<mi...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 2:32 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 11/17/2012 3:29 PM, Your Name wrote:
> >> In article <k13ga89180gjsld7rsnp3c3tgrmr3bc...@4ax.com>, Howard Brazee
> >> <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:52:56 +1300, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Stephen King was once asked in an interview if it bothered him that
> >>>>>> Hollywood seems to ruin all of his books, and he pointed up at the
> >>>>>> bookshelf and said, "No, they haven't. They're right up there,
> >>>>>> same as
> >>>>>> they always were."
> >>>>> That's mind-numbingly stupid.
> >>>> It simply proves that he doesn't give a damn about what he creates
> >>>> nor the
> >>>> fans who bought and supported his products. He's simply out to grab as
> >>>> much money as he can and has no moral scruples, or common sense or
> >>>> common
> >>>> decency, which pretty much sums up 99% of Hollyweird these days
> >>>> too. :-(
> >>> I take it you never worked for a living.
> >>> Who was hurt by his action?
> >> That just about sums up the selfish stupidty of most of the human race:
> >> "screw everyone else,
> > Nope. Just you. Actually more people liked the BG and Star Trek
> > reboots than disliked them.
> I've never seen any numbers that support that statement (Star Trek reboots).
Because there aren't any realisticly useful numbers, nor any way to
properly measure them.
Yes, you may be able to get Box Office numbers for the movies that show
more people going to Abrams' movie than a previous one, but that's simply
because there are more people than there used to be, more cinemas, etc.
Even if you converted that to a percentage of the population, it's still
not an accurate number because some poeple go multiple times.
> >> On 11/17/2012 2:32 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> >> > Nope. Just you. Actually more people liked the BG and Star Trek
> >> > reboots than disliked them.
> >> I've never seen any numbers that support that statement (Star Trek > >> reboots).
> The clear winner for which BSG people preferred is the 2004 reboot.
> > As for Trek 09,
> Star Trek TOS 1966: 8.4 (21,000 users)
> Star Trek The Animated Series 1973: 7.6 (2,397 users)
> Star Trek The Next Generation 1987: 8.6 (29,000 users)
> Star Trek Deep Space Nine 1993: 7.9 (16,000 users)
> Star Trek Voyager 1995: 7.4 (19,000 users)
> Star Trek Enterprise 2001: 7.3 (14,000 users)
> Star Trek TOMP 1979: 6.3 (37,000 users)
> Star Trek II WOK 1982: 7.7 (55,000 users)
> Star Trek III TSFS 1984: 6.6 (35,000 users)
> Star Trek IV TVH 1986: 7.2 (37,000 users)
> Star Trek V TFF 1989: 5.2 (27,000 users)
> Star Trek VI TUC 1991: 7.2 (34,000 users)
> Star Trek Generations 1994: 6.5 (38,000 users)
> Star Trek First Contact 1996: 7.5 (65,000 users)
> Star Trek Insurrection 1998: 6.3 (36,000 users)
> Star Trek Nemesis 2002: 6.3 (38,000 users)
> Star Trek 2009: 8.0 (264,000 users)
> Looking at all the reviews, the sequel TV show (The Next Generation) beats > the original (The Original Series).
> ...and the 2009 reboot film beats any of the other 10 films.
Only in the limited view of the users of IMaDumbBum.com, which nowhere
near represents the real population.
It's impossible to get accurate numbers. Even if you survyed every human
being on the planet, there would be those who simply lie.
Zenier) wrote:
> In article <ago1ogF62t...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >On 16/11/12 4:23 AM, Mark Zenier wrote: > >> In article <agiusgF1kg...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote: > >>> On 14/11/12 1:39 PM, Your Name wrote:
> >>>> In article <aggfa2Feqe...@mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister
> >>>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote: > ...
> >>>>> I think translating a work into another medium is rather different from
> >>>>> adding bits to an existing opus.
> >>>> It would normally be, but Hollyweird also has an incredibly bad habit of
> >>>> altering things when they turn them into movies or TV shows.
