Syfy- goodbye scifi - has James Bond marathon instead (Thanksgiving)
SFTV_troy
fiction? James Bond is not scientifically accurate, and it certainly
isn't the classic swords-and-sorcerers of fantasy fiction. It's part
of the spy/mystery genre.
THURSDAY
Dr. No
Licence to Kill
Live and Let Die
The Spy Who Loved Me
Tomorrow Never Dies
Casino Royale
For Your Eyes Only
Man With Golden Gun
FRIDAY
hunderball
From Russia With Love
You Only Live Twice
Diamonds Are Forever
Casino Royale
GoldenEye
Goldfinger
Never Say Never Again
trag
And they're not even showing "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" which
is my favorite. On the bright side, they're not showing "Moonraker"
which had about the same quality as a syfy original movie.
SFTV_troy
>
> And they're not even showing "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" which
> is my favorite. On the bright side, they're not showing "Moonraker"
> which had about the same quality as a syfy original movie.
I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
(this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<2003d874-f7d8-4707...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 25, 12:11ï¿œpm, trag <t...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>> And they're not even showing "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" which
>> is my favorite. ï¿œOn the bright side, they're not showing "Moonraker"
>> which had about the same quality as a syfy original movie.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
> (this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
>
1 it was a Roger Moore Bond movie
2 it was a _bad_ Roger Moore Bond movie
3 it was a bad Roger Moore Bond movie which featured Space Nazis.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Michael Black
There's not much gadgetry or science in the George Lazenby film. The only
thing I can think of is the safe-cracking gadget, which was so big and
bulky that a construction crane had to be used to get it up to the office.
Later films in the series have similar gadgets, but much smaller and
with no mechanical knob-turning.
The issue of James Bond has come up before. Not classified as science
fiction within sf circles, outsiders do seem to categorize it as such, to
some extent.
A case could be made that some fit the genre better than others.
Certainly not the George Lazenby, or "Diamonds are Forever", but
"Moonraker" at least gets into space at a time when there wasn't much
going on up there.
But that list doesn't select on that basis, so surely they subscribe
to the notion that the George Lazenby film doesn't count, either because
they feel it's a "lesser" film, or because he only made one appearance.
Michael
TT
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:45:59 -0500, SFTV_troy wrote
> (in article
> <2003d874-f7d8-4707...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>> And they're not even showing "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" which
>>> which had about the same quality as a syfy original movie.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
>> (this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
>>
>
> 1 it was a Roger Moore Bond movie
>
> 2 it was a _bad_ Roger Moore Bond movie
>
> 3 it was a bad Roger Moore Bond movie which featured Space Nazis.
>
Bullshit, one of the best Bonds, imo. :)
I like the humour, action and Jaws in that one.
Howard Brazee
<SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
>(this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
It's probably the movie furthest from the book.
It's the silliest Bond movie.
Its science is probably the worst.
I suspect most fans are bothered more about it being silly. I'm
offended most about its science.
What does "WBFF's 45-2(this)" mean?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Anlatt the Builder
> What does *any* of this have to do with science fiction or fantasy
> fiction? James Bond is not scientifically accurate, and it certainly
> isn't the classic swords-and-sorcerers of fantasy fiction. It's part
> of the spy/mystery genre.
>
>
It's very rare to find a SyFy show that's "scientifically accurate."
James Bond's combination of action-adventure and a few high-tech
gadgets seems to be good enough for them. Can't say I'm surprised.
Halmyre
e71409...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, SFTV...@yahoo.com says...
Double-taking pigeons. Tarzan yells. Jaws speaks.
--
Halmyre
This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your
head clean off.
shawn
wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:45:59 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy
><SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
>>(this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
>
>It's probably the movie furthest from the book.
>It's the silliest Bond movie.
>Its science is probably the worst.
It was a silly movie, but then that seemed to be the style for all of
Roger Moore's bond movies just to varying degrees. Not sure why they
made the change.
>I suspect most fans are bothered more about it being silly. I'm
>offended most about its science.
>
>What does "WBFF's 45-2(this)" mean?
Station WBFF channel 45 on the digital sub-carrier 2. Not sure what
the (this) is in reference too.
http://www.foxbaltimore.com/sections/station/faq/index.shtml
Remysun
> >What does "WBFF's 45-2(this)" mean?
>
> Station WBFF channel 45 on the digital sub-carrier 2. Not sure what
> the (this) is in reference too.http://www.foxbaltimore.com/sections/station/faq/index.shtml
The name of the network, guys. THIS
Eman
> What does *any* of this have to do with science fiction or fantasy
> fiction? James Bond is not scientifically accurate, and it certainly
> isn't the classic swords-and-sorcerers of fantasy fiction. It's part
> of the spy/mystery genre.
Most of the Bond movies deal with super villians exploiting some new
technology for world domination and of course 007 getting a little
help from Q's gadgets to foil their plans. Its mostly spy/mystery with
a small pinch of syfy.
SFTV_troy
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:45:59 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy
> <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
> >(this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
>
>
> I suspect most fans are bothered more about it being silly.
The wheely-doing trucks in "Living Daylights" is sillier IMHO.
> What does "WBFF's 45-2(this)" mean?
Same as WBFF's 45 (fox) means. Or WBAL's 11 (nbc) means. Or WJZ's 13
(abc) means.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <4MePm.44366$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>):
Jaws was the only redeeming feature.
If he could have removed Roger the Dodger from the movie it would have been a
much better movie. Unfortunately the scriptwriters were against him.
Anim8rFSK
Halmyre <no....@this.address> wrote:
> In article <2003d874-f7d8-4707-9f24-
> e71409...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, SFTV tr...@yahoo.com says...
