Changing the subject for a moment, TT or anybody, are there any very good movie releases from 2014? If so what are they?

[Court_1]

[TT]

In 2014...

My rating Film

7 300: Rise of an Empire
6 The Monuments Men
4 The Legend of Hercules
4 Reasonable Doubt
3 Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

You probably don't like 300 so I guess that's a no then. Monuments Men
was watchable, rest were shit.

[TT]

Perhaps one that was released in 2013 that you would like:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1924396/reference

I thought it was pretty good...

[Court_1]

That is all you got and those are the only 2014 movies you have watched so far? What's wrong with you, are you ill or something. ;)

I was going to see The Monuments Men as the topic interests me but was told by two friends that it was lousy. Plus, I am not a big Clooney fan.

[Court_1]

On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:07:24 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> Perhaps one that was released in 2013 that you would like:
>
>
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1924396/reference
>
>
>
> I thought it was pretty good...

Yes, I saw The Best Offer last year. It was very good. I like Geoffrey Rush and think he good in pretty much everything.

[OTW]

Godzilla in 3D

[jdeluise]

No

[jdeluise]

Yes, "The Legend of Hercules" was absolutely awful. I'd have given it
lower than 4 myself. I'm not even sure it was originally supposed to be
about "Hercules"....

[jdeluise]

TT <as...@usenet.org> writes:

>
> Perhaps one that was released in 2013 that you would like:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1924396/reference
>
> I thought it was pretty good...

Haven't seen anything good in months now... "The Spectacular Now" (which
I think came out in 2013) was good, I thought. That's about it.

[Court_1]

On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:23:18 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
> No

No what? To Godzilla 3D? Or no there have not been any good movies released so far in 2014?

[Gracchus]

On Monday, June 9, 2014 8:46:45 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:

> No what? To Godzilla 3D? Or no there have not been any good movies released so far in 2014?

Yesterday I watched "The Grand Budapest Hotel," which came out a few months ago. Positive aspects are that it is visually beautiful--like a series of paintings, and that the direction is meticulous. The movie got very good reviews, but honestly this brand of self-conscious comedy doesn't appeal to me. If you've seen and liked any of Wes Anderson's other stuff, then you might like this too.

I do hope that the second half of 2014 has a bunch of good films they've been holding back. Otherwise the year so far seems like a dud.

[Fednatic]

Hollywood produces shit these days and they want you to spend $20 to
see it. Soon they will FORCE you to see it and also watch TV
commercials ! Amazing how they blackmail lawmakers to crack down on
piracy when nobody in their right mind would even want to watch their
shit for free !

[grif]

"Xmen: Days of Future Past" is quite good, even though it doesn't seem
to be adhering that closely to the original story (not that I can
remember too much of it). The scenes set in the bleak future where
mutants (Raofuckers ?) are being hunted down are great. Fassbender has a
real screen presence.

"The Amazing Spiderman 2": although I like the leads in Andrew Garfield
and Emma Stone (thought she was great in "Easy A"), the movie is kinda
shit. The "Gwen Stacy" story arc was surprising, but the rest of the
movie is forgettable. The first 2 Sam Raimi Spiderman movies are still
the best ones. This reboot feels really lacklustre. They need much
better scripts, or maybe he's one of those heroes that is difficult to
translate well to the big screen.

Also saw "Paprika" recently on Film 4 which featured some quite surreal
imagery.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0851578/

[Court_1]

On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:27:36 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:

> Haven't seen anything good in months now... "The Spectacular Now" (which
>
> I think came out in 2013) was good, I thought.

I saw The Spectacular Now last year and thought it was "ok." Nothing great. A movie called Like Crazy which is in the same coming of age/romance genre was better imo.

[Whisper]

My wife loved the hotel Budapest

[Court_1]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:59:41 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> Yesterday I watched "The Grand Budapest Hotel," which came out a few months ago. Positive aspects are that it is visually beautiful--like a series of paintings, and that the direction is meticulous. The movie got very good reviews, but honestly this brand of self-conscious comedy doesn't appeal to me. If you've seen and liked any of Wes Anderson's other stuff, then you might like this too.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is a movie that I definitely want to see. It sounds like one of the only decent movies out there currently. I am going to have to come out of my movie sabbatical for that one.