> >>> I quite liked the Disney Johnny Depp version of "Alice in Wonderland",
> >>> but at least they haven't (so far) given us "Alice Goes Pole-Dancing".
> >> I take it you haven't been watching _Once Upon A Time_.
> >No. It's on commercial TV - I've tried, but I just can't bear it.
> Little Red Riding Hood as a diner waitress in hot pants, Grumpy as > the town drunk. Great fun, at least for an iconoclast.
It was okay, until, as usual, the writers started running out of ideas and
pulling in non-fairy tale characters like The Mad Hatter. :-(
> > As for Trek 09, the number of people who didn't see it at
> > all outnumbers the people that did hundreds to one ...
> > and certainly none of them go in the 'liked it' column.
> Nor do they go in the 'disliked it' column; they're simply
> irrelevant to the discussion.
Some of those who didn't go do count since they didn't bother going
because they knew they wouldn't like it. Admittedly these days the number
of such intelligent people is extremely small - a large proportion of the
dumbass population goes to the movies every Friday night (or whenever)
simply because it's what they do on Friday nights and can't think of
anything better to do, even when they know they're going to hate the
movie. Another reason why box office numbers are inaccurate.
> In article <k8alos$8h...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 11/18/12 1:39 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > > Try having a discussion in any large public forum of the Oz books. The
> > > movie moves in and takes over, because far FAR more people have seen it
> > > and care about it. Try having a discussion in any large public forum of
> > > The Lord of the Rings without the moving coming into it. Very often, a
> > > movie moves in and either completely displaces the original book in the
> > > public mind, or at least gets enough mindshare that you can't have a
> > > discussion that ignores it.
> > Still doesn't affect the books, though. And in both cases, releasing > > the movies drastically increases the sales of the books.
> For those of us hooked on the originals, the movies are never going to > approach a true portrayal, but can be enjoyed anyway. I enjoyed the > LOTR movies, but I haven't rewatched them. I've reread LOTR a few > times, including a German translation that was pretty good and also much > better than the movies.
I agree with that.
I read the LOTR & Hobbit books quite some time ago.
The movies did refresh my memory of them, but I have no intention of re-watching them.
If my eyesight was better I would re-read the books.
I have no problem if movies are unfaithful to the books, as long as they are entertaining. The same for reboots.
YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> :: It also deals with topics and situations which are clearly targeted at
>> :: adult audience members.
>> : Only because you're an adult that you saw those things,
>> Gee, you say that almost as if you suppose it supports your point.
>In some ways it does. SOME of the things you see / hear that are
>supposedly "adult" aren't really intended to be or have been made to be
>"adult" by your own perspective.
I'm always amused by the warning that some shows have after each
commercial break that the following material is intended for "a mature
audience only." That generally means, in my opinion, that it's
presented for a rather immature audience.
-- I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
>>> :: It also deals with topics and situations which are clearly targeted >>> at
>>> :: adult audience members.
>>> : Only because you're an adult that you saw those things,
>>> Gee, you say that almost as if you suppose it supports your point.
>>In some ways it does. SOME of the things you see / hear that are
>>supposedly "adult" aren't really intended to be or have been made to be
>>"adult" by your own perspective.
> I'm always amused by the warning that some shows have after each
> commercial break that the following material is intended for "a mature
> audience only."
I keep telling my system that we don't have any of those.
> That generally means, in my opinion, that it's
> presented for a rather immature audience.
Can't agree with that. But then I am normally watching docos
on our govt broadcaster and they are basically saying that the
particular doco does cover stuff that isnt really that suitable for
the less mature audiences, particularly the younger kids to watch.
> In article <k8alos$8h...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/12 1:39 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> > Try having a discussion in any large public forum of the Oz books. The
>> > movie moves in and takes over, because far FAR more people have seen it
>> > and care about it. Try having a discussion in any large public forum >> > of
>> > The Lord of the Rings without the moving coming into it. Very often, >> > a
>> > movie moves in and either completely displaces the original book in the
>> > public mind, or at least gets enough mindshare that you can't have a
>> > discussion that ignores it.
>> Still doesn't affect the books, though. And in both cases, releasing
>> the movies drastically increases the sales of the books.
