 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/9/2009 11:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:16:50 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>
>> http://xkcd.com/566/
>>
>> Ten years already... heck, I still can't believe that Jurassic Park was
>> made 15 years ago! I know people who are younger than that!
>
> I'm still laughing about the xkcd comic. :-)
>
> Jim
I think it's one of the best I've seen for a while :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> but the other two were definitely NOT good.
The third one brought closure (or should have), but was a kind of dumb
premise overall. It was definitely the weakest of the series.
A comedy about a bunch of rampaging Aliens is going to be weird no matter
how you work it, but I liked the fourth one. It was quite different, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Sci fi writers have been working this concept for decades,
If you want a *thoughtful* treatment of the subject, incidentally, try Greg
Egan's "Permutation City".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:50:07 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> On 4/9/2009 11:28 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:16:50 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>>
>>> http://xkcd.com/566/
>>>
>>> Ten years already... heck, I still can't believe that Jurassic Park
>>> was made 15 years ago! I know people who are younger than that!
>>
>> I'm still laughing about the xkcd comic. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> I think it's one of the best I've seen for a while :)
I would agree with that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
> On 4/9/2009 7:41 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > Really, what was the big impact of the first movie: suggesting this reality is
> > all but a simulation. You can't beat that in sequels.
>
> The funny thing is, it wasn't anywhere near being a new idea. Sci fi
> writers have been working this concept for decades, and philosophers a
> similar one (Life is just a dream) for millenia.
Yes, but they brought it mainstream and got kung-fu, Buddhism and Christianism,
cool looks and a foreboding 90's workplace and conspiracy theories into the
mix. It was just the right movie at the right time. :)
Anyone out there read Neuromancer?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/10/2009 8:35 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> but the other two were definitely NOT good.
>
> The third one brought closure (or should have), but was a kind of dumb
> premise overall. It was definitely the weakest of the series.
>
> A comedy about a bunch of rampaging Aliens is going to be weird no
> matter how you work it, but I liked the fourth one. It was quite
> different, tho.
>
It was a comedy? I'll have to watch it again - that would definitely
change my perspective of it.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 4/10/2009 9:19 AM, Darren New wrote:
> > Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> >> I'm one of the few people I've met who liked the first a lot more.
> >
> > I liked Alien better than Aliens, but they were all good.
> I disagree. Alien and Aliens were both excellent (and which is better
> depends on what mood I'm in), but the other two were definitely NOT good.
I admire Alien because it was made in 1979, yet looks better than many
SFX movies made 20 years later. Its design and special effects put many
other "big" scifi movies of the era to shame (very especially the first
Star Wars movie).
The 1980's was the era where movie-making technology (very especially
puppeteering) was advancing in really giant leaps, so Aliens, made in 1986,
had a huge advantage over the first movie from the technology point of view.
Regardless, it's also a very good achievement of the era where CGI had yet
not spoiled movie-making.
If you look Alien 3 (the original, not the director's cut) today, you would
think they used CGI for the alien. Surprisingly, it's 100% puppeteering.
I find it marvelous how they succeeded in making it so mobile, agile and
versatile with just puppeteering. It really doesn't need to be ashamed
against later CGI-ridden movies. I admire it for that.
(Of course the director's cut, made years later, was ruined by them adding
CGI scenes.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> > Similarly, Pirates of the Caribean. First one was great. Second one was
> > great. Third one was... hmm. It all kinda went a bit wrong, eh?
> Didn't like the third. Liked the second when I saw it, but when I saw
> it again, it seemed silly. Not so for the first - worth watching more
> than once.
Personally I found the second and third movies rather chaotic, confusing
and hard to follow.
It's so long since I saw the first movie that I don't even remember what
happened there, but I think it was much easier to follow.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> It was a comedy? I'll have to watch it again - that would definitely
> change my perspective of it.
Yes. Weaver said she always wanted to be a comedian.
"Hey, you fought these things before, didn't you?"
"Yeah."
"What did you do?"
"I died."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> cool looks
The semi-humorous expression "<some color> is the new black" comes, as far
as I know, from the fact that black was the "cool" color (especially in
clothing) in the 90's, and the Matrix was the pinnacle of this phenomenon.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