> I do hope that the second half of 2014 has a bunch of good films they've been holding back. Otherwise the year so far seems like a dud.

Yeah, from what I have read and heard from people it does not sound like a bumper film year so far.

[guypers]

Who wants movies!?
Watch Game of Thrones, Veep, Nurse Jackie, Californication , Girls, Shameless ........

[TT]

Specs now sounds like a teen flick. They were better in 80's anyway!

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:52:13 AM UTC-7, grif wrote:

> "The Amazing Spiderman 2": although I like the leads in Andrew Garfield
>
> and Emma Stone (thought she was great in "Easy A"), the movie is kinda
>
> shit. The "Gwen Stacy" story arc was surprising, but the rest of the
>
> movie is forgettable. The first 2 Sam Raimi Spiderman movies are still
>
> the best ones. This reboot feels really lacklustre. They need much
>
> better scripts, or maybe he's one of those heroes that is difficult to
>
> translate well to the big screen.

I forgot that I watched this one last week--which says something about how much of an impression it made. The movie made a complete mess of the "Gwen Stacy arc" you refer to, gutting the drama of the storyline is was derived from and omitting crucial elements. Emma Stone is probably the only one who does a decent job.The maskless Green Goblin was an embarrassment, as were the stupid attempts at charming banter between Gwen & Peter or Peter & Harry Osborn. A really crappy script overall.

You may be on to something in saying Spiderman may not translate well to the big screen. No matter how they change the costume or cast of characters, it still comes across as cheesy compared with what they've done with some of the other Marvel adaptations. IMO only the Fantastic Four and Hulk movies have been worse.

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:52:13 AM UTC-7, grif wrote:

> "Xmen: Days of Future Past" is quite good, even though it doesn't seem
>
> to be adhering that closely to the original story (not that I can
>
> remember too much of it). The scenes set in the bleak future where
>
> mutants (Raofuckers ?) are being hunted down are great. Fassbender has a
>
> real screen presence.

I liked it a lot as well. Glad I actually saw it on a big screen. I agree that Fassbender does an excellent job. Wonderful special effects. Only bad thing I can think of was the laughable Nixon caricature.

[jdeluise]

TT <as...@usenet.org> writes:

>
> Specs now sounds like a teen flick. They were better in 80's anyway!

It basically is. Did have its flaws and maybe I was just in the right
mood for it. My wife didn't like it. Anyway, I've stuck out on pretty
much every movie I've tried in months now. So, we finished Breaking Bad
recently... still say it was overrated but can't deny Bryan Cranston has
chops as an actor. It took me a while to get over thinking of him
as Hal from "Malcolm in the Middle".

[jdeluise]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> You may be on to something in saying Spiderman may not translate well
> to the big screen. No matter how they change the costume or cast of
> characters, it still comes across as cheesy compared with what they've
> done with some of the other Marvel adaptations. IMO only the Fantastic
> Four and Hulk movies have been worse.

I strongly disliked Avengers and the most recent Thor movie.

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:07:03 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:

I thought the first half of Avengers was good before it devolved into interminable "epic battle" mode. Thought they at least did the only decent Hulk representation yet. Maybe you're an anti-Whedonite? As for "Thor"...I was lukewarm on the first one and the second was weak, yeah. I didn't think they were thoroughly stupid though. I guess that's some kind of praise, isn't it? :)

I liked the two Captain America movies more than I expected. No way I thought having a shield-throwing guy dressed in red, white, and blue would work onscreen,but having nearly the entire first one set in the 1940s made it work and segue "realistically" to the second, IMO.

[jdeluise]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> I thought the first half of Avengers was good before it devolved into
> interminable "epic battle" mode. Thought they at least did the only
> decent Hulk representation yet. Maybe you're an anti-Whedonite?

Not at all, though to be quite honest most of his output is mediocre.
Firefly great, Buffy good and that's about it. His writing is pretty
poor in general (Alien Resurrection...), it's his characterizations and
dialogue that shine...