> For those of us hooked on the originals, the movies are never going to
> approach a true portrayal,
That’s true of any book turned into a movie and is inevitable
because the movie format only runs for a couple of hours etc.
Even when say a non fiction book like one of Diamond's is
turned into a doco series, its never going to be feasible to be
a perfect copy of the book, because the format is so different.
> but can be enjoyed anyway.
Some appear to enjoy the movie a lot more than the book with
some books. Not clear why that is, whether its just because the
book format is so much less easy to digest for them or because
they are less able to use their imaginations or what.
> I enjoyed the LOTR movies, but I haven't rewatched them.
> I've reread LOTR a few times, including a German translation
> that was pretty good and also much better than the movies.
I hardly ever rewatch any movie or doco or doco series.
>> >> On 11/17/2012 2:32 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> >> > Nope. Just you. Actually more people liked the BG and Star Trek
>> >> > reboots than disliked them.
>> >> I've never seen any numbers that support that statement (Star Trek
>> >> reboots).
>> The clear winner for which BSG people preferred is the 2004 reboot.
> That wasn't the claim at all; nobody was comparing BSGs. The claim was
> "more people liked the BG and Star Trek reboots than disliked them"
> which these numbers don't support one way or the other.
The claim, as quoted above, was: 'never seen any numbers that support that statement ' with respect to 'more people liked the BG and Star Trek
reboots than disliked them'. I provided the support that supposedly has remained unseen until now.
The IMDB ratings allow people to mark their view of a show from 1 star (really dislike it) to 10 stars (really like it). The higher the rating, the more the audience liked what they saw. For both the BSG reboot and for the Star Trek reboot (2009 film) and for the Star Trek sequel (The Next Generation), the IMDB scores are very high with vastly more people claiming *like* rather than *dislike*.
I threw in the ratings for the rest of the related shows to further drive home the fact that these reboots are even more liked than their opriginal versions.
You can argue that the sample size isn't reflective of the entire audience that has seen any of these shows, but that does not change the fact that evidence has now been shown that supports the idea that more people liked the reboots than disliked them.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Some appear to enjoy the movie a lot
>> more than the book with some books.
> JAWS is a good example of a movie that was much better than its source > material.
True, and its not hard to see why either.
> Benchley's book was a disaster.
Yeah, in that case it was more the idea than the book itself.
> In article <drache-3171E6.11365018112...@news.eternal-
> september.org>, dra...@chibardun.net.invalid says...
>> In article <k8alos$8h...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/18/12 1:39 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>> Try having a discussion in any large public forum of the Oz books. The
>>>> movie moves in and takes over, because far FAR more people have seen it
>>>> and care about it. Try having a discussion in any large public forum of
>>>> The Lord of the Rings without the moving coming into it. Very often, a
>>>> movie moves in and either completely displaces the original book in the
>>>> public mind, or at least gets enough mindshare that you can't have a
>>>> discussion that ignores it.
>>> Still doesn't affect the books, though. And in both cases, releasing
>>> the movies drastically increases the sales of the books.
>> For those of us hooked on the originals, the movies are never going to
>> approach a true portrayal, but can be enjoyed anyway. I enjoyed the
>> LOTR movies, but I haven't rewatched them. I've reread LOTR a few
>> times, including a German translation that was pretty good and also much
>> better than the movies.
> I agree with that.
> I read the LOTR & Hobbit books quite some time ago.
> The movies did refresh my memory of them, but I have no
> intention of re-watching them.
> If my eyesight was better I would re-read the books.
> I have no problem if movies are unfaithful to the books,
> as long as they are entertaining. The same for reboots.
I've read the books multiple times. I've also watched the movies multiple times. There are things I prefer in the movies, and things I prefer in the books. Awesome though the scene is in the book, "YOU CANNOT PASS!" is ten times more awesome with Sir Ian on the screen facing down a totally awesome Balrog.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message >> I'm always amused by the warning that some shows have after each
>> commercial break that the following material is intended for "a mature
>> audience only."
>I keep telling my system that we don't have any of those.