> > On Nov 25, 12:11�pm, trag <t...@io.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > And they're not even showing "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" which
> > > is my favorite. �On the bright side, they're not showing "Moonraker"
> > > which had about the same quality as a syfy original movie.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
> > (this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
> >
> >
>
> Double-taking pigeons. Tarzan yells. Jaws speaks.
Shuttle orbiters launching from the backs of 747s without fuel. Space
stations spinning for gravity, but the gravity goes at right angles to
the way it should (if they spun the station the other way, would you be
stuck to the ceiling?).
--
Stargate Universe SGU: It puts the "U" in "SUCKS"!
It's the show 'Defiling Gravity' would be if DG had more regulars,
fewer abortions, worse writers, and no budget for lighting.
Remember, you can't spell "disgust" without SGU!
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
Well, it has a good theme song, I'll at least give it that.
Anim8rFSK
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> There's not much gadgetry or science in the George Lazenby film. The only
> thing I can think of is the safe-cracking gadget, which was so big and
> bulky that a construction crane had to be used to get it up to the office.
> Later films in the series have similar gadgets, but much smaller and
> with no mechanical knob-turning.
Was he carrying a device to change his voice or was he supposedly just
being a mimic for no reason?
T987654321
p
> What does *any* of this have to do with science fiction or fantasy
> fiction? James Bond is not scientifically accurate, and it certainly
> isn't the classic swords-and-sorcerers of fantasy fiction. It's part
> of the spy/mystery genre.
Hmm, well let's put that to the test :
> THURSDAY
> Dr. No
Villain with metal hands using radiation beams to throw rockets off
course? Sci-fi!
> Licence to Kill
Bond after the head of a drug cartel for revenge : Not sci-fi.
> Live and Let Die
Bond taking down a Carribbean voodoo practicing drug lord. Not sci-fi.
> The Spy Who Loved Me
A ship that opens up to swallow submarines? Let's say partial credit
on that one.
> Tomorrow Never Dies
Bond driving a talking car via remote control, an invisible stealth
ship? Sci-fi!
> Casino Royale
Bond playing cards. Not sci-fi.
> For Your Eyes Only
Bond trying to find a sunken ship. Not sci-fi.
> Man With Golden Gun
Solar technology probably was sci-fi when it was made, not so much
these days.
> FRIDAY
> Thunderball
Bond looking for stolen nuclear warheads. Not sci-fi.
> From Russia With Love
Bond chasing after a Russian decoding computer. Not sci-fi.
> You Only Live Twice
A spaceship that swallows other ships controlled by a villain from a
hollowed-out Japanese volcano lair? Sci-fi, baby!
> Diamonds Are Forever
Villain who has perfect clones of himself using a diamond-powered
laser beam satellite? Sci-fi.
> Casino Royale
More cards. No sci-fi.
> GoldenEye
EMP satellite weapon. Hmm. Partial credit.
> Goldfinger
Villain wants to blow up Fort Knox. Gadget-laden car. Partial credit.
> Never Say Never Again
Puffing, wheezing, out of shape Connery pretending he's still James
Bond = sci-fi.
Of course, others have mentioned Moonraker, and Die Another Day would
certain qualify as sci-fi, with its gene therapy appearance-changing
villain, a laser satellite, and virtual reality.
Tony Calguire
news:t9vqg5lri9gv74n58...@4ax.com:
>
> What does "WBFF's 45-2(this)" mean?
>
On over-the-air digital TV, stations can transmit more than one programming
stream on their channel. These are called sub-channels. In this case, the
original poster is referring to WBFF-TV in Baltimre, which is the Fox
affiliate on their main channel, 45-1, and has the "This TV" progamming
service on 45-2.
Subchanels can also be labled 45.1, 45.2.
Adam H. Kerman
>
>
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:45:59 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy
>> <SFTV...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
>> >(this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
>>
>>
>> I suspect most fans are bothered more about it being silly.
>
>The wheely-doing trucks in "Living Daylights" is sillier IMHO.
Wrong movie; "License to Kill". I rather like that chase scene, actually.
Adam H. Kerman
>>There's not much gadgetry or science in the George Lazenby film. The only
>>thing I can think of is the safe-cracking gadget, which was so big and
>>bulky that a construction crane had to be used to get it up to the office.
>>Later films in the series have similar gadgets, but much smaller and
>>with no mechanical knob-turning.
>Was he carrying a device to change his voice or was he supposedly just
>being a mimic for no reason?
The other actor dubbed Lazenby in the scenes in which Lazenby was
impersonating him.
David E. Powell
> On Nov 25, 8:32 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What does *any* of this have to do with science fiction or fantasy
> > fiction? James Bond is not scientifically accurate, and it certainly
> > isn't the classic swords-and-sorcerers of fantasy fiction. It's part
> > of the spy/mystery genre.
>
> Hmm, well let's put that to the test :
>
> > THURSDAY
> > Dr. No
>
> Villain with metal hands using radiation beams to throw rockets off
> course? Sci-fi!
True. The Cape Canaveral rocketry and nuclear technology, both big new
technologies at the time.
> > Licence to Kill
>
> Bond after the head of a drug cartel for revenge : Not sci-fi.
Agreed.
> > Live and Let Die
>
> Bond taking down a Carribbean voodoo practicing drug lord. Not sci-fi.
There was the shark killing inflato-pellet though. The mechanical arm
wasn't totally robotic, but there's an argument given some of the
stuff the one guy could do with it. But, yeah. Most Bond movies have
SF-ish gadgets, but I would think "Moonraker" would be the big Sci-Fi-
ish one.
> > The Spy Who Loved Me
>
> A ship that opens up to swallow submarines? Let's say partial credit
> on that one.
