What do atheists think about post-modernism?
MrGoodSalt
Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
Good Christian books listed and described at:
http://www.hometown.aol.com/mrgoodsalt/index.htm
darwinian
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/postmoderism_disrobed.htm
Note that The Random Postmodernism Generator is not running
at the moment, but will be back shortly.
MrGoodSalt wrote:
--
\ _.-'`-._ "I believe I have acted rightly in steadily
>< DARWIN > following and devoting my life to science."
/ `-.__.-' - Charles Darwin
L L
Edgar A Pearlstein
MrGoodSalt (mrgoo...@aol.com) wrote:
: What do atheists think about post-modernism? Rational/irrational? Good/bad?
: Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
Wrong premise. There is no generality about what "atheists think"
except that they don't believe in gods. Like the population in general,
atheists might be conservative, liberal, smart, stupid, honest, dishonest,
dull, interesting, and everything in between.
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: What do atheists think about post-modernism?
I don't bother it, it doesn't bother me.
: Rational/irrational?
They're words. Adjectives, actually.
: Good/bad?
'Bad' means 'good', and to shake one's booty means to wiggle one's
butt. Allow me to demonstrate! - Homer J. Simpson
: Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
Spike Jonez (I think that's how he spells it) and Quentin Tarentino,
respectively (poor guy seems to have had only one really good movie
in him).
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
red foster
MrGoodSalt wrote in message
<20000220092523...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
>What do atheists think about post-modernism? Rational/irrational? Good/bad?
>Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
Just as premodernism and modernism, it is 'rational' and 'good' and
self-justifying within its own rule-set. This atheist thinks ecological
postmodernism is the wave of the future, perhaps a century or 2 from now,
and deconstructionist postmodernism is a necessary transitional stage. It is
possible that there will be some accommodation in ecological postmodernism
of certain cherished habits from the past, such that today's more radical
adherents would say the movement failed. As with most revolutionary
movements, ecological postmodernism will become the new orthodoxy for some
number of centuries.
red foster
Sylvan Korvus
>Read:
>
>http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/postmoderism_disrobed.htm
An absolute pleasure to read, thank-you for this link. I am increasingly
annoyed with post-modernism, how it's wasting perfectly good minds in
cultural studies, and warping feminism into a frenzy of navel-gazing
that does nothing to improve society.
PoMo is a monster that should never have been let out of the basement of
art criticism.
--
Sylvan Korvus ~ designer ~ syl...@nospam.home.com
Be seeing you.
Todd Adamson
> What do atheists think about post-modernism? Rational/irrational? Good/bad?
Postmodernism came after Modernism.
The "ir" prefix negates rational.
Good is the opposite of bad.
> Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
Not necessarily.
--
Todd Adamson
"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
-Joseph Stalin
Don Kresch
>What do atheists think about post-modernism? Rational/irrational? Good/bad?
>Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
Tell me about it and I will let you know.
Don
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: On 20 Feb 2000 09:50:30 -0700, cz...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:
: >: Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
: >
: >Spike Jonez (I think that's how he spells it) and Quentin Tarentino,
: >respectively (poor guy seems to have had only one really good movie
: >in him).
: Well, two really. He might do something worthwhile again when he
: realises that he can't coast along forever on the fame generated by
: PF and RD.
RD? RD was only slightly better than the usual Hollywood releases. I
wouldn't put it in the same league as PF.
Duncan Idaho
>MrGoodSalt (mrgoo...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: What do atheists think about post-modernism?
>
>I don't bother it, it doesn't bother me.
>
>: Rational/irrational?
>
>They're words. Adjectives, actually.
>
>: Good/bad?
>
>'Bad' means 'good', and to shake one's booty means to wiggle one's
>butt. Allow me to demonstrate! - Homer J. Simpson
>
Adam McKee
> Duncan Idaho (ROT13ny...@ubgznvy.pbz) wrote:
> : On 20 Feb 2000 09:50:30 -0700, cz...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:
> : >: Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
> : >
> : >Spike Jonez (I think that's how he spells it) and Quentin Tarentino,
> : >respectively (poor guy seems to have had only one really good movie
> : >in him).
