\"The Watch\" -- don\'t!...

[Don Y]

Rare for me to speak out against a film (series, in this case).

But, this was really pretty bad! And, thought itself \"interesting\"
enough to hint at a sequel! :<

Not a fan of one-trick pony authors (pratchett, in this case -- but
there are (too many!) others). But, had hoped this *might* be at
least a *little* clever. Not. (By comparison, Hogfather was
almost tolerable)

Come up with an idea, flesh it out, present it -- then move on.

[The Lost Room was perhaps the \"best\" series, in this sense, in
that they knew when to kill it off. Firefly gains honorable
mention -- but, only because of Serenity\'s \"closure\"!]

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 9:32:07 AM UTC+11, Don Y wrote:

Rare for me to speak out against a film (series, in this case).

But, this was really pretty bad! And, thought itself \"interesting\"
enough to hint at a sequel! :

Not a fan of one-trick pony authors (pratchett, in this case -- but
there are (too many!) others).

Terry Pratchett was anything but a one-trick author. I see him as a second P.G. Wodehouse with the advantage of decent education.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Watch_(TV_series)

doesn\'t like the series on the basis that it doesn\'t have anything like enough Pratchett-inspired content.

> But, had hoped this *might* be at least a *little* clever. Not. (By comparison, Hogfather was almost tolerable).

Adapting literary science fiction and science fantasy to visual media rarely goes well. The people who create the scripts rarely know enough to realise what the original author had in mind - and Terry Pratchett was exceptionally well-informed about any number of areas.

Come up with an idea, flesh it out, present it -- then move on.

[The Lost Room was perhaps the \"best\" series, in this sense, in that they knew when to kill it off. Firefly gains honorable mention -- but, only because of Serenity\'s \"closure\"!]

This is nuts. Terry Pratchett used his novels to satirise our world. \"The Lost Room\" is a sort of grail quest.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[David Brown]

On 22/02/2022 23:31, Don Y wrote:

Rare for me to speak out against a film (series, in this case).

But, this was really pretty bad!  And, thought itself \"interesting\"
enough to hint at a sequel!  :

Not a fan of one-trick pony authors (pratchett, in this case -- but
there are (too many!) others).  But, had hoped this *might* be at
least a *little* clever.  Not.  (By comparison, Hogfather was
almost tolerable)

Come up with an idea, flesh it out, present it -- then move on.

Terry Pratchett has written some 60-odd books - that\'s hardly a
\"one-trick pony\". While about 40 of them are set in the same Discworld,
they cover a very wide range of topics with humour, satire, political
and social commentary, literature, history, \"alternative history\",
science, religion, racism, feminism, and much more.

I haven\'t seen the series, but you can\'t really translate the kind of
humour and commentary of books like these into a screen format. It
might be possible to make an entertaining series, but it won\'t be nearly
the same thing as the books.

Personally, I think his most important books are the Science of the
Discworld series (written with Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen), which use a
comparison between an invented flat world based on magic, and the real
world, to explain about physics, biology and ecology. The result is
very educational and thought-provoking, while being entertaining and
approachable.

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 2/23/2022 0:31, Don Y wrote:

Rare for me to speak out against a film (series, in this case).

But, this was really pretty bad!  And, thought itself \"interesting\"
enough to hint at a sequel!  :

Not a fan of one-trick pony authors (pratchett, in this case -- but
there are (too many!) others).  But, had hoped this *might* be at
least a *little* clever.  Not.  (By comparison, Hogfather was
almost tolerable)

Come up with an idea, flesh it out, present it -- then move on.

[The Lost Room was perhaps the \"best\" series, in this sense, in
that they knew when to kill it off.  Firefly gains honorable
mention -- but, only because of Serenity\'s \"closure\"!]

I gave Pratchett book a chance many years ago and it was nowhere
near being able to hold me. Basically I don\'t like pushy attempts
at humour, it has to be more subtly intertwined in the story.

But I was surprised recently, just a few days ago. I thought I\'d
have a look at that \"Peacemaker\", its IMDB rating was very high so
I had a look. It turned out to be hilarious in a brutal way, nothing
like my anticipation of yet another superhero thing. It is 8 episodes
so it unavoidably does get into some boring \"everybody is good inside\"
thing but they manage that well enough, I watched it all.
Just have a look at the introduction dance, reminded me of that
\"It\'s all about that bass\", perhaps more funny though not as
polished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrr3UNALww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk

 

[Don Y]

On 2/23/2022 7:11 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 2/23/2022 0:31, Don Y wrote:
Rare for me to speak out against a film (series, in this case).