> As for
> "Thor"...I was lukewarm on the first one and the second was weak,
> yeah. I didn't think they were thoroughly stupid though. I guess
> that's some kind of praise, isn't it? :)

I thought the first was OK, but just couldn't get into the second
one... too much Asgard-babble.

>
> I liked the two Captain America movies more than I expected. No way I
> thought having a shield-throwing guy dressed in red, white, and blue
> would work onscreen,but having nearly the entire first one set in the
> 1940s made it work and segue "realistically" to the second, IMO.

I haven't seen the sequel but the first one was pretty good. I'm not
sure they casted the right guy as Captain America though.

[TT]

10.6.2014 18:07, jdeluise kirjoitti:
> I strongly disliked Avengers and the most recent Thor movie.

I liked avengers (2012)

And "Thor: The Dark World" was watchable... although as a common rule of
thumb for modern films: if a film has the word "dark" in it - it's
probably disappointing.

[TT]

Pretty much agree about Avengers and Thors... generally I'm a sucker for
this sort of stuff. I though avengers was rather good...

But captain America imo sucked big time.

[soccerfan777]

I saw X Men and it was pretty good. I saw in a RDX theater and the sound effects were amazing. Story wise not that bad either. But I wouldn't call it a classic. My brother saw Amazing Spidey 2 and said it was shit. I wouldn't pay to watch that shit.

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:21:22 AM UTC-7, soccerfan777 wrote:

> I saw X Men and it was pretty good. I saw in a RDX theater and the sound effects were amazing. Story wise not that bad either. But I wouldn't call it a classic.

No,but classics are few and far between.

>My brother saw Amazing Spidey 2 and said it was shit. I wouldn't pay to watch that shit.

It isn't worth watching under any circumstances.

[soccerfan777]

Movies for the past 14 years have been crap for the most part. 90s had so many great movies. I like film noir, suspense, crime movies etc. Not the superhero crap!

Look at all these great movies from the 90s

Tier 1 from 90s
---------------
The Usual Suspects
Reservoir Dogs
Groundhog Day
Goodfellas
Pulp Fiction
Terminator 2
Silence of the Lambs
Se7en
JFK
L.A Conidential
The Shawshank Redemption
Schindler's List
Fight Club
Forrest Gump
American Beauty
Braveheart
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Misery
Leon

Tier 2 from 90s
-----
The Matrix
Saving Private Ryan
The Green Mile
The Big Lebowski
Casino
Tweleve Monkeys
The Truman Show
Jurassic Park
Fargo
Life Is Beautiful

Some movies in IMDB top 250 from 90s I haven't seen
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top
American History X
Good Will Hunting
In the Name of The Father
La Haine
Before Sunrise
The Celebration
Beauty and The Beast
Underground
THree Colors:Red
The Sixth Sense
Trainspotting
Toy Story
Unforgiven
Princess Mononoke
The Lion King

[grif]

Yeah, I really enjoyed the first Avengers movie. Thought it captured the
spirit of the comics well. The infighting was funny and entertaining.
The "cannon fodder" aliens didn't have much of a backstory, so that was
a negative. The first Thor was ok. The first Captain America wasn't that
great. Not seen the second movie of Thor nor the latest Cap America yet.

[grif]

I didn't read anything about Spidey's sequel, so I really wasn't
expecting them to put the "Gwen Stacy" storyline into only the second
movie of the reboot.

The "Gwen Stacy" storyline is one of those defining moments from its
original medium, along with the "Dark Phoenix" one from X-Men. Both
deserved much better movie adaptations. The "Dark Phoenix" story was
even more horribly butchered than Gwen's.

[TT]

To tell the truth... the original Spiderman film is still the best of
the lot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryhn3m474DY

I recall especially one scene where he climbed over a bell tower and
special effects were used, it didn't look at all like he was actually
climbing there... those special effects were truly horrible even for
that time... especially considering Star Wars was made same year.

[grif]

Haha.

I think if they combined the first 2 Sam Raimi Spidey movies, but
replaced Goblin villain (costume was laughably bad) with Doc Ock, got in
Emma Stone and possibly Garfield, then it would be pretty cool.