Agreed, and wasn't there an underwater base intended to survive a
nuclear exchange as well?
> > Tomorrow Never Dies
>
> Bond driving a talking car via remote control, an invisible stealth
> ship? Sci-fi!
Yes!
> > Casino Royale
>
> Bond playing cards. Not sci-fi.
Was it the Niven one or the new one?
> > For Your Eyes Only
>
> Bond trying to find a sunken ship. Not sci-fi.
Yeah. Has one of my favorite Roger Moore scenes too, when he kicks a
car off a cliff with a bad guy in it.
> > Man With Golden Gun
>
> Solar technology probably was sci-fi when it was made, not so much
> these days.
True. Similar ot the early "collector" type arrays, with a bit of SF
elements thrown in.
> > FRIDAY
> > Thunderball
>
> Bond looking for stolen nuclear warheads. Not sci-fi.
However, the diving scenes and minisubs were pretty huge for the time,
and the underwater sequences still hold up pretty well.
> > From Russia With Love
>
> Bond chasing after a Russian decoding computer. Not sci-fi.
The briefcase was pretty cool!
> > You Only Live Twice
>
> A spaceship that swallows other ships controlled by a villain from a
> hollowed-out Japanese volcano lair? Sci-fi, baby!
Definitely. Much like Dr. No, it was huge on the Space Age stuff. The
Gyrojet guns, new at the time, were pretty neat too. Also they had a
Gyrojet cigarettre! If you google "Gyrojet" you'll see some pretty
cool stuff!
> > Diamonds Are Forever
>
> Villain who has perfect clones of himself using a diamond-powered
> laser beam satellite? Sci-fi.
Most definitely! I love that the computer codes were on cassete tapes
too! Ah memories!
> > Casino Royale
>
> More cards. No sci-fi.
Niven's or the new one? I guess they are showing both versions!
> > GoldenEye
>
> EMP satellite weapon. Hmm. Partial credit.
Nod, and the big Arecibo antenna array!
> > Goldfinger
>
> Villain wants to blow up Fort Knox. Gadget-laden car. Partial credit.
Plus the flying hat of doom! This one is a classic!
> > Never Say Never Again
>
> Puffing, wheezing, out of shape Connery pretending he's still James
> Bond = sci-fi.
There was the 3-D video game sequence with electric shock feedback, as
I recall. Pretty advanced stuff for 1983!
Connery rules btw ;)
> Of course, others have mentioned Moonraker, and Die Another Day would
> certain qualify as sci-fi, with its gene therapy appearance-changing
> villain, a laser satellite, and virtual reality.
Agreed on both of those! Moonraker may get the all time prize for all
of the elements it has. 1979 was heavily influenced by the success of
"Star Wars" a couple of years earlier. Alien, etc. too.
The genetic playing around in Die Another Day, the big laser gun, lots
of stuff there.
David
Michael O'Connor
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:45:59 -0800 (PST), SFTV_troy
>
> >I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
> >(this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
>
> It's probably the movie furthest from the book.
> It's the silliest Bond movie.
> Its science is probably the worst.
>
> I suspect most fans are bothered more about it being silly. I'm
> offended most about its science.
>
The two worst Bond movies IMO were Moonraker, followed close behind by
A View to a Kill. I guess because of the success of Star Wars that
they had to figure out how to get James Bond into space shooting laser
guns and flying spaceships and stuff. I don't know what the the
single worst piece of bad science there was in the movie; my vote goes
for James Bond piloting the Space Shuttle with no previous training.
Or it could have been the laser gun battle and the lasers weren't
cutting thru the hull of the ship. It's been about 20 years since I
last watched Moonraker; I don't remember why the Space Shuttle was
sabotaged in the beginning.
Michael O'Connor
> >It's probably the movie furthest from the book.
> >It's the silliest Bond movie.
> >Its science is probably the worst.
>
> It was a silly movie, but then that seemed to be the style for all of
> Roger Moore's bond movies just to varying degrees. Not sure why they
> made the change.>I suspect most fans are bothered more about it being silly. I'm
> >offended most about its science.
>
I think the two best of the Roger Moore Bond films were the two that
had the least silliness in them, and those were The Spy Who Loved Me
and For Your Eyes Only.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <MPG.25779a89d...@news.tesco.net>,
> Halmyre <no....@this.address> wrote:
>
>> In article <2003d874-f7d8-4707-9f24-
>> e71409...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, SFTV tr...@yahoo.com says...
>>> On Nov 25, 12:11 pm, trag <t...@io.com> wrote:
>>>> And they're not even showing "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" which
>>>> is my favorite. On the bright side, they're not showing "Moonraker"
>>>> which had about the same quality as a syfy original movie.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
>>> (this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
>>>
>>>
>> Double-taking pigeons. Tarzan yells. Jaws speaks.
>
> Shuttle orbiters launching from the backs of 747s without fuel. Space
> stations spinning for gravity, but the gravity goes at right angles to
> the way it should (if they spun the station the other way, would you be
> stuck to the ceiling?).
>
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Dimensional Traveler
The Evil Genius had to steal it to replace one of his own. (I don't
remember off hand what happened to his own that required it to be replaced.)
Anim8rFSK
<b7105e30-d4bd-4715...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
"Michael O'Connor" <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 1:56�pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:45:59 -0800 (PST), SFTV troy
> >
> > <SFTV t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. �I saw it on WBFF's 45-2
> > >(this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
> >
> > It's probably the movie furthest from the book.
> > It's the silliest Bond movie.
> > Its science is probably the worst.
> >
> > I suspect most fans are bothered more about it being silly. � I'm
> > offended most about its science.