> : Well, two really. He might do something worthwhile again when he
> : realises that he can't coast along forever on the fame generated by
> : PF and RD.
> RD? RD was only slightly better than the usual Hollywood releases. I
> wouldn't put it in the same league as PF.
Interesting. I also prefer PF to RD, but most people I meet seem to favour
RD. I really thought Jackie Brown was a good movie though! Not as funny and
cool as PF, but very good still. It's not realistic to expect a film-
maker to consistently make films that blow you away (no pun intended). Except
with Stanley Kubrick. If you're going to make a joke that SK can't be
expected to make any more great films because he's _dead_, please don't. ;-)
-Adam
MrGoodSalt
>> What do atheists think about post-modernism? Rational/irrational? Good/bad?
Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
(Don Kresch) wrote:
> Tell me about it and I will let you know.
POST-MODERNISM
As I understand it, post-modernism assumes that truth is not an objective thing
that can be independently viewed by multiple observers (despite fluctuations in
subjective perceptions) but is instead a socially constructed meta-narrative,
and that everyone has a meta-narrative inside their head. There are many
meta-narratives. Also, all meta-narratives are equally valid. Meta-narratives
compete with each other for power by imposing themselves on each other. Truth,
as an objective thing "out there" does not exist.
DIVERSITY/REBELLION
Post-modernism appears to be a reaction to the fact that there are large
numbers of world views that are perceived as true by their adherents, and yet
fundamentally contradict each other. The post-modernist solution to dealing
with these conflicting truth claims (meta-narratives) is not to search for a
way to evaluate and discern between them, but instead to alter the definition
of truth and reason to accept them all simultaneously.
Also, post-moderism is an excellent philosophy for anyone trying to avoid
accountability for their own behavior and may reflect an increasingly pervasive
mood of rebellion against any form of higher moral authority.
SELF-ESTEEM
Post-modernism also fits in nicely with the self-esteem movement. Attempting to
judge another person's meta-narrative could damage their self-esteem and
suppress their meta-narrative and is therefore bad. There is an exception of
course: any form of America-bashing is good, because the evil WASPs have been
imposing their meta-narrative on untold legions of victims.
TOLERANCE
The "new tolerance" movement is also a product of post-modernism. Because there
is no objective truth, any attempt at judgement of anything is an attack on
someones meta-narrative. Tolerance becomes the highest virtue. I thought
morality was based on the idea that you draw a line between what should be
tolerated and what should not be tolerated. Post-modernism says the very act of
drawing that line is the great evil that must be opposed.
POST-MODERISM'S ENEMY
The enemy of post-modernism is anyone claiming to know the truth. These
"absolutists" are the enemy of meta-narrative validation, self-esteem, and
tolerance. Christians are the enemy.
FUTURE
Major social events tend to be affected by shifts in the intellectual community
that precede them. For example, Darwin, Freud, and Marx all showed up about the
same time and were followed by the most violent and destructive century in the
last 6000 years. Now comes post-modernism that robs it's adherents of any means
by which to judge whether their actions are morally right or wrong and
simultaneously classifies Christians as the enemy to be opposed.
Post-modernism appears to be the perfect philosophy for the Biblical end-times
and the coming apocalypse. Post-modernism looks like it will nicely support
enough spiritualism to allow worship of the anti-christ and establishment of a
one-world religion under the philosophical banner of post-modernism. It will
also set people up to hate and kill Christians during the tribulation period.
Person's deceived by post-modernism will think they are making the world a
better place by killing those intolerant hate-mongering Christians.
SUMMARY
Post-modernism is just what the devil ordered. It is irrational and
self-contradictory and will lead to moral insanity. At the same time, it
appears to fit nicely with Biblical predictions of the end-times and the
apocalypse.
red foster
MrGoodSalt wrote in message
<20000221062306...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>MrGoodSalt wrote:
>>> What do atheists think about post-modernism? Rational/irrational?
Good/bad?
>Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
>
>(Don Kresch) wrote:
>> Tell me about it and I will let you know.