[Gracchus]

> I think if they combined the first 2 Sam Raimi Spidey movies, but
> replaced Goblin villain (costume was laughably bad) with Doc Ock, got in
> Emma Stone and possibly Garfield, then it would be pretty cool.

I do think Garfield is a more believable Peter Parker than Tobey McGuire. Emma Stone's Gwen also an improvement over Dunst's Mary Jane. Goblin costume was terrible, yeah, but what they've done in the latest film with the Jokeresque Harry Osbourne Goblin is worse. Found Sally Field's version of Aunt May very annoying. Special effects are subpar even in latest Spiderman films. Can't figure that out cause they're so much better in a lot of the other Marvel films.

It's too bad they can't just put one really good one together. The Spiderman characters and available storylines have so much potential, yet IMO all the films have been disappointing to some degree.

[Fednatic]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:18:25 -0700 (PDT), guypers <gap...@gmail.com>

exactly. tv much better than movies these days ... suits, good wife,
crisis, believe, fargo, orange is the new black, the bridge, blacklist
and many many more.

[Whisper]

Porn?

[undecided]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:04:18 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:

Watch it, only if you liked Steve Zissou and the life Aquatic ( I hated it ). Very similar movies by the same director.

[Court_1]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:18:25 AM UTC-4, guypers wrote:

> Who wants movies!?
>
> Watch Game of Thrones, Veep, Nurse Jackie, Californication , Girls, Shameless

Californication is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. I tried on two different occasions to watch a few episodes over the years it has been on television because I like David Duchovny and both times I could barely get through two episodes. Silly writing and overall just absurd.

If you can watch that show it tells me a lot about you.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 5:28:32 PM UTC-4, undecided wrote:

> Watch it, only if you liked Steve Zissou and the life Aquatic ( I hated it ). Very similar movies by the same director.

The only Wes Anderson movie I think I have seen was The Squid and the Whale and I hated it.

[undecided]

On Monday, June 9, 2014 8:36:14 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>
From recent flicks,I like Ender's Game,Skinwalker Ranch.

[jdeluise]

undecided <cos...@gmail.com> writes:

> From recent flicks,I like Ender's Game

Ugh, I thought it was a *horrible* interpretation of the novel... it
felt so rushed. They didn't seem to bother breathing life into
Ender's "Jeesh". I also felt the build up to his showdown with Bonzo
was mishandled and lacked the palpable suspense one could feel from
book. Same with the ending...

I thought Harrison Ford was completely miscast until Ben Kingsley showed
up.... LOL

[jdeluise]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Silly writing and overall just absurd.

Amazon Prime Instant offers a bunch of HBO original content
now... though we haven't yet found anything decent. Tried "The
Sopranos" and just couldn't get into it. Watched an episode of
"Deadwood"... yuck. Maybe we'll try "The Wire" next.

[TT]

12.6.2014 1:08, jdeluise kirjoitti:
> I thought Harrison Ford was completely miscast until Ben Kingsley showed
> up.... LOL

No doubt...

WTF!

[grif]

I've not seen his latest, but I have seen "Royal Tenenbaums" and
"Rushmore" from him. They're quite quirky and I tend to like that.

[guypers]

LOL, couldn't get into Sopranos!
Californication is for guys, tit city hun!

[jdeluise]

guypers <gap...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> LOL, couldn't get into Sopranos!

Probably didn't give it enough of a chance yet... or I've just become
overly picky.

[grif]

On 10/06/2014 15:18, guypers wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:04:18 AM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:59:41 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yesterday I watched "The Grand Budapest Hotel," which came out a few months ago. Positive aspects are that it is visually beautiful--like a series of paintings, and that the direction is meticulous. The movie got very good reviews, but honestly this brand of self-conscious comedy doesn't appeal to me. If you've seen and liked any of Wes Anderson's other stuff, then you might like this too.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Grand Budapest Hotel is a movie that I definitely want to see. It sounds like one of the only decent movies out there currently. I am going to have to come out of my movie sabbatical for that one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I do hope that the second half of 2014 has a bunch of good films they've been holding back. Otherwise the year so far seems like a dud.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, from what I have read and heard from people it does not sound like a bumper film year so far.
>

> Who wants movies!?
> Watch Game of Thrones, Veep, Nurse Jackie, Californication , Girls, Shameless ........
>

As well as the amazing "Game of Thrones", I thought "True Detective"
with Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson and Michelle Monaghan was
really good. McConaughey, especially, is brilliant in this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2356777/

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:29:32 PM UTC-4, guypers wrote:

> Californication is for guys, tit city hun!