> >
>
> The two worst Bond movies IMO were Moonraker, followed close behind by
> A View to a Kill. I guess because of the success of Star Wars that
> they had to figure out how to get James Bond into space shooting laser
> guns and flying spaceships and stuff. I don't know what the the
> single worst piece of bad science there was in the movie; my vote goes
> for James Bond piloting the Space Shuttle with no previous training.
> Or it could have been the laser gun battle and the lasers weren't
> cutting thru the hull of the ship. It's been about 20 years since I
> last watched Moonraker; I don't remember why the Space Shuttle was
> sabotaged in the beginning.
Drax needed another orbiter, so he stole back one he'd sold. He didn't
sabatoge it, he launched it from the back of the carrier 747, making it
look like they'd both been blown up. Problem is, the orbiter didn't
have a fuel tank (an to show Hollywood never learns, they ripped off
this sequence for Superman Returns) and if you did somehow build a
secret internal fuel tank and fill it up, the 747 would have never
gotten off the ground in the first place. And even if you get past all
that, you ain't gonna fly it to France or whatever.
Howard Brazee
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> I suspect most fans are bothered more about it being silly.
>>
>>The wheely-doing trucks in "Living Daylights" is sillier IMHO.
>
>Wrong movie; "License to Kill". I rather like that chase scene, actually.
That was awfully silly - but Moonraker had silly stuff from start to
end.
Howard Brazee
<mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>The two worst Bond movies IMO were Moonraker, followed close behind by
>A View to a Kill. I guess because of the success of Star Wars that
>they had to figure out how to get James Bond into space shooting laser
>guns and flying spaceships and stuff. I don't know what the the
>single worst piece of bad science there was in the movie; my vote goes
>for James Bond piloting the Space Shuttle with no previous training.
>Or it could have been the laser gun battle and the lasers weren't
>cutting thru the hull of the ship. It's been about 20 years since I
>last watched Moonraker; I don't remember why the Space Shuttle was
>sabotaged in the beginning.
You don't think the Space Shuttle taking off, fully fueled from the
back of the 747 wasn't sillier than what you mentioned?
Mac Breck
<snip>
> The issue of James Bond has come up before. Not classified as science
> fiction within sf circles, outsiders
,which describes Syfy management,
> do seem to categorize it as
> such, to some extent.
> A case could be made that some fit the genre better than others.
> Certainly not the George Lazenby, or "Diamonds are Forever", but
> "Moonraker" at least gets into space at a time when there wasn't much
> going on up there.
>
> But that list doesn't select on that basis, so surely they subscribe
> to the notion that the George Lazenby film doesn't count, either
> because they feel it's a "lesser" film, or because he only made one
> appearance.
I know what you mean, but to me the George Lazenby film is not a lesser
film. It had Diana Rigg and is the only film where James Bond got
married. To me, the Roger Moore James Bond films are the lesser ones,
with the possible exception of "Live and Let Die" with Jane Seymour, and
the one with the Lotus Esprit submersible.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
Dimensional Traveler
at least it was there for a test launch, not just being transported from
A to B. (The stupid part was filling the carrier 747 with civilians.
Don't the shuttle connection struts extend into the interior in real life?)
Michael Black
> The two worst Bond movies IMO were Moonraker, followed close behind by
> A View to a Kill. I guess because of the success of Star Wars that
> they had to figure out how to get James Bond into space shooting laser
> guns and flying spaceships and stuff. I don't know what the the
> single worst piece of bad science there was in the movie; my vote goes
> for James Bond piloting the Space Shuttle with no previous training.
> Or it could have been the laser gun battle and the lasers weren't
> cutting thru the hull of the ship. It's been about 20 years since I
> last watched Moonraker; I don't remember why the Space Shuttle was
> sabotaged in the beginning.
>
The villain needed another shuttle for his project, so he had stowaways
on the Shuttle shuttle aircraft, and they revved up the engine of the
shuttle and stole it, destroying the aircraft that was carrying it in
the process. The villain was the manufacturer, so he stole back what
he'd sold to the US.
I don't dislike Moonraker, but it was overkill to have "Jaws" back in it,
he of course originally appeared in "The Spy Who Loved Me".
Michael
David E. Powell
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, David E. Powell wrote:
> >>> The Spy Who Loved Me
>
> >> A ship that opens up to swallow submarines? Let's say partial credit
> >> on that one.
>
> > Agreed, and wasn't there an underwater base intended to survive a
> > nuclear exchange as well?
>
> into the ocean as needed. We never see anything in there but the shark
> tank and the luxurious office or meeting room (whichever it was). That
> is certainly futuristic.
>
> One thing about the Bond films in the old days is that they had
> significant underwater scenes, which certainly reflected what science
> was doing at the time. National Geographic was full of articles about
> diving for treasure or living in underwater domes (the real kind), and
> either that's faded with time or like the space program it's become too
> commonplace to cover anymore. Jacques Cousteau was on network tv
> regularly too.
>
> I see later you mention the underwater scenes in reference to another
> of the films.
>
> Michael
Yes, they pushed the tech of the day as far as it could go and took
plausible "next steps." So there is definitely a SF element there. Tom
Clancy has done some similar things.
I agree about the underwater stuff, Bond really did a lot of that
stuff. Thunderball's scenes still haven't been topped by anyone in my
book.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@darkstar.example.net>):
> I don't dislike Moonraker, but it was overkill to have "Jaws" back in it,
> he of course originally appeared in "The Spy Who Loved Me".
Jaws was Moonraker's only redeeming feature.
Anim8rFSK
"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Black wrote:
> <snip>
> > The issue of James Bond has come up before. Not classified as science
> > fiction within sf circles, outsiders
>
> ,which describes Syfy management,
>
> > do seem to categorize it as
> > such, to some extent.