>
>POST-MODERNISM
>As I understand it, post-modernism assumes that truth is not an objective
thing
>that can be independently viewed by multiple observers (despite
fluctuations in
>subjective perceptions) but is instead a socially constructed
meta-narrative,
>and that everyone has a meta-narrative inside their head. There are many
>meta-narratives. Also, all meta-narratives are equally valid.
Meta-narratives
>compete with each other for power by imposing themselves on each other.
Truth,
>as an objective thing "out there" does not exist.
That is the key aspect of postmodernism. "Deconstructive" postmodernism
pretty much stops there. "Ecological" postmodernism suggests an explanation
for the particular metanarrative that modernists have chosen, and suggests
that another one is more conducive to long-term survival. It is clear that
you criticise some mental construct (a meta-narrative) you have made up
starting from deconstructuve PM.
>
>DIVERSITY/REBELLION
>Post-modernism appears to be a reaction to the fact that there are large
>numbers of world views that are perceived as true by their adherents, and
yet
>fundamentally contradict each other. The post-modernist solution to dealing
>with these conflicting truth claims (meta-narratives) is not to search for
a
>way to evaluate and discern between them, but instead to alter the
definition
>of truth and reason to accept them all simultaneously.
>
>Also, post-moderism is an excellent philosophy for anyone trying to avoid
>accountability for their own behavior and may reflect an increasingly
pervasive
>mood of rebellion against any form of higher moral authority.
It may seem that way, but is no philosophy by which an individual can
actually stop being the author of his/her own life. The abandonment of
personal authority to a "higher moral authority" is as much a copout. It
just happens to be the one that modernism approves and retains from
premodernism or the theistic metanarrative.
>
>SELF-ESTEEM
>Post-modernism also fits in nicely with the self-esteem movement.
Attempting to
>judge another person's meta-narrative could damage their self-esteem and
>suppress their meta-narrative and is therefore bad. There is an exception
of
>course: any form of America-bashing is good, because the evil WASPs have
been
>imposing their meta-narrative on untold legions of victims.
A meta-narrative in which damaging peoples self esteem is bad, and in which
disagreeing with them is damaging their self esteem, would yield this logic.
But postmodernism by definition cannot lead inevitably to this particular
meta-narrative, any more than "Music theory" leads necessarily to "Bebop"
and the preferred style. However, the deconstruction of a given
meta-narrative can be mistaken for endorsement of its opposite.
>
>TOLERANCE
>The "new tolerance" movement is also a product of post-modernism. Because
there
>is no objective truth, any attempt at judgement of anything is an attack on
>someones meta-narrative. Tolerance becomes the highest virtue. I thought
>morality was based on the idea that you draw a line between what should be
>tolerated and what should not be tolerated. Post-modernism says the very
act of
>drawing that line is the great evil that must be opposed.
No it does not, since that would be the endorsement of a particular
meta-narrative. However, you are right if you are criticizing some people's
way of interpreting and acting on postmodernism. Those poeple have simply
adopted a new orthodoxy.
>
>POST-MODERISM'S ENEMY
>The enemy of post-modernism is anyone claiming to know the truth. These
>"absolutists" are the enemy of meta-narrative validation, self-esteem, and
>tolerance. Christians are the enemy.
This claim is consistent with your other claims and my reply would be in the
same veinas my other replies. I view postmodernism as a tool box for taking
things apart, not as the next construcction. It is transitional. Of course,
if Christianity is one of the current meta-narratives that is taken apart,
it will look on the toolbox as its enemy.
>
>FUTURE
>Major social events tend to be affected by shifts in the intellectual
community
>that precede them. For example, Darwin, Freud, and Marx all showed up about
the
>same time and were followed by the most violent and destructive century in
the
>last 6000 years. Now comes post-modernism that robs it's adherents of any
means
>by which to judge whether their actions are morally right or wrong and
>simultaneously classifies Christians as the enemy to be opposed.
It is tempting but would be a distraction to get into a pissing contest
about history.
>
>Post-modernism appears to be the perfect philosophy for the Biblical
end-times
>and the coming apocalypse. Post-modernism looks like it will nicely support
>enough spiritualism to allow worship of the anti-christ and establishment
of a
>one-world religion under the philosophical banner of post-modernism. It
will
>also set people up to hate and kill Christians during the tribulation
period.
