Wow did it crater at the box office.
Wow did it crater at the box office.
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote in news:bc5c7b26-992a-4119- 91e0-bfa895541558n@googlegroups.com:
Wow did it crater at the box office.I just read the plot summary on Wikipedia.
It's stupider than "Capricon One". In fact, it's "The Core" stupid,
and maybe then some.
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:30:47 -0800 (PST), T987654321
<qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow did it crater at the box office.
IIRC, it's by Emmerich, so I am /still/ going to rent it.
I survived /10,000 BC/ (the story of how a White Guy led a bunch of
Black Guys to rebel against a bunch of Yellow Guys, with a superfluous >sabretooth [as Ebert pointed out] added in for no particular reason)
and /Anonymous/ (the Shakespeare thing that turned out to be the third >installment of the /Elizabeth/ series, just with a completely new cast
and crew), after all.
OTOH, I /did/ skip /Stonewall/, but, IIRC, the reviews suggested it
was more about an individual than a movement.
And, anyway, /Moonfall/ is at least an SF film. I might find it ... >acceptable ... as an Emmerich film.
On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:05:49 -0800, Paul S Person ><psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:30:47 -0800 (PST), T987654321
<qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow did it crater at the box office.
IIRC, it's by Emmerich, so I am /still/ going to rent it.
I survived /10,000 BC/ (the story of how a White Guy led a bunch of
Black Guys to rebel against a bunch of Yellow Guys, with a superfluous >>sabretooth [as Ebert pointed out] added in for no particular reason)
and /Anonymous/ (the Shakespeare thing that turned out to be the third >>installment of the /Elizabeth/ series, just with a completely new cast
and crew), after all.
OTOH, I /did/ skip /Stonewall/, but, IIRC, the reviews suggested it
was more about an individual than a movement.
And, anyway, /Moonfall/ is at least an SF film. I might find it ... >>acceptable ... as an Emmerich film.
I think of him as this generation's Irwin Allen: a purveyor of utter
tosh, where the relevant question is whether the film is entertaining
as opposed to whether it's good.
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:46:52 +0000, Jerry Brown
<jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:05:49 -0800, Paul S Person >><psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:30:47 -0800 (PST), T987654321
<qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow did it crater at the box office.
IIRC, it's by Emmerich, so I am /still/ going to rent it.
I survived /10,000 BC/ (the story of how a White Guy led a
bunch of Black Guys to rebel against a bunch of Yellow Guys,
with a superfluous sabretooth [as Ebert pointed out] added in
for no particular reason) and /Anonymous/ (the Shakespeare
thing that turned out to be the third installment of the
/Elizabeth/ series, just with a completely new cast and crew),
after all.
OTOH, I /did/ skip /Stonewall/, but, IIRC, the reviews
suggested it was more about an individual than a movement.
And, anyway, /Moonfall/ is at least an SF film. I might find it
... acceptable ... as an Emmerich film.
I think of him as this generation's Irwin Allen: a purveyor of
utter tosh, where the relevant question is whether the film is
entertaining as opposed to whether it's good.
Without commenting on Irwin Allen, I would agree with your
characterization of Emmerich. Well, except that "being
entertaining" is a major component of "being good", IMHO. YMMV.
Or, as I would put it, an excellent provider of Brain-Dead
Summer Action Flicks -- that is, films which entertain without
requiring any mental effort.
On 2/8/2022 8:34 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote inWell, all the "End Of The World Apocalypse" big budget films are
news:bc5c7b26-992a-4119- 91e0-bfa895541558n@googlegroups.com:
Wow did it crater at the box office.I just read the plot summary on Wikipedia.
It's stupider than "Capricon One". In fact, it's "The Core"
stupid, and maybe then some.
pretty dumb if you think about them.
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >news:1cfa0htqcldmpc6nml473pqvrjvop91354@4ax.com:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:46:52 +0000, Jerry Brown
<jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:05:49 -0800, Paul S Person >>><psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:30:47 -0800 (PST), T987654321 >>>><qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow did it crater at the box office.
IIRC, it's by Emmerich, so I am /still/ going to rent it.
I survived /10,000 BC/ (the story of how a White Guy led a
bunch of Black Guys to rebel against a bunch of Yellow Guys,
with a superfluous sabretooth [as Ebert pointed out] added in
for no particular reason) and /Anonymous/ (the Shakespeare
thing that turned out to be the third installment of the
/Elizabeth/ series, just with a completely new cast and crew),
after all.
OTOH, I /did/ skip /Stonewall/, but, IIRC, the reviews
suggested it was more about an individual than a movement.
And, anyway, /Moonfall/ is at least an SF film. I might find it
... acceptable ... as an Emmerich film.