There are plenty of tv shows which have some nudity and good writing--i.e. the tv show "The Tudors." Californication is nudity with non-existent writing. It is pure stupidity. As I said, if you enjoy that show it tells me a lot about you.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:32:52 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:

>
> > LOL, couldn't get into Sopranos!
>
>
>
> Probably didn't give it enough of a chance yet... or I've just become
>
> overly picky.

Nah, I am with you. I watched The Sopranos for a bit when it was on tv(maybe a season or two) but I never got into it the way so many other people did and never understood how so many people raved about it. Don't get me wrong I think it was well-done but people went overboard with that show imo.

[guypers]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:32:52 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:

Try Rome, The Borgias, Henry VIII, or The Boardwalk Empire!

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:08:08 PM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:

> undecided <> writes:
>
>
>
> > From recent flicks,I like Ender's Game
>
>
>
> Ugh, I thought it was a *horrible* interpretation of the novel... it
>
> felt so rushed. They didn't seem to bother breathing life into
>
> Ender's "Jeesh". I also felt the build up to his showdown with Bonzo
>
> was mishandled and lacked the palpable suspense one could feel from
>
> book. Same with the ending...

I agree completely. They butchered the novel so badly, just gutting it of all intelligence. Production values were abysmal too.

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:41:26 PM UTC-7, guypers wrote:

> Try Rome, The Borgias, Henry VIII, or The Boardwalk Empire!

"Rome" is by far my favorite of all the HBO series.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:32:52 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:

> Probably didn't give it enough of a chance yet... or I've just become
>
> overly picky.

Do you want a good HBO series? Watch "Six Feet Under." That was excellent imo.

[guypers]

MCHall was better as Dexter!

[Court_1]

Dexter was very good. But Six Feet Under was also very good.

[Gracchus]

I really liked "Six Feet Under." The only negative was gay propaganda Alan Ball slips into all his work, but it wasn't pervasive enough to ruin the series. Finale episode was brilliant and beautiful.

[Court_1]

Yes, it is not often I enjoy a tv show so thoroughly as I did "Six Feet Under." That was one I made sure to record every week. It had everything in it, good writing, good acting, a little quirkiness. Other series I was totally involved in were "The X-Files" and "The Tudors" (neither was an HBO show.)

[TT]

This was good:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289830/reference

And had dakota fanning.

--
"It's just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all
during Federer's prime" - Andre Agassi on Rafael Nadal

[Gracchus]

Yes, and sprinkled with good guest stars throughout as well. Can't think of another series or movie that's dealt so well with how people relate to their mortality.

I must admit, I thought the carjacking episode was hysterically funny. I know it wasn't supposed to be, but....

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:31:47 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:

> This was good:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289830/reference

> And had dakota fanning.

When you said Dakota Fanning, I was afraid for a sec you were linking to that wretched "Hide and Seek" movie she did with Deniro. This thing looks interesting though. I'll have to have a look.

[grif]

I would have thought that you'd have found the "X-Files" scripts silly
after a while. So what was it about that show that made you want to
suspend your disbelief ? You also like that Twilight spinoff show too,
"Vampire Diaries", right ? Why isn't that silly for you ? Just curious.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:39:18 PM UTC-4, grif wrote:

> I would have thought that you'd have found the "X-Files" scripts silly
>
> after a while. So what was it about that show that made you want to
>
> suspend your disbelief ? You also like that Twilight spinoff show too,
>
> "Vampire Diaries", right ? Why isn't that silly for you ? Just curious.