>Person's deceived by post-modernism will think they are making the world a
>better place by killing those intolerant hate-mongering Christians.
Christianity is well suited to see any source of doubt or question as the
enemy of its deity.
>
>SUMMARY
>Post-modernism is just what the devil ordered. It is irrational and
>self-contradictory and will lead to moral insanity. At the same time, it
>appears to fit nicely with Biblical predictions of the end-times and the
>apocalypse.
So have any number of previous challenges to premodernist dogma. What's
funny is that postmodernism does not take any premodern dogma as its natural
"enemy". God is presumed to be dead already. Postmodernism takes on
modernism in a way that could be considered supportive of an eventual return
to fundamental values including the reawakening of God in the human psyche.
But you won't see that, this much is clear.
red foster
Matthias Weiss
>
> MrGoodSalt wrote:
> >> What do atheists think about post-modernism? Rational/irrational? Good/bad?
> Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
>
> (Don Kresch) wrote:
> > Tell me about it and I will let you know.
Mind if I cut in?
> POST-MODERNISM
> As I understand it, post-modernism assumes that truth is not an objective thing
> that can be independently viewed by multiple observers (despite fluctuations in
> subjective perceptions) but is instead a socially constructed meta-narrative,
> and that everyone has a meta-narrative inside their head.
Naturally, we are all product of our upbringing and our environment. But
there are still certain objective truths in all areas of human life:
Science is not a matter of taste, but a product of observing, reasoning,
experimenting, and peer review. You gotta accept Nature's answer to your
observation/experiment, whether it fits into your pre-conceived notion
of how things should be, or not. The scientific custom of trying one's
best to prove one's own theory wrong is the best way to weed out errors.
On a social level, I think it is certainly true objectively that
suffering should be minimized, and no suffering should be caused, and
that to the highest degree possible under the circumstances. Society can
unleash an enormous constructive potential, so it is important that
everyone has the desire to and is enabled to contribute. Since our
long-term survival as a species may depend on that, I don't think that
this is a matter of personal perception.
> There are many
> meta-narratives. Also, all meta-narratives are equally valid. Meta-narratives
> compete with each other for power by imposing themselves on each other. Truth,
> as an objective thing "out there" does not exist.
Among the many views about the world, some are outright nonsense with a
few good points, and others are mostly reasonable with a few erroneous
items. The purpose of interaction between those "meta-narratives" should
be to recombine them to get closer to a better understanding of reality.
> DIVERSITY/REBELLION
> Post-modernism appears to be a reaction to the fact that there are large
> numbers of world views that are perceived as true by their adherents, and yet
> fundamentally contradict each other. The post-modernist solution to dealing
> with these conflicting truth claims (meta-narratives) is not to search for a
> way to evaluate and discern between them, but instead to alter the definition
> of truth and reason to accept them all simultaneously.
I don't think so. Nature experiments with spontaneous mutations, but
only the ones that render the individual better adapted to dealing with
reality will be successful in the long run. Wrong ideas are purged by
the same mechanism. In the benign case, wrong ideas are recognized as
wrong and ratified. In the malign case, wrong ideas clash so much with
reality that they render their adherents unfit for survival. If someone
believes that gravity is just a matter of attitude, this idea will soon
be purged from the face of the earth.
> Also, post-moderism is an excellent philosophy for anyone trying to avoid
> accountability for their own behavior and may reflect an increasingly pervasive
> mood of rebellion against any form of higher moral authority.
There is no such thing as "higher moral authority". Morals are what make
a society a place worth living in for all its members. That's why the
US, with its "decaying morals" (according to the 700 Club) is the star
attraction for people who live in oppressive societies where the pursuit
of happiness is considered immoral. In today's mobile world, trends in
migration tend to indicate societies with the best morals, because good
moral standards tend to make a society worth living in.
> SELF-ESTEEM
> Post-modernism also fits in nicely with the self-esteem movement. Attempting to
> judge another person's meta-narrative could damage their self-esteem and
> suppress their meta-narrative and is therefore bad. There is an exception of
> course: any form of America-bashing is good, because the evil WASPs have been
> imposing their meta-narrative on untold legions of victims.
