncaring.
Emperor: Sneaky, cruel.
Now, describe three major characters from the prequels in the same way.
Aniken: Teen angst. (And that only when he's a teen. No personality in
the first movie at all.)
That's about all I can come up with. Nobody in the first movie had
enough personality I could care what happened to them.
I mean, hell, Jabba the hut had more personality than Queen Amanda.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I think there was one other, but I don't remember what it was. :-)
Oh. Duh. I did go back and see 2001 when it came out 20 years later. :-)
Probably one or two more in there somewhere. Surely less than 8 or 10 in
my whole life.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> news:477e0067$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>>
>> http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/01/08/funny-pictures-is-fulla-starz/
>
> I don't get the appeal most of these pictures. I mean, the pictures are
> cute, and I understand what they're "trying" to say, but I feel like my
> IQ drops about 10 points every time I look at comedy that tries to be as
> uneducated as possible.
>
The problem is if you visit internet sites where this meme is
propagated. After accidentally stumbling into a thread and seeing 5 or 6
of these pictures at once, your IQ has suffered such a distorting blow
that, after that point in time, you now find the pictures to be funny.
> Tom Lehrer, in one of his songs, mentions the unfortunate fact that many
> people equate illiteracy with charm. To me, this is one of the most
> disturbing facts about our culture today.
>
You think cats would be literate? In English, mind you, not in their own
language.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> You think cats would be literate? In English, mind you, not in their own
> language.
My cats act as if I am so irredeemably beneath their intellect that it's
not worth their time to even contemplate speaking to me :)
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Gilliam's movies tend to be quite good.
Tideland was weird, though.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Unbreakable wasn't bad, but it wasn't overly good
> Way, *way* too long. If they'd chopped out 40 minutes or so, it would
> have been excellent.
I disagree. If they had chopped 40 minutes then it would simply have
been a regular hollywood blockbuster.
If you want depth in a movie, you need to spend time with your characters.
You can see lack of depth in most hollywood blockbusters. They are too short,
they don't develop their characters, it's just fast food, not a delicate
cuisine.
(One relatively recent prime example of this was IMO the first Fantastic4
movie: It was *way* too short, it didn't develop its characters *at all*,
and in the end it felt completely hollow. Like a cheap fast food ration.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I mean, hell, Jabba the hut had more personality than Queen Amanda.
I thought it was Amidala, or something like that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