I think of him as this generation's Irwin Allen: a purveyor of
utter tosh, where the relevant question is whether the film is >>>entertaining as opposed to whether it's good.
Without commenting on Irwin Allen, I would agree with your
characterization of Emmerich. Well, except that "being
entertaining" is a major component of "being good", IMHO. YMMV.
Or, as I would put it, an excellent provider of Brain-Dead
Summer Action Flicks -- that is, films which entertain without
requiring any mental effort.
Or films that entertain only if you actively *avoid* any mental
effort.
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:43:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >>news:1cfa0htqcldmpc6nml473pqvrjvop91354@4ax.com:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:46:52 +0000, Jerry Brown
<jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:05:49 -0800, Paul S Person >>>><psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:30:47 -0800 (PST), T987654321 >>>>><qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow did it crater at the box office.
IIRC, it's by Emmerich, so I am /still/ going to rent it.
I survived /10,000 BC/ (the story of how a White Guy led a
bunch of Black Guys to rebel against a bunch of Yellow Guys,
with a superfluous sabretooth [as Ebert pointed out] added in
for no particular reason) and /Anonymous/ (the Shakespeare
thing that turned out to be the third installment of the
/Elizabeth/ series, just with a completely new cast and
crew), after all.
OTOH, I /did/ skip /Stonewall/, but, IIRC, the reviews
suggested it was more about an individual than a movement.
And, anyway, /Moonfall/ is at least an SF film. I might find
it ... acceptable ... as an Emmerich film.
I think of him as this generation's Irwin Allen: a purveyor of
utter tosh, where the relevant question is whether the film is >>>>entertaining as opposed to whether it's good.
Without commenting on Irwin Allen, I would agree with your
characterization of Emmerich. Well, except that "being
entertaining" is a major component of "being good", IMHO.
YMMV.
Or, as I would put it, an excellent provider of Brain-Dead
Summer Action Flicks -- that is, films which entertain without
requiring any mental effort.
Or films that entertain only if you actively *avoid* any mental
effort.
Fair enough, at least for those so obnoxious you cannot help
thinking about them.
For myself, I generally don't bother. Who cares if the North
Atlantic Current is shown moving in reverse in /The Day After
Tomorrow/?
Or whether a car can /really/ take down a helicopter as in /Live
Free or Die Hard/?
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >news:md4d0hphem59mbkdcupicihgb67a192quj@4ax.com:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:43:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >>>news:1cfa0htqcldmpc6nml473pqvrjvop91354@4ax.com:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:46:52 +0000, Jerry Brown
<jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:05:49 -0800, Paul S Person >>>>><psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:30:47 -0800 (PST), T987654321 >>>>>><qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow did it crater at the box office.
IIRC, it's by Emmerich, so I am /still/ going to rent it.
I survived /10,000 BC/ (the story of how a White Guy led a
bunch of Black Guys to rebel against a bunch of Yellow Guys,
with a superfluous sabretooth [as Ebert pointed out] added in
for no particular reason) and /Anonymous/ (the Shakespeare
thing that turned out to be the third installment of the >>>>>>/Elizabeth/ series, just with a completely new cast and
crew), after all.
OTOH, I /did/ skip /Stonewall/, but, IIRC, the reviews
suggested it was more about an individual than a movement.
And, anyway, /Moonfall/ is at least an SF film. I might find
it ... acceptable ... as an Emmerich film.
I think of him as this generation's Irwin Allen: a purveyor of
utter tosh, where the relevant question is whether the film is >>>>>entertaining as opposed to whether it's good.
Without commenting on Irwin Allen, I would agree with your
characterization of Emmerich. Well, except that "being
entertaining" is a major component of "being good", IMHO.
YMMV.
Or, as I would put it, an excellent provider of Brain-Dead
Summer Action Flicks -- that is, films which entertain without
requiring any mental effort.
Or films that entertain only if you actively *avoid* any mental
effort.
Fair enough, at least for those so obnoxious you cannot help
thinking about them.
For myself, I generally don't bother. Who cares if the North
Atlantic Current is shown moving in reverse in /The Day After
Tomorrow/?
Or whether a car can /really/ take down a helicopter as in /Live
Free or Die Hard/?
Everybody's threshold for suspension of disbelief is different (and
variable, based on expectation - I loved Velocipastor because it
was *exactly* what I expected). But once a movie crosses it, that's
that.
Wow did it crater at the box office.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:29:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha ><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >>news:md4d0hphem59mbkdcupicihgb67a192quj@4ax.com:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:43:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >>>>news:1cfa0htqcldmpc6nml473pqvrjvop91354@4ax.com:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:46:52 +0000, Jerry Brown
<jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:05:49 -0800, Paul S Person >>>>>><psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:30:47 -0800 (PST), T987654321 >>>>>>><qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow did it crater at the box office.