I stopped watching "The Vampire Diaries" after the novelty wore off and the writing became intolerable. Even the beauty of actor Ian Somerhalder could not save the nonsense writing of that show in later seasons for me. With "The X-Files" I never felt that the writing lost its quality. As far as supernatural tv shows go where obviously you have to suspend your belief, the X-Files is one of the best imo. Top notch writing and acting.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:36:16 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:

> I must admit, I thought the carjacking episode was hysterically funny. I know it wasn't supposed to be, but....

I must be going senile because I don't remember the carjacking episode.

[TT]

12.6.2014 2:49, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> As far as supernatural tv shows go where obviously you have to suspend your belief, the X-Files is one of the best imo. Top notch writing and acting.

It was pretty good... I really really liked 90s Outer Limits too. And
that "Taken" I linked previously was a favourite. For some reason I
don't like modern series at all.

[Thomas R. Kettler]

In article <b8beac21-7982-498d...@googlegroups.com>,

Yes, I can understand why a carjacking in "Tudors, The" would be
hysterically funny. It would also have been as historically accurate as
"Tudors, The".
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:49:00 PM UTC-4, Court_1 wrote:


> suspend your belief

Oops, I meant "suspend your disbelief."

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:31:47 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:

> This was good:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289830/reference
>
>
>
> And had dakota fanning.

Looks good.

[InsideOut]

> LOL, couldn't get into Sopranos!

Gandolfini's acting in Sopranos was it for me. The best of genre.

[Whisper]

I watched 1 episode & got bored.

[jdeluise]

guypers <gap...@gmail.com> writes:


>
> Try Rome, The Borgias, Henry VIII, or The Boardwalk Empire!

I dunno, all of these HBO shows seem so cheesy.. mostly poor
over-acting, not quite enough production value and take themselves way
too seriously.

[jdeluise]

"Thomas R. Kettler" <tket...@blownfuse.net> writes:

>
> Yes, I can understand why a carjacking in "Tudors, The" would be
> hysterically funny. It would also have been as historically accurate as
> "Tudors, The".

Were you once a librarian?

[Whisper]

The last tv show I really liked & never missed an episode was '30
something'.

[Fednatic]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:26:09 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.net.au>
wrote:

The Blacklist is good and so is Person of Interest.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:29:24 AM UTC-4, Fednatic wrote:

> The Blacklist is good and so is Person of Interest.

The Blacklist is stupidity personified just like you. :)

[undecided]

I thought it was done well. I always thought the Ender Books would be hard to translate into movies. The final product is I thought you'd get. It was good enough for the uninitiated. Also, it's about time we got some decent sci-fi on the big screen.

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:20:02 AM UTC-7, undecided wrote:

> > I agree completely. They butchered the novel so badly, just gutting it of all intelligence. Production values were abysmal too.

> I thought it was done well. I always thought the Ender Books would be hard to translate into movies. The final product is I thought you'd get. It was good enough for the uninitiated. Also, it's about time we got some decent sci-fi on the big screen.

Yes, those books are hard to translate into movies. So the studio should have put together a team that was up to it or simply not bothered making a film out of it. Card resisted an adaptation for years because he thought they'd make a mess of it. I assume he eventually just succumbed to financial temptation, and they proceeded to make a huge mess of it. I agree that decent sci-fi on the big screen is sorely absent, but IMO "Ender's Game" certainly wasn't it.

[guypers]

WTF??

It ain't Bollywood, pet the monkey, change the lightbulb!! Jesus Christ!

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:27:05 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:

It's a ridiculous generalization to lump all of those shows together and dismiss them that way. If you've actually watched shows like "Rome" or "The Wire" and hold that opinion of them, I don't know what wavelength you're on.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:27:05 AM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:

> I dunno, all of these HBO shows seem so cheesy.. mostly poor
>
> over-acting, not quite enough production value and take themselves way
>
> too seriously.

Watch Six Feet Under. I think you and your wife will like it, trust me. It is one of the best HBO series I have seen.

[guypers]

He is a Puki, likes Bollywood shit probably! Production value, wtf ?????

[jdeluise]

guypers <gap...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> WTF??
>
> It ain't Bollywood, pet the monkey, change the lightbulb!! Jesus Christ!