No. Only in the free exchange and in the opposition of ideas can errors
be purged and truth better approximated.
> TOLERANCE
> The "new tolerance" movement is also a product of post-modernism. Because there
> is no objective truth, any attempt at judgement of anything is an attack on
> someones meta-narrative. Tolerance becomes the highest virtue. I thought
> morality was based on the idea that you draw a line between what should be
> tolerated and what should not be tolerated. Post-modernism says the very act of
> drawing that line is the great evil that must be opposed.
Tolerance is nice to the extend that one tolerates the tolerant.
Tolerating oppressive behaviour or ideas is not in the best interest of
society. Note: This says nothing about the means of fighting them.
Naturally, "bad" ideas should be fought with "good" ideas, not with good
machine guns.
Also, being tolerant to certain ideas doesn't mean letting them roam
free. I can be tolerant to someone piercing their tongue and cheeks, and
discuss the risk of infection with them. I need not tie them down and
rip the jewellery out.
Christians could tolerate the person next to them praying differently or
not praying at all. They may discuss this matter with that person, but
they may not forcibly involve that person into their cult.
> POST-MODERISM'S ENEMY
> The enemy of post-modernism is anyone claiming to know the truth. These
> "absolutists" are the enemy of meta-narrative validation, self-esteem, and
> tolerance. Christians are the enemy.
Christians who proselytize overly aggressive and seek to impose their
cult on society are the enemy of a pluralistic and free society in which
people of all sorts of beliefs can find a home. Nothing is perceived
more oppressive than attempts to modify one's way of thinking without
established means of reasonable discourse. Christians, however, work
hard to bring techniques for that to perfection.
> FUTURE
> Major social events tend to be affected by shifts in the intellectual community
> that precede them. For example, Darwin, Freud, and Marx all showed up about the
> same time and were followed by the most violent and destructive century in the
> last 6000 years. Now comes post-modernism that robs it's adherents of any means
> by which to judge whether their actions are morally right or wrong and
> simultaneously classifies Christians as the enemy to be opposed.
There are ways to judge whether actions are right or wrong, and maybe
post-modernism is an overly radical response to the impact Christianity
has on US society.
> Post-modernism appears to be the perfect philosophy for the Biblical end-times
> and the coming apocalypse. Post-modernism looks like it will nicely support
> enough spiritualism to allow worship of the anti-christ and establishment of a
> one-world religion under the philosophical banner of post-modernism. It will
> also set people up to hate and kill Christians during the tribulation period.
> Person's deceived by post-modernism will think they are making the world a
> better place by killing those intolerant hate-mongering Christians.
I have no wish to kill anybody I can make shut up. I enjoy intellectual
confrontation with willing participants, but I have no wish to forcibly
modify anyone's world view to mine as long as they extend me the same
courtesy. And while we are on the subject of killing, let me dig up that
Voltaire quote that comes in handy all the time in discussions with
Christians:
"Quiconque me dire 'Pense comme moi, ou Dieu te damnera!' me
dira bientôt 'Pense comme moi, ou je t'assassinerai!' Prions
Dieu qu'il adoucisse ces coeurs atroce, et qu'il inspire ŕ
tous ses enfants des sentiments des frčres."
(Someone who tells me, 'Think as I do, or God will damn
you!' will soon tell me, 'Think as I do, or I will kill
you!' Let us ask God that he may soothe these atrocious
hearts and instill in all his children a feeling of
brotherhood.)
> SUMMARY
> Post-modernism is just what the devil ordered.
Do you think so? What if there is no devil?
> It is irrational and self-contradictory and will lead to moral insanity.
Irrationality of all shades constitutes a non-constructive world view.
> At the same time, it
> appears to fit nicely with Biblical predictions of the end-times and the
> apocalypse.
Don't tune your harp just yet.
> Good Christian books...