>
>
>
> > A case could be made that some fit the genre better than others.
> > Certainly not the George Lazenby, or "Diamonds are Forever", but
> > "Moonraker" at least gets into space at a time when there wasn't much
> > going on up there.
> >
> > But that list doesn't select on that basis, so surely they subscribe
> > to the notion that the George Lazenby film doesn't count, either
> > because they feel it's a "lesser" film, or because he only made one
> > appearance.
>
> I know what you mean, but to me the George Lazenby film is not a lesser
Depends on the cut; there are multiple versions of this one.
> film. It had Diana Rigg and is the only film where James Bond got
> married. To me, the Roger Moore James Bond films are the lesser ones,
> with the possible exception of "Live and Let Die" with Jane Seymour, and
> the one with the Lotus Esprit submersible.
Wow. I think Live and Let Die is the second worst Moore film, with only
View To a Kill being a bigger stinkbomb. The Spy Who Loved Me is one of
the better Moore films; granted, that's not saying much.
Ubiquitous
> What does *any* of this have to do with science fiction or fantasy
> fiction? James Bond is not scientifically accurate, and it certainly
> isn't the classic swords-and-sorcerers of fantasy fiction. It's part
> of the spy/mystery genre.
I always saw it in the broader "action/adventure" genre myself...
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Michael Black
> On Nov 25, 11:32 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What does *any* of this have to do with science fiction or fantasy
>> fiction? James Bond is not scientifically accurate, and it certainly
>> isn't the classic swords-and-sorcerers of fantasy fiction. It's part
>> of the spy/mystery genre.
>
> I always saw it in the broader "action/adventure" genre myself...
>
And since you mention it, a lot of tv and movie science fiction is
actual more like that. Which may explain the popularity in recent
decades. Given that, it's not a surprise that some who aren't deep
into science fiction would think the James Bond films are science
fiction, rather than merely having gadgetry.
Michael
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> What does *any* of this have to do with science fiction or fantasy
> fiction? James Bond is not scientifically accurate, and it certainly
> isn't the classic swords-and-sorcerers of fantasy fiction. It's part
> of the spy/mystery genre.
>
> Dr. No
> Licence to Kill
> Live and Let Die
> The Spy Who Loved Me
> Casino Royale
> For Your Eyes Only
> Man With Golden Gun
>
> FRIDAY
> hunderball
> From Russia With Love
> You Only Live Twice
> Diamonds Are Forever
> Casino Royale
> GoldenEye
> Goldfinger
> Never Say Never Again
Why not? They have just as many "SciFi" elements as most of the other
films shown on Syfy. Not so much the earlier ones, but the later
films? Lots and lots of Science Fiction.
clouddreamer
Yup. Heck, some think CSI is sci-fi.
..
Michael Black
>> Why not? They have just as many "SciFi" elements as most of the other
>> films shown on Syfy. Not so much the earlier ones, but the later
>> films? Lots and lots of Science Fiction.
>
>
> Yup. Heck, some think CSI is sci-fi.
>
It's certainly not a documentary.
Michael
Smokie Darling (Annie)
Well, maybe not scifi in the 'standard' sense (I was always told that
SciFi was fiction using science and potential advances of *science* -
iow no midieval dragons, no vampires, no werewolves, no wizards, but
Frankenstein could be considered science fiction), but yeah, CSI has
scifi elements too.
With James Bond though, I figured a car that can fly or go underwater
(and still run, mind you), most of the gadgets he had qualify as
Science Fiction, and it's generally fun.
Mac Breck
***Jane Seymour (Solitaire)*** :-D
> with
> only View To a Kill being a bigger stinkbomb.
Grace Jones. <barf>
> The Spy Who Loved Me
> is one of the better Moore films; granted, that's not saying much.
Right, it isn't saying much.
_Roger Moore James Bond Films_
A View to a Kill (1985) crap. Thank God the Roger Moore era is over.
Octopussy (1983) crap
For Your Eyes Only (1981) Lotus Esprit Turbo (two, one white, one red).
Carole Bouquet (Melina) :-D
Moonraker (1979) crap, but had Lois Chiles & Corrine Clery. :-)
The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - Lotus Esprit submarine with anti-aircraft
missiles. :-D
The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) OMG is this ever crap!!! AMC cars.
:-P
Live and Let Die (1973) Had Jane Seymour and a good song.
Halmyre
macthe...@yahoo.com says...
Had some good points...
>
> For Your Eyes Only (1981) Lotus Esprit Turbo (two, one white, one red).
> Carole Bouquet (Melina) :-D
Sheena Easton theme song :(
But FYEO is actually quite good. Talking parrots and teenage nymphomaniac
skaters aside.
>
> http://www.007.info/Cars.asp
>
> Moonraker (1979) crap, but had Lois Chiles & Corrine Clery. :-)
>
> The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - Lotus Esprit submarine with anti-aircraft
> missiles. :-D
>
> The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) OMG is this ever crap!!! AMC cars.
> :-P
>
Swannee whistle alert! Aargh!
> Live and Let Die (1973) Had Jane Seymour and a good song.
>
>
--
Halmyre
This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your
head clean off.
Anim8rFSK
<5baf83c9-bf8f-4cf5...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
"Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 8:53�am, clouddreamer <savethepla...@save.money.too> wrote:
> > Smokie Darling (Annie) wrote:
Horatio can teleport.
>
> With James Bond though, I figured a car that can fly or go underwater
> (and still run, mind you), most of the gadgets he had qualify as
> Science Fiction, and it's generally fun.
--
Anim8rFSK
"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not nearly enough.
>
>
> > with
> > only View To a Kill being a bigger stinkbomb.