Life is really difficult right now and we're lucky to have the time to
watch one episode of something in an evening... don't really want to
waste dozens of hours on something that doesn't look promising.

[jdeluise]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> It's a ridiculous generalization to lump all of those shows together
> and dismiss them that way.
> If you've actually watched shows like
> "Rome" or "The Wire" and hold that opinion of them, I don't know what
> wavelength you're on.

This may sound strange, but I do think compression artifacts might be
contributing to my opinion. This is the first time I've used Amazon Prime
Instant and it's *far* worse than Netflix at handling constrained
bandwidth. Beyond color distortion and pixelization, it really gives a
distracting "alien" feel to the way everything moves and looks.

[jdeluise]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> writes:

>
> Watch Six Feet Under. I think you and your wife will like it, trust me. It is one of the best HBO series I have seen.

That's next on the list.

[jdeluise]

guypers <gap...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> He is a Puki, likes Bollywood shit probably! Production
> value, wtf ?????

?

I'm not a couch potato and don't spend my life watching TV as you
apparently do. Sounds like you'll watch any old crap.

[jdeluise]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:

>
> Yes, those books are hard to translate into movies. So the studio
> should have put together a team that was up to it or simply not
> bothered making a film out of it. Card resisted an adaptation for
> years because he thought they'd make a mess of it. I assume he
> eventually just succumbed to financial temptation, and they proceeded
> to make a huge mess of it. I agree that decent sci-fi on the big
> screen is sorely absent, but IMO "Ender's Game" certainly wasn't it.

I followed his attempts to get it to film for a while on his site in the
mid to late 00s. I know that at one time the screenplay was written to
include elements of "Ender's Shadow" (Bean's story). Flawed as the
movie was, I was relieved that stuff was removed and they stayed true to
the original book.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:52:04 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Watch Six Feet Under. I think you and your wife will like it, trust me. It is one of the best HBO series I have seen.
>
>
>
> That's next on the list.

Good. I think it will be worth your time. It is very unique and I doubt you have seen another tv show like it. Alan Ball the creator also wrote the screenplay for the movie American Beauty which imo was a great film.

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:09:25 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:

Yes, I agree. I also think they were right to remove stuff like the siblings' writing campaign. As Card said, it would just be people typing on a screen, which isn't very cinematic. But in the process of making it more action-oriented, they rushed it along, sucking out the book's characterization and nuance. To do it justice would probably require a mini-series.

[jdeluise]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Yes, I agree. I also think they were right to remove stuff like the
> siblings' writing campaign. As Card said, it would just be people
> typing on a screen, which isn't very cinematic.

Cue a 80s musical interlude... 80s style! ;)

> But in the process of
> making it more action-oriented, they rushed it along, sucking out the
> book's characterization and nuance. To do it justice would probably
> require a mini-series.

Yeah, agreed.

[guypers]

No, I am retired, only watch CNN and network news, cable on Sunday nites, Homeland and Game of Thrones are great shows, like NCIS and POI ! Play tennis 3 times a week, gym 2 days a week!

Cheers

[Thomas R. Kettler]

In article <87a99i3...@wintersun.localdomain>,

No, although I once considered it.

However, I have always been quite interested in history. Consequently, I
despise TV shows and movies which have at best a passing familiarity to
the actual history.

If you want to make fiction, don't use real names for your fictitious
history. When I hear or read people saying they should be allowed to
take artistic license (licence for people in the UK), I say their
license should be revoked.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:56:18 PM UTC-4, Thomas R. Kettler wrote:

> > > Yes, I can understand why a carjacking in "Tudors, The" would be
>
> > > hysterically funny. It would also have been as historically accurate as
>
> > > "Tudors, The".
>
> >
>
> > Were you once a librarian?
>
>
>
> No, although I once considered it.
>
>
>
> However, I have always been quite interested in history. Consequently, I
>
> despise TV shows and movies which have at best a passing familiarity to
>
> the actual history.
>
>
>
> If you want to make fiction, don't use real names for your fictitious
>
> history. When I hear or read people saying they should be allowed to
>
> take artistic license (licence for people in the UK), I say their
>
> license should be revoked.