>> That generally means, in my opinion, that it's
>> presented for a rather immature audience.
>Can't agree with that. But then I am normally watching docos
>on our govt broadcaster and they are basically saying that the
>particular doco does cover stuff that isnt really that suitable for
>the less mature audiences, particularly the younger kids to watch.
I usually see it on silly sitcoms that my wife watches. I think Two
and a half men was one of them.
-- I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>mzen...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> >On 16/11/12 4:23 AM, Mark Zenier wrote: >> >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote: >> >>> I quite liked the Disney Johnny Depp version of "Alice in Wonderland",
>> >>> but at least they haven't (so far) given us "Alice Goes Pole-Dancing".
>> >> I take it you haven't been watching _Once Upon A Time_.
>> >No. It's on commercial TV - I've tried, but I just can't bear it.
>> Little Red Riding Hood as a diner waitress in hot pants, Grumpy as >> the town drunk. Great fun, at least for an iconoclast.
>It was okay, until, as usual, the writers started running out of ideas and
>pulling in non-fairy tale characters like The Mad Hatter. :-(
I know this will just pull a response attempting to showcase your level of
intelligence compared to all the riffraff gnawing on your prose ankles, but
what makes you think Alice in Wonderland is NOT a fairy tale?
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
> > >> On 11/17/2012 2:32 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> > >> > Nope. Just you. Actually more people liked the BG and Star Trek
> > >> > reboots than disliked them.
> > >> I've never seen any numbers that support that statement (Star Trek
> > >> reboots).
> > The clear winner for which BSG people preferred is the 2004 reboot.
> That wasn't the claim at all; nobody was comparing BSGs. The claim was
> "more people liked the BG and Star Trek reboots than disliked them"
> which these numbers don't support one way or the other.
> > > As for Trek 09,
> > Star Trek TOS 1966: 8.4 (21,000 users)
> > Star Trek The Animated Series 1973: 7.6 (2,397 users)
> > Star Trek The Next Generation 1987: 8.6 (29,000 users)
> > Star Trek Deep Space Nine 1993: 7.9 (16,000 users)
> > Star Trek Voyager 1995: 7.4 (19,000 users)
> > Star Trek Enterprise 2001: 7.3 (14,000 users)
> > Star Trek TOMP 1979: 6.3 (37,000 users)
> > Star Trek II WOK 1982: 7.7 (55,000 users)
> > Star Trek III TSFS 1984: 6.6 (35,000 users)
> > Star Trek IV TVH 1986: 7.2 (37,000 users)
> > Star Trek V TFF 1989: 5.2 (27,000 users)
> > Star Trek VI TUC 1991: 7.2 (34,000 users)
> > Star Trek Generations 1994: 6.5 (38,000 users)
> > Star Trek First Contact 1996: 7.5 (65,000 users)
> > Star Trek Insurrection 1998: 6.3 (36,000 users)
> > Star Trek Nemesis 2002: 6.3 (38,000 users)
> > Star Trek 2009: 8.0 (264,000 users)
> > Looking at all the reviews, the sequel TV show (The Next Generation) beats
> > the original (The Original Series).
> > ...and the 2009 reboot film beats any of the other 10 films.
> That wasn't the claim at all; nobody was comparing TREKs. The claim was
> "more people liked the BG and Star Trek reboots than disliked them"
> which these numbers don't support one way or the other.
Actually if more people dislike a film or series than like it then you
would expect it to get low scores.
In article <agt6m0Fapv...@mid.individual.net>, go...@gossg.org wrote:
> YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> >> :: It also deals with topics and situations which are clearly targeted at
> >> :: adult audience members. > >> : > >> : Only because you're an adult that you saw those things,
> >> Gee, you say that almost as if you suppose it supports your point.
> >In some ways it does. SOME of the things you see / hear that are
> >supposedly "adult" aren't really intended to be or have been made to be
> >"adult" by your own perspective.
> I'm always amused by the warning that some shows have after each
> commercial break that the following material is intended for "a mature
> audience only." That generally means, in my opinion, that it's
> presented for a rather immature audience.