IIRC, it's by Emmerich, so I am /still/ going to rent it.
I survived /10,000 BC/ (the story of how a White Guy led a
bunch of Black Guys to rebel against a bunch of Yellow Guys,
with a superfluous sabretooth [as Ebert pointed out] added in
for no particular reason) and /Anonymous/ (the Shakespeare
thing that turned out to be the third installment of the >>>>>>>/Elizabeth/ series, just with a completely new cast and
crew), after all.
OTOH, I /did/ skip /Stonewall/, but, IIRC, the reviews
suggested it was more about an individual than a movement.
And, anyway, /Moonfall/ is at least an SF film. I might find
it ... acceptable ... as an Emmerich film.
I think of him as this generation's Irwin Allen: a purveyor of >>>>>>utter tosh, where the relevant question is whether the film is >>>>>>entertaining as opposed to whether it's good.
Without commenting on Irwin Allen, I would agree with your
characterization of Emmerich. Well, except that "being
entertaining" is a major component of "being good", IMHO.
YMMV.
Or, as I would put it, an excellent provider of Brain-Dead
Summer Action Flicks -- that is, films which entertain without
requiring any mental effort.
Or films that entertain only if you actively *avoid* any mental
effort.
Fair enough, at least for those so obnoxious you cannot help
thinking about them.
For myself, I generally don't bother. Who cares if the North
Atlantic Current is shown moving in reverse in /The Day After
Tomorrow/?
Or whether a car can /really/ take down a helicopter as in /Live
Free or Die Hard/?
Everybody's threshold for suspension of disbelief is different (and >>variable, based on expectation - I loved Velocipastor because it
was *exactly* what I expected). But once a movie crosses it, that's
that.
I recall one of the primary reasons for your dismissal of "Avatar" was
the "flying fucking mountains", but within the invented physics of the
film these were a logical result of the anti-gravity mineral that the
Evil Company was exploiting the planet in the first place.
In fact, a sample of this rock had already been shown hovering in a
desk display an hour earlier, setting up the later reveal of the
floating (not flying) mountain (leaving aside the internal logic of
the film, I recall reading somewhere that the mountain was a shout-out
to a 70s prog rock album cover, maybe by Roger Dean?).
My own suspension of disbelief is clearly much laxer, so for example I
have no problem with spacecraft flybys being accompanied by a "whoosh"
sound, as I consider this to come from the same place as the musical
score.
An example that DID bother me was "Gravity" which was supposedly a
non-SF technological action film with 100% accurate physics. This
physics somehow allowed the various space craft and the recurrent
menacing debris cloud to be able to travel at different angular
velocities in the same orbit.
On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 10:12:01 +0000, Jerry Brown
<jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:29:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person<psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in news:md4d0hphem59mbkdcupicihgb67a192quj@4ax.com:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:43:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person<psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in news:1cfa0htqcldmpc6nml473pqvrjvop91354@4ax.com:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:46:52 +0000, Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:05:49 -0800, Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:30:47 -0800 (PST), T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow did it crater at the box office.
IIRC, it's by Emmerich, so I am /still/ going to rent it.
I survived /10,000 BC/ (the story of how a White Guy led a bunch of Black Guys to rebel against a bunch of Yellow Guys, with a superfluous sabretooth [as Ebert pointed out] added in for no particular reason) and /Anonymous/ (the Shakespeare thing that turned out to be the third installment of the /Elizabeth/ series, just with a completely new cast and
crew), after all.
OTOH, I /did/ skip /Stonewall/, but, IIRC, the reviews suggested it was more about an individual than a movement.
And, anyway, /Moonfall/ is at least an SF film. I might find
it ... acceptable ... as an Emmerich film.
I think of him as this generation's Irwin Allen: a purveyor of utter tosh, where the relevant question is whether the film is entertaining as opposed to whether it's good.
Without commenting on Irwin Allen, I would agree with your characterization of Emmerich. Well, except that "being entertaining" is a major component of "being good", IMHO.
YMMV.
Or, as I would put it, an excellent provider of Brain-Dead
Summer Action Flicks -- that is, films which entertain without requiring any mental effort.
Or films that entertain only if you actively *avoid* any mental effort.
Fair enough, at least for those so obnoxious you cannot help
thinking about them.
For myself, I generally don't bother. Who cares if the North
Atlantic Current is shown moving in reverse in /The Day After Tomorrow/?
Or whether a car can /really/ take down a helicopter as in /Live
Free or Die Hard/?
Everybody's threshold for suspension of disbelief is different (and variable, based on expectation - I loved Velocipastor because it
was *exactly* what I expected). But once a movie crosses it, that's
that.