But, this was really pretty bad! And, thought itself \"interesting\"
enough to hint at a sequel! :

Not a fan of one-trick pony authors (pratchett, in this case -- but
there are (too many!) others). But, had hoped this *might* be at
least a *little* clever. Not. (By comparison, Hogfather was
almost tolerable)

Come up with an idea, flesh it out, present it -- then move on.

[The Lost Room was perhaps the \"best\" series, in this sense, in
that they knew when to kill it off. Firefly gains honorable
mention -- but, only because of Serenity\'s \"closure\"!]

I gave Pratchett book a chance many years ago and it was nowhere
near being able to hold me. Basically I don\'t like pushy attempts
at humour, it has to be more subtly intertwined in the story.

Agreed. More to the point, it was a single idea (Discworld)...

Beaten to death.

When I checked out (public library) the title, I was unaware
of the Discworld connection. But, soon came to that realization
as so many of the characters and places (Sam Vines, Angua, Cheery,
Carrot, Unseen U, Ankh-Morpork, Detritus, Carcer Dun, Death, etc.)
were copied, literally (even much of the story!)

It was just a disappointing execution. Especially given how
(reasonably) well Hogfather had addressed its subject. (There
wasn\'t even mention of Discworld and only a passing VISUAL
reference to the disc -- if you were very observant!) You
watch a movie to be *entertained* (not many folks WATCHED
\"War of the Worlds\" -- either version -- with an eye towards
Well\'s opinions of Imperialism!)

[Death was particularly poorly reimagined vs. Hogfather\'s vision]

As I read fast, I tend to look for authors who have written a
fair amount (it\'s annoying to read a title, enjoy it, and then
discover that the author hadn\'t written much else... so, you\'re
back to rolling the dice with ANOTHER untested author).

I read about 20 of the Discworld titles and was left wondering
if there would ever be something interesting, going forward.

[Piers Anthony\'s Xanth is similarly lame -- though I enjoyed
several of his other *shorter* serieses]

It\'s understandable that \"authors\" would want to reuse an
idea repeatedly -- it\'s easier than coming up with a NEW
idea! But, as a reader/viewer, it\'s boring. E.g., nine
star wars films over 30+ years is also tedious! It
reminds of Lost In Space -- the same story each episode
with different color monsters/villains: \"Let me know when
the *final* episode airs... I *might* watch it.\"

Likewise for films. (how many \"Jurassic _____\" do we need
before the story actually changes?? would you sit through
the 40th \"episode\" of yet-another?)

[The Lost Room obviously *wanted* to be a long-running series:
\"There are 100 objects...\" (not 97 or 5 or 113... exactly 100??)
suggesting they hoped for a good many episodes, each \"featuring\"
a new object, no doubt. Just as \"Warehouse 13\" can obviously
accommodate a shitload of different \"episode subjects (artifacts)\"!
Had Firefly been *planned* with Serenity as it\'s finale, it would
have been perfect. Instead, these things either get canceled
mid-story. Or, set up a cliff-hanger... only to discover that there
will be no resolution (due to cancellation). The reader/viewer
then is left *hoping* for closure.]

I also am more interested in new ideas rather than social commentary.
I\'ve enjoyed Stross\'s novels as he does approach new subjects and
technologies. Gene Wolfe as his works set out in very different
directions (_Free Live Free_ vs. _The Book of the New Sun_ vs. \"Soldier\").
Stephenson, Clarke, van Vogt, Heinlein, etc. Yeah, it\'s more work to
come up with a new premise for each novel/short series, but \"Story, Model 1\",
\"Story, Model 2\", \"Story, Model 3\" seems like you\'re just \"phoning it in\"...

Adams was good at the subtle (and not so subtle) humor. Periodically,
I go hunting for the title in which a sofa gets impossibly *stuck* on
a staircase early in the novel -- only to discover (much later) that
it was possible to maneuver it into that position because a
(\"interdimensional\") *door* happened to exist at that point on the
stairs as the folks were moving it (and they could shift the sofa
into the open doorway to adjust its position).

[ISTR it being _Dirk Gently\'s Holistic Detective Agency_... not
_Long Dark Tea Time_]

The humor lies in the expectation that the reader will recall this
lame detail later in the story. And have paid attention to it
at the time!

Movies have to be much more subtle as they are literally \"in your
face\". There, the challenge is to slip something past the viewer
with just an inkling that he may have \"missed\" something.