No comment. :-)
> listed and described at:
> http://www.hometown.aol.com/mrgoodsalt/index.htm
In conclusion I would state that we both see the silliness of
post-modernism, but that we vastly disagree on the Christian take on how
society should be run. Yes, there is a truth out there, and there are
objectively good and bad things. Finding those truths, however, is a
matter of painstaking thinking, observing, experimenting, and self
doubt, not of leaps of faith into absolute certainty. One ideology
claiming it has found all truths and is now complete is as bad as any
other. Adhering to a world view that allows one's mind doubt and
adapting to newly discovered truth is the best means of not clashing
with reality. After all, gravity ISN'T a matter of personal preference.
Matthias.
Matthias Weiss
> the same mechanism. In the benign case, wrong ideas are recognized as
> wrong and ratified.
"rectified", not "ratified"!!!
:o)
M.
Peter van Velzen
If it is either not observable
or Omnipotent
or Omniscient
or Created heaven and Earth,
it does not exist.
--
"Think for yourself"
Peter van Velzen
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
http://callisto.worldonline.nl/~pbamvv/petervve.htm
MrGoodSalt <mrgoo...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20000220092523...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
> What do atheists think about post-modernism? Rational/irrational?
Good/bad?
> Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
>
> "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN
8:32
> Good Christian books listed and described at:
> http://www.hometown.aol.com/mrgoodsalt/index.htm
>
Therion Ware
<mms...@math.lsa.umich.edu> wrote in alt.atheism:
>> reality will be successful in the long run. Wrong ideas are purged by
>> the same mechanism. In the benign case, wrong ideas are recognized as
>> wrong and ratified.
>
>"rectified", not "ratified"!!!
I usually find that being ratified (as a newt) usually gives rise to
wrong ideas...
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
.......
HELL? <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html>
--
Inexpensive video to mpeg-1 conversion? See: <http://www.video2cd.co.uk>
--
The alt.atheism twitlist. See: <http://www.twitlist.co.uk>
Duncan Idaho
>Duncan Idaho (ROT13ny...@ubgznvy.pbz) wrote:
>: On 20 Feb 2000 09:50:30 -0700, cz...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:
>
>: >: Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
>: >
>: >Spike Jonez (I think that's how he spells it) and Quentin Tarentino,
>: >respectively (poor guy seems to have had only one really good movie
>: >in him).
>
>: Well, two really. He might do something worthwhile again when he
>: realises that he can't coast along forever on the fame generated by
>: PF and RD.
>
>RD? RD was only slightly better than the usual Hollywood releases. I
>wouldn't put it in the same league as PF.
Really? I saw it before PF after the hype about it had died down and
found it pretty pedestrian and low budget. I went back to it after PF
though and got a lot more out of it on the second viewing. I've seen 4
or 5 times now and it still holds up. It's largely the dialog and the
acting that carry it for me.
As for PF I think it has a great first and second part but the third
is a lot weaker. Still a great movie though.
Maybe a couple more viewings will bring you around or maybe 84, like
one guy on rec.arts.movies said he watched it.
Duncan Idaho
>cz...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>> Duncan Idaho (ROT13ny...@ubgznvy.pbz) wrote:
>> : On 20 Feb 2000 09:50:30 -0700, cz...@ecn.ab.ca () wrote:
>
>> : >: Wave of the future/flash in the pan?
>> : >
>> : >Spike Jonez (I think that's how he spells it) and Quentin Tarentino,
>> : >respectively (poor guy seems to have had only one really good movie
>> : >in him).
>
>> : Well, two really. He might do something worthwhile again when he
>> : realises that he can't coast along forever on the fame generated by
>> : PF and RD.
>
>> RD? RD was only slightly better than the usual Hollywood releases. I
>> wouldn't put it in the same league as PF.
>
>Interesting. I also prefer PF to RD, but most people I meet seem to favour
>RD. I really thought Jackie Brown was a good movie though! Not as funny and
>cool as PF, but very good still.
Long and dull is how I'd label it. It just became entirely pointless
by then end.
>It's not realistic to expect a film-
>maker to consistently make films that blow you away (no pun intended). Except
>with Stanley Kubrick. If you're going to make a joke that SK can't be
>expected to make any more great films because he's _dead_, please don't. ;-)
>
Well he was/is god. I spotted an exact look-alike of him at a
retrospective screening of 2001 a few months back. It was uncanny, as
they say.