>
> Grace Jones. <barf>
Hell, they managed to make TANYA ROBERTS UNNATTRACTIVE.
>
>
> > The Spy Who Loved Me
> > is one of the better Moore films; granted, that's not saying much.
>
> Right, it isn't saying much.
>
>
> _Roger Moore James Bond Films_
>
> A View to a Kill (1985) crap. Thank God the Roger Moore era is over.
Worst Moore Bond, worst Bond period.
>
> Octopussy (1983) crap
Yep.
>
> For Your Eyes Only (1981) Lotus Esprit Turbo (two, one white, one red).
> Carole Bouquet (Melina) :-D
Best Moore Bond.
>
> http://www.007.info/Cars.asp
>
> Moonraker (1979) crap, but had Lois Chiles & Corrine Clery. :-)
And a great theme song.
>
> The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - Lotus Esprit submarine with anti-aircraft
> missiles. :-D
Caroline Munro.
>
> The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) OMG is this ever crap!!! AMC cars.
> :-P
Slide whistle.
>
> Live and Let Die (1973) Had Jane Seymour and a good song.
Argh! Horrible song. McCartney's even embarrassed by it.
Anim8rFSK
Halmyre <no....@this.address> wrote:
With her on screen singing, rowr.
>
> But FYEO is actually quite good. Talking parrots and teenage nymphomaniac
> skaters aside.
Yeah, the Lynn Holly stuff is painful.
>
> >
> > http://www.007.info/Cars.asp
> >
> > Moonraker (1979) crap, but had Lois Chiles & Corrine Clery. :-)
> >
> > The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - Lotus Esprit submarine with anti-aircraft
> > missiles. :-D
> >
> > The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) OMG is this ever crap!!! AMC cars.
> > :-P
> >
>
> Swannee whistle alert! Aargh!
>
> > Live and Let Die (1973) Had Jane Seymour and a good song.
> >
> >
--
Gavin Christie
'Syfy'
What the fuck are they thinking? do we really need to have our intelligence
insulted like this?
Seems like yet another bunch of boardroom idiots justifying their existances
by lifting the bonnet when there isnt a problem.
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:e044aec8-638e-4fdf...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 25, 8:59 pm, p <phil7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 8:32 am, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What does *any* of this have to do with science fiction or fantasy
> > fiction? James Bond is not scientifically accurate, and it certainly
> > isn't the classic swords-and-sorcerers of fantasy fiction. It's part
> > of the spy/mystery genre.
>
> Hmm, well let's put that to the test :
>
> > THURSDAY
> > Dr. No
>
> Villain with metal hands using radiation beams to throw rockets off
> course? Sci-fi!
True. The Cape Canaveral rocketry and nuclear technology, both big new
technologies at the time.
> > Licence to Kill
>
> Bond after the head of a drug cartel for revenge : Not sci-fi.
Agreed.
> > Live and Let Die
>
> Bond taking down a Carribbean voodoo practicing drug lord. Not sci-fi.
There was the shark killing inflato-pellet though. The mechanical arm
wasn't totally robotic, but there's an argument given some of the
stuff the one guy could do with it. But, yeah. Most Bond movies have
SF-ish gadgets, but I would think "Moonraker" would be the big Sci-Fi-
ish one.
> > The Spy Who Loved Me
>
> A ship that opens up to swallow submarines? Let's say partial credit
> on that one.
Agreed, and wasn't there an underwater base intended to survive a
nuclear exchange as well?
> > Tomorrow Never Dies
>
> Bond driving a talking car via remote control, an invisible stealth
> ship? Sci-fi!
Yes!
> > Casino Royale
>
> Bond playing cards. Not sci-fi.
Was it the Niven one or the new one?
> > For Your Eyes Only
>
> Bond trying to find a sunken ship. Not sci-fi.
Yeah. Has one of my favorite Roger Moore scenes too, when he kicks a
car off a cliff with a bad guy in it.
> > Man With Golden Gun
>
> Solar technology probably was sci-fi when it was made, not so much
> these days.
True. Similar ot the early "collector" type arrays, with a bit of SF
elements thrown in.
> > FRIDAY
> > Thunderball
>
> Bond looking for stolen nuclear warheads. Not sci-fi.
However, the diving scenes and minisubs were pretty huge for the time,
and the underwater sequences still hold up pretty well.
> > From Russia With Love
>
> Bond chasing after a Russian decoding computer. Not sci-fi.
The briefcase was pretty cool!
> > You Only Live Twice
>
> A spaceship that swallows other ships controlled by a villain from a
> hollowed-out Japanese volcano lair? Sci-fi, baby!
Definitely. Much like Dr. No, it was huge on the Space Age stuff. The
Gyrojet guns, new at the time, were pretty neat too. Also they had a
Gyrojet cigarettre! If you google "Gyrojet" you'll see some pretty
cool stuff!
> > Diamonds Are Forever
>
> Villain who has perfect clones of himself using a diamond-powered
> laser beam satellite? Sci-fi.
Most definitely! I love that the computer codes were on cassete tapes
too! Ah memories!
> > Casino Royale
>
> More cards. No sci-fi.
Niven's or the new one? I guess they are showing both versions!
> > GoldenEye
>
> EMP satellite weapon. Hmm. Partial credit.
Nod, and the big Arecibo antenna array!
> > Goldfinger
>
> Villain wants to blow up Fort Knox. Gadget-laden car. Partial credit.
Plus the flying hat of doom! This one is a classic!
> > Never Say Never Again
>
> Puffing, wheezing, out of shape Connery pretending he's still James
> Bond = sci-fi.
There was the 3-D video game sequence with electric shock feedback, as
I recall. Pretty advanced stuff for 1983!