[Flushed Away -- and many other animated films, for that
matter -- has several bits of imagery that the animators
slipped into the film NOT expecting the viewer to have
time to catch as the camera pans, etc. \"Careful Whitey.
That\'s a banana!\"]

And, that\'s not counting the \"trivialities\" that can add
humor to a film -- but only for viewers with certain
foreknowledge. E.g., there\'s a \"hieroglyph\" of R2D2 w/ C3PO
in \"Raiders\"; a \"PacMan\" in one of the TRON line-graphic
displays, etc.

<https://en.battlestarwikiclone.org/w/images/c/cd/CapricaMessage.jpg>

ENTERTAIN me! If I wanted to \"read the book\", I\'d already have READ it!
(why would I now want a below-par, visual representation of the same content?)

OTOH, there are some films that deviate from the original novels.
There, the differences are the points of interest (cf. _John Dies at
the End_ or _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ -- either version -- vs.
_Farewell to the Master_)

But I was surprised recently, just a few days ago. I thought I\'d
have a look at that \"Peacemaker\", its IMDB rating was very high so
I had a look. It turned out to be hilarious in a brutal way, nothing
like my anticipation of yet another superhero thing. It is 8 episodes
so it unavoidably does get into some boring \"everybody is good inside\"
thing but they manage that well enough, I watched it all.
Just have a look at the introduction dance, reminded me of that
\"It\'s all about that bass\", perhaps more funny though not as
polished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrr3UNALww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk

Peacemaker, himself, is a parody of narrow-mindedness.
Like the line in _The Blues Brothers_: \"Oh, we have BOTH kinds!
Country AND Western!\")

Watch RED (and, to a lesser extent, RED2). Or, Rubber.
These have humor and a wee bit of thought mixed in.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 9:52:36 AM UTC+11, Don Y wrote:

On 2/23/2022 7:11 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/23/2022 0:31, Don Y wrote:
Rare for me to speak out against a film (series, in this case).

But, this was really pretty bad! And, thought itself \"interesting\"
enough to hint at a sequel! :

Not a fan of one-trick pony authors (pratchett, in this case -- but
there are (too many!) others). But, had hoped this *might* be at
least a *little* clever. Not. (By comparison, Hogfather was
almost tolerable)

Come up with an idea, flesh it out, present it -- then move on.

[The Lost Room was perhaps the \"best\" series, in this sense, in
that they knew when to kill it off. Firefly gains honorable
mention -- but, only because of Serenity\'s \"closure\"!]

I gave Pratchett book a chance many years ago and it was nowhere
near being able to hold me. Basically I don\'t like pushy attempts
at humour, it has to be more subtly intertwined in the story.

Agreed. More to the point, it was a single idea (Discworld)...

Beaten to death.

Discworld wasn\'t a single idea, but rather a stage where all sorts of defects in the real world were parodied.

If you missed that, there\'s not a lot of hope for you.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 2/24/2022 0:52, Don Y wrote:

.....

But I was surprised recently, just a few days ago. I thought I\'d
have a look at that \"Peacemaker\", its IMDB rating was very high so
I had a look. It turned out to be hilarious in a brutal way, nothing
like my anticipation of yet another superhero thing. It is 8 episodes
so it unavoidably does get into some boring \"everybody is good inside\"
thing but they manage that well enough, I watched it all.
Just have a look at the introduction dance, reminded me of that
\"It\'s all about that bass\", perhaps more funny though not as
polished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrr3UNALww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk

Peacemaker, himself, is a parody of narrow-mindedness.
Like the line in _The Blues Brothers_:  \"Oh, we have BOTH kinds!
Country AND Western!\")

The Blues Brothers was good though I had nearly forgotten about
it after having watched the first one. Then the second one hit me
and I rewatched the first one and really liked it. The moment in
the second one when Dan Aykroyd spots the car he wants was really
good .

Watch RED (and, to a lesser extent, RED2).  Or, Rubber.
These have humor and a wee bit of thought mixed in.

These were good, my memory is also that the first one was
somewhat better.

 

[Don Y]

On 2/24/2022 4:08 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 2/24/2022 0:52, Don Y wrote:
.....

But I was surprised recently, just a few days ago. I thought I\'d
have a look at that \"Peacemaker\", its IMDB rating was very high so
I had a look. It turned out to be hilarious in a brutal way, nothing
like my anticipation of yet another superhero thing. It is 8 episodes
so it unavoidably does get into some boring \"everybody is good inside\"
thing but they manage that well enough, I watched it all.
Just have a look at the introduction dance, reminded me of that
\"It\'s all about that bass\", perhaps more funny though not as
polished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrr3UNALww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk

Peacemaker, himself, is a parody of narrow-mindedness.
Like the line in _The Blues Brothers_: \"Oh, we have BOTH kinds!
Country AND Western!\")

The Blues Brothers was good though I had nearly forgotten about
it after having watched the first one.

