RD Film - Doug: just no, don't...
FCS
You got 6 series done without me seeing more than 5 minutes of a
single episode.
Yet today's reports state YOU'VE written 36 drafts of a feature-length
play, and that YOU'RE determined it will not go unseen.
It just seems so much more about YOU than about the show, the science,
the ideas, the philosophy, the characters.
My feeling is you aren't anywhere near retro enough yet to enjoy the
kind of new audience that Starksy & Hutch or The Dukes of Hazzard
(neither of which I've seen) enjoyed the other summer, and you never
were mainstream enough to enjoy the kind of infantile nostalgia that
has drawn audiences to Transformers and The Simpsons, never mind
Batman/Spiderman/Superman.
Maybe had they sat down for tea with both Hitler and Che Guevara, with
Stalin and Mao, with Churchill and Eisenhower, I'd be confident you
could pull it off alone.
As it is I think you would benefit from taking a step back, before you
take a step backward, before it becomes any more some all-consuming
personal mission. Look at the greats. Art, music, literature,
choreography: how many of them are one-trick ponies?
Maybe you've done loads since that I'm simply not aware of.
I think you're making a mistake. I think it needs to wait until a few
more of the questions concerning the nature of the cosmos - and indeed
whether we're just out on some never-ending expansion, or accelerating
toward a black hole, or about to get sucked back in to some big
crunch, have been answered. I suggest leaving it another decade or
two, keeping up with the science, and maybe go with it then, when with
distance and a fresh eye and whatever other projects you've turned the
talents the people here rate for to in your corpus, with, in other
words, a less-blinkered, focused, folio, you will produce a better
film and be remembered far longer which, as you yourselves tried to
point out, is pretty much the whole point.
It's time to move on Doug. And the time to come back to it all is much
further on down the line.
Go do somet' else for a while: RD is but a tatty, faded laurel that
you're resting on in the absence of any real creative output in the
intervening.
Yeah, you'll get a lot of yessers here applauding it, but the time and
place to run a stage production was in the Millenium Dome, nigh-on a
decade ago, to my mind--particularly in the general context of the
millenial eschatoniism that accompanied it and the observations
originally made on the symbolic nature of creation lores versus
linguistic anthropology.
The fact it's down to a choice between an animation and a stage
production really makes it so starkly clear this is about YOU and YOUR
baby, and not about the show, or the characters, or the plots and
situations, or their theoretical underpinnings.
Maybe you won't like me for saying it, but, just as I would never
shirk from observing that BBC THREE attracts its audience from firmly
within the R2 demographic rather than the C-Boobies-cum-Chris Moyles
devotees its paying a who-you-know insider to be ignored by, I will
not shirk from giving you my opinion straight.
Forget it. Come back to it as a masterpiece down the line--2020
strikes me as the time to schedule it for, not 2010. But, in between,
why don't you just go off and do something entirely different instead?
I wonder if you're scared you aren't up to it. But then, looking at
some of the subtexts you insisted on introducing, I'm not convinced
that isn't precisely what you want making very clear: and, no, I'm not
interested in collaborating.
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--
Peter Chant
> I wonder if you're scared you aren't up to it. But then, looking at
> some of the subtexts you insisted on introducing, I'm not convinced
> that isn't precisely what you want making very clear: and, no, I'm not
> interested in collaborating.
>
> G DAEB
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
If you really know Doug Naylor why did you feel the need to post this on
usenet rather than say it in person or via private letter / email? Or is
it just a public rant?
Not quite sure how waiting 20 years for advances in astrophysics actually
helps production of a Sci-Fi comedy production.
Pete
Xam
> Doug,
>
> You got 6 series done without me
> seeing more than 5 minutes of a single episode.
<Snipped>
> and, no, I'm not
> interested in collaborating.
>
> G DAEB
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> --
Man, that's a fine present. He was probably only
expecting a tie.
--
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted,
then used against you.
--
Netscape>Mozilla Suite>Seamonkey
A blatant plug for the latest offering in a long tradition.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/releases/seamonkey1.1.6
All in one internet application suite.
Lister
<sipst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Doug,
>
>You got 6 series done without me seeing more than 5 minutes of a
>single episode.
>
Fuck off, twattock
Starbugaboo
>
> Doug,
>
> You got 6 series done without me seeing more than 5 minutes of a
> single episode.
Hmm, and yet you're so concerned about him wanting to create more of a
show you didn't watch? Aw, sounds like someone got their feelings hurt
by Doug.
> or their theoretical underpinnings.
Don't you just hate when your underpinnings are theoretical? I guess
it's better than your underpants being theoretical.
> and, no, I'm not interested in collaborating.
I'm guessing Doug's disinterest in your collaboration is what prompted
this rant.
> G DAEB
> COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
I have never seen anyone copyright a rant before. It's very wise of you
because you never know when someone will plagerize your rant... you'll
want to be sure to receive full credit for your insanity!
--
Starbugaboo
Dom Robinson
says...