Yep, that's usually the case - the brainless majority who think fart jokes
are funny past the age of about 4. Most (not all) British comedy shows
used to be very good, but these days they're almost all purile garbage. :-(
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 21:46:41 -0500, David DeLaney
<d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in
<news:slrnkaj5e9.67d.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> in
rec.arts.sf.tv,rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.tv:
>> It was okay, until, as usual, the writers started running
>> out of ideas and pulling in non-fairy tale characters
>> like The Mad Hatter. :-(
> I know this will just pull a response attempting to
> showcase your level of intelligence compared to all the
> riffraff gnawing on your prose ankles,
He'll succeed, too, for appropraite values of 'showcase'.
> but what makes you think Alice in Wonderland is NOT a
> fairy tale?
That's actually an interesting question. I don't think of
it as a fairy tale, and I'm really not sure why. Despite
many similarities, Catherynne M. Valente's _The Girl Who
Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making_ seems
a bit closer to my notion of a fairy tale, and her _The
Orphan's Tales_ is one (or maybe many). George MacDonald's
'The Golden Key' is a fairy tale, as are the Curdy stories.
John Barnes's _One for the Morning Glory_ is what happens
when a fairy tale collides violently with Gilbert & Sullivan
and an inebriated dictionary.
In article
<6aadeea4-f5af-4304-87fd-86013e816...@vb8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 12:14=A0am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Star Trek Voyager 1995: =A07.4 =A0(19,000 users)
> > Star Trek Enterprise 2001: =A07.3 =A0(14,000 users)
> It's sad that Star Trek Voyager got a slightly better score than Star
> Trek Enterprise. Enterprise was the better show by far.
Better show? Perhaps.
Better "Star Trek"? Not even remotely. Enterprise was abysmal drivel that
pee'd all over existing facts, just like Abrams' silly "reboot" movie.
Enterprise was the first idiotic attempt at a silly "reboot" - they tried
to make it appeal to non-Star Trek fans by leaving "Star Trek" out of the
title, which was about the oly theing they gto right since then even the
most blind of fools can see it's not really part of the same franchise.
In article <slrnkaj5e9.67d....@gatekeeper.vic.com>, d...@vic.com wrote:
> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >mzen...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
> >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> >On 16/11/12 4:23 AM, Mark Zenier wrote: > >> >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote: > >> >>> I quite liked the Disney Johnny Depp version of "Alice in Wonderland",
> >> >>> but at least they haven't (so far) given us "Alice Goes Pole-Dancing".
> >> >> I take it you haven't been watching _Once Upon A Time_.
> >> >No. It's on commercial TV - I've tried, but I just can't bear it.
> >> Little Red Riding Hood as a diner waitress in hot pants, Grumpy as > >> the town drunk. Great fun, at least for an iconoclast.
> >It was okay, until, as usual, the writers started running out of ideas and
> >pulling in non-fairy tale characters like The Mad Hatter. :-(
> I know this will just pull a response attempting to showcase your level of
> intelligence compared to all the riffraff gnawing on your prose ankles, but
> what makes you think Alice in Wonderland is NOT a fairy tale?
> Your Name <YourN...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> mzen...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>> On 16/11/12 4:23 AM, Mark Zenier wrote:
>>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I quite liked the Disney Johnny Depp version of "Alice in Wonderland",
>>>>>> but at least they haven't (so far) given us "Alice Goes Pole-Dancing".
>>>>> I take it you haven't been watching _Once Upon A Time_.
>>>> No. It's on commercial TV - I've tried, but I just can't bear it.
>>> Little Red Riding Hood as a diner waitress in hot pants, Grumpy as
>>> the town drunk. Great fun, at least for an iconoclast.
>> It was okay, until, as usual, the writers started running out of ideas and
>> pulling in non-fairy tale characters like The Mad Hatter. :-(
> I know this will just pull a response attempting to showcase your level of
> intelligence compared to all the riffraff gnawing on your prose ankles, but
> what makes you think Alice in Wonderland is NOT a fairy tale?
Well it has a known author, and no characters who are identified as "fairies".