I\'m fond of the music. And, it was surprisingly consistent in the quality
of performances chosen, along with the talent used! Also, I recognized
many of the spots where it was filmed, having lived in Chicagoland for
many years. There\'s a fair bit of subtle -- and NOT so subtle -- humor
in it that leaves a pleasant \"after taste\".

[We frequently rewatch Flushed Away for similar reasons. The slugs are
hilarious and we find opportunities to \"quote\" them, harmoniously, often!]

Then the second one hit me
and I rewatched the first one and really liked it. The moment in
the second one when Dan Aykroyd spots the car he wants was really
good .

Never watched the second. I tend to avoid most sequels as they
are almost always \"a disappointment\".

Watch RED (and, to a lesser extent, RED2). Or, Rubber.
These have humor and a wee bit of thought mixed in.

These were good, my memory is also that the first one was
somewhat better.

Yes. Sequels tend to not meet the level of the first release.
Part of it being the lack of freshness (and the contrivances
the author/producer often goes to in an attempt to try to
reinject some sense of \"newness\" in the followup).

E.g., In Jurassic Park, it is the *newness* of the \"back from
extinction\" concept that is the most powerful. The scene where
the two paleontologists *see* the subject of their studies,
having KNOWN they would **never** encounter one in real life,
is the most poignant (yet largely glossed over). *Imagine* what
that feeling must be like...

We recently watched \"Coming to America 2\" -- with the same
sense of disappointment. Not that the original was *great*,
but the ideas set forth were fresh and chuckle-worthy
(esp the Don Ameche/Ralph Bellamy cameo).

[Cameos are often delightful little asides worthy of their own
special attention. E.g., Gene Hackman\'s in _Young Frankenstein_
is perhaps the densest set of laughs in the entire film! By
contrast, Stan Lee\'s ubiquitous appearances in the Marvel franchise
get to be too predictable. OTOH, Howard\'s appearance at the end of
_Guardians of the Galaxy_ was completely unexpected! (any thought
of Howard immediately brings to mind _The Thief of Bagmom_ as I
found it to be one of the most amusing/memorable \"inside jokes\")]

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 2/24/2022 14:07, Don Y wrote:

On 2/24/2022 4:08 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/24/2022 0:52, Don Y wrote:
.....

But I was surprised recently, just a few days ago. I thought I\'d
have a look at that \"Peacemaker\", its IMDB rating was very high so
I had a look. It turned out to be hilarious in a brutal way, nothing
like my anticipation of yet another superhero thing. It is 8 episodes
so it unavoidably does get into some boring \"everybody is good inside\"
thing but they manage that well enough, I watched it all.
Just have a look at the introduction dance, reminded me of that
\"It\'s all about that bass\", perhaps more funny though not as
polished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mrr3UNALww
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk

Peacemaker, himself, is a parody of narrow-mindedness.
Like the line in _The Blues Brothers_:  \"Oh, we have BOTH kinds!
Country AND Western!\")

The Blues Brothers was good though I had nearly forgotten about
it after having watched the first one.

I\'m fond of the music.  And, it was surprisingly consistent in the quality
of performances chosen, along with the talent used!  Also, I recognized
many of the spots where it was filmed, having lived in Chicagoland for
many years.  There\'s a fair bit of subtle -- and NOT so subtle -- humor
in it that leaves a pleasant \"after taste\".

[We frequently rewatch Flushed Away for similar reasons.  The slugs are
hilarious and we find opportunities to \"quote\" them, harmoniously, often!]

Then the second one hit me
and I rewatched the first one and really liked it. The moment in
the second one when Dan Aykroyd spots the car he wants was really
good .

Never watched the second.  I tend to avoid most sequels as they
are almost always \"a disappointment\".

Perhaps not as good as the first one but I don\'t think it will
be a disappointment. In a distant hindsight if I think of rewatching
one I think of the first one though.

Watch RED (and, to a lesser extent, RED2).  Or, Rubber.
These have humor and a wee bit of thought mixed in.

These were good, my memory is also that the first one was
somewhat better.

Yes.  Sequels tend to not meet the level of the first release.
Part of it being the lack of freshness (and the contrivances
the author/producer often goes to in an attempt to try to
reinject some sense of \"newness\" in the followup).

Usually so, then factor in also that the public cannot be taken
by surprise in a sequel as easily.