I recall one of the primary reasons for your dismissal of "Avatar" was
the "flying fucking mountains", but within the invented physics of the
film these were a logical result of the anti-gravity mineral that the
Evil Company was exploiting the planet in the first place.
In fact, a sample of this rock had already been shown hovering in a
desk display an hour earlier, setting up the later reveal of the
floating (not flying) mountain (leaving aside the internal logic of
the film, I recall reading somewhere that the mountain was a shout-out
to a 70s prog rock album cover, maybe by Roger Dean?).
My own suspension of disbelief is clearly much laxer, so for example I
have no problem with spacecraft flybys being accompanied by a "whoosh" sound, as I consider this to come from the same place as the musical
score.
An example that DID bother me was "Gravity" which was supposedly a
non-SF technological action film with 100% accurate physics. This
physics somehow allowed the various space craft and the recurrent
menacing debris cloud to be able to travel at different angular
velocities in the same orbit.
The "floating in space" physics of pop culture. From the ISS one can according to this model send oneself to the Andromeda Galaxy with a
gentle push of the hand. This is why people think Blue Origin and
Virgin Galactic are doing something useful.
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:29:05 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >>news:md4d0hphem59mbkdcupicihgb67a192quj@4ax.com:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:43:38 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in >>>>news:1cfa0htqcldmpc6nml473pqvrjvop91354@4ax.com:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:46:52 +0000, Jerry Brown
<jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2022 09:05:49 -0800, Paul S Person >>>>>><psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:30:47 -0800 (PST), T987654321 >>>>>>><qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow did it crater at the box office.
IIRC, it's by Emmerich, so I am /still/ going to rent it.
I survived /10,000 BC/ (the story of how a White Guy led a
bunch of Black Guys to rebel against a bunch of Yellow
Guys, with a superfluous sabretooth [as Ebert pointed out]
added in for no particular reason) and /Anonymous/ (the >>>>>>>Shakespeare thing that turned out to be the third
installment of the /Elizabeth/ series, just with a
completely new cast and crew), after all.
OTOH, I /did/ skip /Stonewall/, but, IIRC, the reviews
suggested it was more about an individual than a movement.
And, anyway, /Moonfall/ is at least an SF film. I might
find it ... acceptable ... as an Emmerich film.
I think of him as this generation's Irwin Allen: a purveyor
of utter tosh, where the relevant question is whether the
film is entertaining as opposed to whether it's good.
Without commenting on Irwin Allen, I would agree with your
characterization of Emmerich. Well, except that "being
entertaining" is a major component of "being good", IMHO.
YMMV.
Or, as I would put it, an excellent provider of Brain-Dead
Summer Action Flicks -- that is, films which entertain
without requiring any mental effort.
Or films that entertain only if you actively *avoid* any
mental effort.
Fair enough, at least for those so obnoxious you cannot help
thinking about them.
For myself, I generally don't bother. Who cares if the North
Atlantic Current is shown moving in reverse in /The Day After
Tomorrow/?
Or whether a car can /really/ take down a helicopter as in
/Live Free or Die Hard/?
Everybody's threshold for suspension of disbelief is different
(and variable, based on expectation - I loved Velocipastor
because it was *exactly* what I expected). But once a movie
crosses it, that's that.
I recall one of the primary reasons for your dismissal of
"Avatar" was the "flying fucking mountains",
but within the
invented physics of the film these were a logical result of the
anti-gravity mineral that the Evil Company was exploiting the
planet in the first place.
In fact, a sample of this rock had already been shown hovering
in a desk display an hour earlier, setting up the later reveal
of the floating (not flying) mountain (leaving aside the
internal logic of the film, I recall reading somewhere that the
mountain was a shout-out to a 70s prog rock album cover, maybe
by Roger Dean?).
My own suspension of disbelief is clearly much laxer, so for
example I have no problem with spacecraft flybys being
accompanied by a "whoosh" sound, as I consider this to come from
the same place as the musical score.
An example that DID bother me was "Gravity" which was supposedly
a non-SF technological action film with 100% accurate physics.
This physics somehow allowed the various space craft and the
recurrent menacing debris cloud to be able to travel at
different angular velocities in the same orbit.
The "floating in space" physics of pop culture. From the ISS
one can according to this model send oneself to the Andromeda
Galaxy with a gentle push of the hand. This is why people think
Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are doing something useful.
In fact, a sample of this rock had already been shown hovering in a
desk display an hour earlier, setting up the later reveal of the
floating (not flying) mountain (leaving aside the internal logic of
the film, I recall reading somewhere that the mountain was a shout-out
to a 70s prog rock album cover, maybe by Roger Dean?).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 123:42:43 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,705 |