Perhaps a bit off-topic for .written, but I went to see
Dune 2 last weekend. I quite enjoyed it (orders of magnitude
better than the the 1984 version with Sting, and better than
the 2000 miniseries).
It was an adept telling of the second half of the first novel,
terminating with the emperor kneeling to Muad'dib.
The best part was Paul's first worm-ride (done as a practical
effect rather than visual magic), but the rest of the film
(aside the modern cinemetographic tendancy to poor contrast
and lighting - not as bad as the first film, but still)
was excellent.
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes: >>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
to, and which I have no desire to promote.
I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
to, and which I have no desire to promote.
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes: >>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
to, and which I have no desire to promote.
I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote: >>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes: >>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
to, and which I have no desire to promote.
I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose >>existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than >another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another Ghostbusters
film?
--scott
On 3/6/2024 5:54 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
to, and which I have no desire to promote.
I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than
another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another
Ghostbusters
film?
--scott
He is complaining about "Civil War".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
Lynn
In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote: >>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes: >>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
to, and which I have no desire to promote.
I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose >>existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than >another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another Ghostbusters
film?
In article <usavo8$1cp$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote: >>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes: >>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
to, and which I have no desire to promote.
I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose >>>existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like >>>what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than >>another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another Ghostbusters
film?
--scott
Presumably, as the last was pretty entertaining.
Perhaps a bit off-topic for .written, but I went to see
Dune 2 last weekend. I quite enjoyed it (orders of magnitude
better than the the 1984 version with Sting, and better than
the 2000 miniseries).
It was an adept telling of the second half of the first novel,
terminating with the emperor kneeling to Muad'dib.
The best part was Paul's first worm-ride (done as a practical
effect rather than visual magic), but the rest of the film
(aside the modern cinemetographic tendancy to poor contrast
and lighting - not as bad as the first film, but still)
was excellent.
On 7 Mar 2024 01:32:53 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
wrote:
In article <usavo8$1cp$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote: >>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes: >>>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.
I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
to, and which I have no desire to promote.
I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose >>>>existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like >>>>what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this >>>>discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than >>>another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another >Ghostbusters
film?
--scott
Presumably, as the last was pretty entertaining.
If you mean the one with the grandkids -- yes, actually, it was.
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:04:21 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Perhaps a bit off-topic for .written, but I went to see
Dune 2 last weekend. I quite enjoyed it (orders of magnitude
better than the the 1984 version with Sting, and better than
the 2000 miniseries).
It was an adept telling of the second half of the first novel,
terminating with the emperor kneeling to Muad'dib.
The best part was Paul's first worm-ride (done as a practical
effect rather than visual magic), but the rest of the film
(aside the modern cinemetographic tendancy to poor contrast
and lighting - not as bad as the first film, but still)
was excellent.
I'll be seeing it when I can rent it from Amazon for a reasonable
price. Or it goes to Prime or Netflix.
I'm not clear on the "practical effect rather than visual magic".
Surely they didn't find a Worm and use it! Did they construct a
complete, full-size animatronic Worm? Or was it all of three inches
long?
Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 3/6/2024 6:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
He is complaining about "Civil War".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
Normally I would click on that link.
But after recent experience, I fear that my normal selection of videos
on music, chess, SF, History, Mathematics, Science would be replaced by
more whiny neckbeard guys complaining about Abraham Lincoln.
And I have more than enough of those.
Oh for the days when you could tell youtube that you did not want a
certain video to influence your selections. What a paradise we lived
in long ago in 2016! You try telling that to kids today!
He is complaining about "Civil War".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
Normally I would click on that link.
But after recent experience, I fear that my normal selection of videos
on music, chess, SF, History, Mathematics, Science would be replaced by
more whiny neckbeard guys complaining about Abraham Lincoln.
Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 3/6/2024 6:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
He is complaining about "Civil War".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
Normally I would click on that link.
But after recent experience, I fear that my normal selection of
videos on music, chess, SF, History, Mathematics, Science would be
replaced by more whiny neckbeard guys complaining about Abraham
Lincoln.
Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 3/6/2024 6:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
He is complaining about "Civil War".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
Normally I would click on that link.
But after recent experience, I fear that my normal selection of videos
on music, chess, SF, History, Mathematics, Science would be replaced by
more whiny neckbeard guys complaining about Abraham Lincoln.
On 3/6/2024 5:54 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than
another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another Ghostbusters
film?
He is complaining about "Civil War".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:40:10 -0400, Tony Nance <tnusenet17@gmail.com>
wrote:
I don't know why I then went on to read Chapterhouse: Dune, but IIs that one of those "Dune" books written by Herbert's son and a ghost >writer?
did, and it was not much better. At this remove, I don't remember a
whole lot of either one - my sense is that they weren't "throw at the
wall" bad, but they were really disappointing.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 00:06:05 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,718 |