Why do tv writers who write fiction have to follow the letter of the law when it comes to a tv show? That is why it is called "fiction." The Tudors or any other shows depicting real characters from history do not have to follow some boring script and artistic license is sometimes what is necessary to make a story more interesting imo. The Tudors is a very good show, much better than most of the crap you tend to see on tv.

[jdeluise]

"Thomas R. Kettler" <tket...@blownfuse.net> writes:


>> Were you once a librarian?
>
> No, although I once considered it.

I was referring to your habit of putting the article at the end of the
title, as if you were sorting them... seems unusual in this context.

>
> However, I have always been quite interested in history. Consequently, I
> despise TV shows and movies which have at best a passing familiarity to
> the actual history.
>
> If you want to make fiction, don't use real names for your fictitious
> history. When I hear or read people saying they should be allowed to
> take artistic license (licence for people in the UK), I say their
> license should be revoked.

In a way, all of human history is a fiction to various degrees though.

[Thomas R. Kettler]

In article <87a99h8...@wintersun.localdomain>,

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Thomas R. Kettler" <tket...@blownfuse.net> writes:
>
>
> >> Were you once a librarian?
> >
> > No, although I once considered it.
>
> I was referring to your habit of putting the article at the end of the
> title, as if you were sorting them... seems unusual in this context.

It comes from having written term papers. I also put the names of TV
shows and movies in quotes for the same reason.

[Thomas R. Kettler]

In article <3a3c6bd9-8c6c-4a1b...@googlegroups.com>,

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why do tv writers who write fiction have to follow the letter of the law when
> it comes to a tv show? That is why it is called "fiction." The Tudors or any
> other shows depicting real characters from history do not have to follow some
> boring script and artistic license is sometimes what is necessary to make a
> story more interesting imo. The Tudors is a very good show, much better than
> most of the crap you tend to see on tv.

"Gettysburg" stuck to facts and is far superior to "Tudors, The". If I
wanted to watch a soap opera, the networks provide them in the afternoon.

[Court_1]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 12:01:39 AM UTC-4, Thomas R. Kettler wrote:

> "Gettysburg" stuck to facts and is far superior to "Tudors, The". If I
>
> wanted to watch a soap opera, the networks provide them in the afternoon.
>

But there are a lot of contradictions in the historical records when it comes to the story of King Henry VIII and his wives. A lot of history that old IS interpretation and is not carved in stone, thus what The Tudors tv show did was not really that different than the various interpretations in the history books. They took some liberties with some things but stuck fairly close to most of what the history books have to say. Even a documentary does not necessarily get all of the facts correct. It is impossible to know so many details when we are talking about history so old and dealing with interpersonal relationships of all things.

Gee, you must be a barrel of laughs at parties!

[DavidW]

Court_1 wrote:
> On Friday, June 13, 2014 12:01:39 AM UTC-4, Thomas R. Kettler wrote:
>
>> "Gettysburg" stuck to facts and is far superior to "Tudors, The". If
>> I
>>
>> wanted to watch a soap opera, the networks provide them in the
>> afternoon.
>>
>
> But there are a lot of contradictions in the historical records when
> it comes to the story of King Henry VIII and his wives. A lot of
> history that old IS interpretation and is not carved in stone, thus
> what The Tudors tv show did was not really that different than the
> various interpretations in the history books.

My favourite piece of the uncertain history of the English monarchy is the
rumoured manner of death of Edward II.

[Fednatic]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:06:37 +1000, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided>
wrote:

what the rumor ? he died in pink panties or what ?

[jdeluise]

"Thomas R. Kettler" <tket...@blownfuse.net> writes:

>
> It comes from having written term papers. I also put the names of TV
> shows and movies in quotes for the same reason.

Oh, OK.

[Whisper]

My wife is forcing me to watch 'Cuban Fury' with her in a couple hours.

[Fednatic]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:19:15 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.net.au>
wrote:

>
>
>My wife is forcing me to watch 'Cuban Fury' with her in a couple hours.
>

It's better than having to suck her dick.