Connery rules btw ;)
> Of course, others have mentioned Moonraker, and Die Another Day would
> certain qualify as sci-fi, with its gene therapy appearance-changing
> villain, a laser satellite, and virtual reality.
Agreed on both of those! Moonraker may get the all time prize for all
of the elements it has. 1979 was heavily influenced by the success of
"Star Wars" a couple of years earlier. Alien, etc. too.
The genetic playing around in Die Another Day, the big laser gun, lots
of stuff there.
David
Mac Breck
> In article <MPG.257a442b...@news.tesco.net>,
> Halmyre <no....@this.address> wrote:
>
>> In article <ldudnZ3Uu7Pnt43W...@supernews.com>,
>> macthe...@yahoo.com says...
<snip>
>>> For Your Eyes Only (1981) Lotus Esprit Turbo (two, one white, one
>>> red). Carole Bouquet (Melina) :-D
>>
>> Sheena Easton theme song :(
:-) re. the song and Sheena Easton.
> With her on screen singing, rowr.
Seconded.
<snip>
Mac Breck
...to another galaxy, I hope.
Dimensional Traveler
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article
>> <5baf83c9-bf8f-4cf5...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, maybe not scifi in the 'standard' sense (I was always told that
>>> SciFi was fiction using science and potential advances of *science* -
>>> iow no midieval dragons, no vampires, no werewolves, no wizards, but
>>> Frankenstein could be considered science fiction), but yeah, CSI has
>>> scifi elements too.
>> Horatio can teleport.
>
> ...to another galaxy, I hope.
>
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> In article
> <5baf83c9-bf8f-4cf5-a96d-798fcdbf0...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
This is true, and apparently, Mac is learning this particular ability
(and *he* can transport an entired Chevy Avalanche too!).
Mac Breck
Can never get enough.
>>> with
>>> only View To a Kill being a bigger stinkbomb.
>>
>> Grace Jones. <barf>
>
> Hell, they managed to make TANYA ROBERTS UNNATTRACTIVE.
It's certainly one of Christopher Walken's worst films.
>>> The Spy Who Loved Me
>>> is one of the better Moore films; granted, that's not saying much.
>>
>> Right, it isn't saying much.
>>
>>
>> _Roger Moore James Bond Films_
>>
>> A View to a Kill (1985) crap. Thank God the Roger Moore era is over.
>
> Worst Moore Bond, worst Bond period.
Agreed.
>> Octopussy (1983) crap
>
> Yep.
>>
>> For Your Eyes Only (1981) Lotus Esprit Turbo (two, one white, one
>> red). Carole Bouquet (Melina) :-D
>
> Best Moore Bond.
Haven't seen it in a helluva long time. All I remember are the Lotus
Esprits and Melina.
>> http://www.007.info/Cars.asp
>>
>> Moonraker (1979) crap, but had Lois Chiles & Corrine Clery. :-)
>
> And a great theme song.
Don't remember it, but I do remember the Goldfinger (also sung by
Shirley Bassey), Thunderball (my fave, sung by Tom Jones.), For Your
Eyes Only, and Live and Let Die theme songs.
>> The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - Lotus Esprit submarine with
>> anti-aircraft missiles. :-D
>
> Caroline Munro.
I'll have to watch The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) and Dracula A.D. 1972
(1972), again. I know I have the latter. I have all of the
Hammer/Christopher Lee Dracula movies.
>> The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) OMG is this ever crap!!! AMC
>> cars. :-P
>
> Slide whistle.
? You remember stuff like that? All I remember is that it was a truly
AWFUL movie, and I felt bad for Christopher Lee for being in it.
>> Live and Let Die (1973) Had Jane Seymour and a good song.
>
> Argh! Horrible song. McCartney's even embarrassed by it.
Bah! It's a damned good James Bond song!
Mac Breck
> is learning this particular ability
> (and *he* can transport an entired Chevy Avalanche too!).
--
Mac Breck
Unfortunately. Maybe his next teleportation (to another galaxy) will be
a one-way trip. We can only hope.
Smokie Darling (Annie)
heh, heh, heh,... sorry, I forget that there is a "real" Mac here.
Michael Black
> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> Mac Breck wrote:
>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <5baf83c9-bf8f-4cf5...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, maybe not scifi in the 'standard' sense (I was always told
>>>>> that SciFi was fiction using science and potential advances of
>>>>> *science* - iow no midieval dragons, no vampires, no werewolves,
>>>>> no wizards, but Frankenstein could be considered science fiction),
>>>>> but yeah, CSI has scifi elements too.
>>>> Horatio can teleport.
>>>
>>> ...to another galaxy, I hope.
>>>
>> He got to Earth, didn't he?
>
> Unfortunately. Maybe his next teleportation (to another galaxy) will be
> a one-way trip. We can only hope.
>
Isn't one of the important problems with teleportation that of needing
to know where you are landing? The danger of materializing in solid
rock has been discussed I'm sure.
I'm pretty sure Alfred Bester discussed this in "The Stars My
Destination", where you have to have seen where you are going in order
to jaunte, or something like that. So criminals are kept in the dark
in caves, or else they'd just escape.
So Horatio could teleport to somewhere he's never been, and have
an accident.
Michael
David E. Powell
it too.
Speaking of composers David Arnold did a lot of Bond music and also
some more "direct" SF work! (Independence Day, etc.)
Mark Nobles
> Don't the shuttle connection struts extend into the interior in real life?)
Yes they do. But they don't fill up the entire cabin and there's lots
of room between the front and back mounts. I'm pretty sure it isn't
fitted out for passengers.
Anim8rFSK
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
Larry Niven has an excellent article called THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
TELEPORTATION where he discusses this, and the history of the fiction.