>
> FCS wrote:
>
> > I wonder if you're scared you aren't up to it. But then, looking at
> > some of the subtexts you insisted on introducing, I'm not convinced
> > that isn't precisely what you want making very clear: and, no, I'm not
> > interested in collaborating.
> >
> > G DAEB
> > COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
> > --
>
> If you really know Doug Naylor why did you feel the need to post this on
> usenet rather than say it in person or via private letter / email? Or is
> it just a public rant?
>
--
Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1136 DVDs, 362 games, 338 CDs, 110 cinema films, 51 concerts, videos & news
/* half life 2 episode 2, beatles: help, spiderman x360, russell brand, kylie
New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DVDdom
garth2k5
> In article <coss35x6ee....@phoenix.fire>, REMpete...@CAPpetezilla.ITALSco.uk
> > If you really know Doug Naylor why did you feel the need to post this on
> > usenet rather than say it in person or via private letter / email? Or is
> > it just a public rant?
> You got that far? Well done. I didn't get beyond the first paragraph.
my instant reaction was.. "what?"
Garth - 2:15. why?
Tafka
<sipst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Doug,
>
>You got 6 series done without me seeing more than 5 minutes of a
>single episode.
I wonder if Season 7 would possibly help you in your plight?
Tafka
Hercule Platini
"FCS" <sipst...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8377e865-66b3-4d08...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Doug,
>
> You got 6 series done without me seeing more than 5 minutes of a
> single episode.
Okay, so you're not even remotely close to familiar with the show.
> My feeling is you aren't anywhere near retro enough yet to enjoy the
> kind of new audience that Starksy & Hutch or The Dukes of Hazzard
> (neither of which I've seen) enjoyed the other summer,
Okay, so you're not familiar with those two movies either.
> and you never
> were mainstream enough to enjoy the kind of infantile nostalgia that
> has drawn audiences to Transformers and The Simpsons, never mind
> Batman/Spiderman/Superman.
Most of which were rubbish.
> Maybe had they sat down for tea with both Hitler and Che Guevara, with
> Stalin and Mao, with Churchill and Eisenhower, I'd be confident you
> could pull it off alone.
? The RD crew did sit down with Hitler, if you recall Out Of Time. Oh,
wait, I forgot - you're not familiar with the show.
> As it is I think you would benefit from taking a step back, before you
> take a step backward, before it becomes any more some all-consuming
> personal mission. Look at the greats. Art, music, literature,
> choreography: how many of them are one-trick ponies?
I have no idea what this means.
> Maybe you've done loads since that I'm simply not aware of.
Even if you only include RD, he's done loads that you're not aware of.
> I think you're making a mistake. I think it needs to wait until a few
> more of the questions concerning the nature of the cosmos - and indeed
> whether we're just out on some never-ending expansion, or accelerating
> toward a black hole, or about to get sucked back in to some big
> crunch, have been answered. I suggest leaving it another decade or
> two, keeping up with the science, and maybe go with it then, when with
> distance and a fresh eye and whatever other projects you've turned the
> talents the people here rate for to in your corpus, with, in other
> words, a less-blinkered, focused, folio, you will produce a better
> film and be remembered far longer which, as you yourselves tried to
> point out, is pretty much the whole point.
Comma alert! Comma alert!
> Yeah, you'll get a lot of yessers here applauding it, but the time and
> place to run a stage production was in the Millenium Dome, nigh-on a
> decade ago, to my mind--particularly in the general context of the
> millenial eschatoniism that accompanied it and the observations
> originally made on the symbolic nature of creation lores versus
> linguistic anthropology.
I'm so glad it was you that got that line and not me. If I'd had to say
that I'd have looked like an arse.
> I wonder if you're scared you aren't up to it. But then, looking at
> some of the subtexts you insisted on introducing, I'm not convinced
> that isn't precisely what you want making very clear: and, no, I'm not
> interested in collaborating.
I'm sure that comes as a great relief to the man.
--
Hercule Platini
"Yikes."
Lister
Hello Taffy. how're things?
Hercule Platini
"Tafka" <yo...@email.com> wrote in message
news:kb1in3h0lr9v819u8...@4ax.com...
There's no plight so desperate that Series 7 can ever help. Well, only the
Must-See-Chloe-Annett-In-Skin-Tight-Red-PVC kind of plight. Which I've
suffered from for years.
--
Hercule Platini
"The side effects are interesting, though."
Lister
<vio...@wheelbarrow.com> wrote:
>
>"Tafka" <yo...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:kb1in3h0lr9v819u8...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:28:43 -0800 (PST), FCS
>> <sipst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Doug,
>> >
>> >You got 6 series done without me seeing more than 5 minutes of a
>> >single episode.
>>
>> I wonder if Season 7 would possibly help you in your plight?
>
>
>There's no plight so desperate that Series 7 can ever help. Well, only the
>Must-See-Chloe-Annett-In-Skin-Tight-Red-PVC kind of plight. Which I've
>suffered from for years.
I'd rather see her out of it :)