Horatio *probably* teleports inside CSI headquarters (he definitely has
some sort of stealth way to appear in rooms with no one noticing the
door opening) but he absolutely teleports in wide open areas; he
appeared behind his sister-in-law in an open area in the Everglades with
no cover for at least a hundred yards, and he teleported into an empty
parking garage to meet Delko. I don't think I've ever seen him, for
instance, walk out of a broom closet he just materialized in, so it
seems to be "rooms he's familar with (that have lots of glass anyway)"
or "wide open spaces"
Mark Nobles
> Horatio can teleport.
And where would Jack Bauer be without his ability to teleport?
Act I
scene 1
Train wreck east of LA.
scene 2
Jack Bauer gets a call about some missing secret material that was on
the train, jumps in his car to race to the scene of the wreck.
scene 3
Jack Bauer stuck in traffic
Act II
scene 1
Missing secret material used to crash a plane
scene 2
Jack Bauer, stuck in traffic
Act III
scene 1
Missing secret material from crashed plane used to take over all the
nuclear weapons on submarines
scene 2
Jack Bauer stuck in traffic
peachy ashie passion
ok, that was hilarious
Mark Nobles
> a villain from a
> hollowed-out ... volcano lair?
You Only Live Twice
In Like Flint (or was it Our Man Flint?)
The Venture Brothers
I know there are more.
Mac Breck
> x-no-archive: yes On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:59:35 -0500, J.J. O'Shea
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:45:59 -0500, SFTV_troy wrote
>> (in article
>> <2003d874-f7d8-4707...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 12:11 pm, trag <t...@io.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And they're not even showing "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"
>>>> which is my favorite. On the bright side, they're not showing
>>>> "Moonraker" which had about the same quality as a syfy original
>>>> movie.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why Moonraker gets so much hate. I saw it on WBFF's
>>> 45-2 (this) and it seemed no worse than most Bond movies.
>>>
>>
>> 1 it was a Roger Moore Bond movie
>
> Roger Moore was the best Bond. ROGER MOORE!
HA! Sean Connery or Daniel Craig would wipe the floor with him.
Mac Breck
The Incredibles
Dimensional Traveler
in a wide open field) usually require some extra work to set up and pull
off, I really have to wonder what the crew thinks is going on "in show"
to explain it. Or is it really some elaborate practical joke they are
playing on their audience?
Mark Nobles
Or maybe they're sneaking in clues that H is a vampire: works around
lots of blood, always wears shades and appears out of nowhere.
Mark Nobles
Thanks. I'll be here all week.
Michael Black
The first "season" of "The Amazing Race" had similar work. The teams
would arrive at the finishing mat each episode, and be greeted by a local
in costume. Only if the team was eliminated would the host appear, quite
suddenly, to tell the team they'd been eliminated. It was sort of
spooky, and they dropped that the next time there was a race, the host
always being at the mat.
It was not unlike an episode of "Seinfeld", where there was a character
in Elaine's office who would always suddenly materialize. So she'd
be briefing the box on a report, and then the guy would suddenly be
there adding something like he'd always been there and been part of
the work. She tried various schemes to provide him with a warning
system, the one I remember was giving him a box of "Tik-Taks" to make a
noise as he walked.
It's not just that "Horatio" can "teleport", but that he has ESP
so he knows when to do it. Suddenly materializing means nothing if
his timing is wrong. He needed the combination recently in order
to materialize when a distraught woman showed up at the front desk
wanting them to find her daughter (who hadn't been missing long enough
yet), and then suddenly Horatio is there.
Michael
Anim8rFSK
"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mark Nobles wrote:
> > <phil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> a villain from a
> >> hollowed-out ... volcano lair?
> >
> > You Only Live Twice
> > In Like Flint (or was it Our Man Flint?)
> > The Venture Brothers
> >
> > I know there are more.
>
> The Incredibles
Various versions of Mysterious Island.
Anim8rFSK
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
Yeah, I've wondered the same thing. Does the script actually say
"Sister in Law stands in the Everglades, the camera showing there is
clearly nothing for hundreds of yards in every direction. Cut to ECU of
sister in law looking around. Cut back to wide shot of Horatio standing
behind her"? Or is it something they ad lib when shooting?
Michael Black
> In article <UN2dndavzJfglo_W...@supernews.com>,
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark Nobles wrote:
>>> <phil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> a villain from a
>>>> hollowed-out ... volcano lair?
>>>
>>> You Only Live Twice
>>> In Like Flint (or was it Our Man Flint?)
>>> The Venture Brothers
>>>
>>> I know there are more.
>>
>> The Incredibles
>
> Various versions of Mysterious Island.
>
I think there was an episode of The Flinstones like that.
Michael
Mac Breck
> In article <UN2dndavzJfglo_W...@supernews.com>,
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Mark Nobles wrote:
>>> <phil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> a villain from a
>>>> hollowed-out ... volcano lair?
>>>
>>> You Only Live Twice
>>> In Like Flint (or was it Our Man Flint?)
>>> The Venture Brothers
>>>
>>> I know there are more.
>>
>> The Incredibles
>
> Various versions of Mysterious Island.
D'oh!!! I have the Patrick Stewart version on DVD.
Anim8rFSK
"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <UN2dndavzJfglo_W...@supernews.com>,
> > "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Nobles wrote:
> >>> <phil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> a villain from a
> >>>> hollowed-out ... volcano lair?
> >>>
> >>> You Only Live Twice
> >>> In Like Flint (or was it Our Man Flint?)
> >>> The Venture Brothers
> >>>
> >>> I know there are more.
> >>
> >> The Incredibles
> >
> > Various versions of Mysterious Island.
>
> D'oh!!! I have the Patrick Stewart version on DVD.
My condolences.