E.g., In Jurassic Park, it is the *newness* of the \"back from
extinction\" concept that is the most powerful.  The scene where
the two paleontologists *see* the subject of their studies,
having KNOWN they would **never** encounter one in real life,
is the most poignant (yet largely glossed over).  *Imagine* what
that feeling must be like...

We recently watched \"Coming to America 2\" -- with the same
sense of disappointment.  Not that the original was *great*,
but the ideas set forth were fresh and chuckle-worthy
(esp the Don Ameche/Ralph Bellamy cameo).

The first one has hit me numerous times over this or that TV
channel (I watch TV while I eat...) but I could not watch it,
neither did Lucy want to. Eddie Murphy is too squeaky for
either of us I suppose.

[Cameos are often delightful little asides worthy of their own
special attention.  E.g., Gene Hackman\'s in _Young Frankenstein_
is perhaps the densest set of laughs in the entire film!  By
contrast, Stan Lee\'s ubiquitous appearances in the Marvel franchise
get to be too predictable.  OTOH, Howard\'s appearance at the end of
_Guardians of the Galaxy_ was completely unexpected!  (any thought
of Howard immediately brings to mind _The Thief of Bagmom_ as I
found it to be one of the most amusing/memorable \"inside jokes\")]

But the sequels of these Guardians were not bad at all IIRC
(not sure how many they were). I did not remember Howard, had to
look up now who that was...

 

[Don Y]

On 2/24/2022 6:37 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 2/24/2022 14:07, Don Y wrote:

The Blues Brothers was good though I had nearly forgotten about
it after having watched the first one.

I\'m fond of the music. And, it was surprisingly consistent in the quality
of performances chosen, along with the talent used! Also, I recognized
many of the spots where it was filmed, having lived in Chicagoland for
many years. There\'s a fair bit of subtle -- and NOT so subtle -- humor
in it that leaves a pleasant \"after taste\".

[We frequently rewatch Flushed Away for similar reasons. The slugs are
hilarious and we find opportunities to \"quote\" them, harmoniously, often!]

Then the second one hit me
and I rewatched the first one and really liked it. The moment in
the second one when Dan Aykroyd spots the car he wants was really
good .

Never watched the second. I tend to avoid most sequels as they
are almost always \"a disappointment\".

Perhaps not as good as the first one but I don\'t think it will
be a disappointment. In a distant hindsight if I think of rewatching
one I think of the first one though.

I\'ll look for it. But, John Goodman seems like a good predictor of
mediocrity in a film. :<

Watch RED (and, to a lesser extent, RED2). Or, Rubber.
These have humor and a wee bit of thought mixed in.

These were good, my memory is also that the first one was
somewhat better.

Yes. Sequels tend to not meet the level of the first release.
Part of it being the lack of freshness (and the contrivances
the author/producer often goes to in an attempt to try to
reinject some sense of \"newness\" in the followup).

Usually so, then factor in also that the public cannot be taken
by surprise in a sequel as easily.

Exactly. You\'ve already \"spent\" the cleverness (why would you
\"hold back\" something, in reserve, for a sequel?). It all
degrades into variations on the same \"trick\". <yawn>

E.g., In Jurassic Park, it is the *newness* of the \"back from
extinction\" concept that is the most powerful. The scene where
the two paleontologists *see* the subject of their studies,
having KNOWN they would **never** encounter one in real life,
is the most poignant (yet largely glossed over). *Imagine* what
that feeling must be like...

We recently watched \"Coming to America 2\" -- with the same
sense of disappointment. Not that the original was *great*,
but the ideas set forth were fresh and chuckle-worthy
(esp the Don Ameche/Ralph Bellamy cameo).

The first one has hit me numerous times over this or that TV
channel (I watch TV while I eat...) but I could not watch it,
neither did Lucy want to. Eddie Murphy is too squeaky for
either of us I suppose.

There are many funny scenes (the overall plot is lame) that
are fun to watch. E.g., the barbershop scenes have, at most,
3 actors: Eddie Murphy (playing the roles of Akeem, the shop
owner and the white jewish man, simultaneously), Arsenio Hall
(playing the roles of Semmi and one of the other barbers) and
the \"third\" barber.

[Murphy also plays a few other roles in other parts of the
show -- as well as Hall playing multiple roles including a
\"3 bagger\" woman at the night club]

[Cameos are often delightful little asides worthy of their own
special attention. E.g., Gene Hackman\'s in _Young Frankenstein_
is perhaps the densest set of laughs in the entire film! By
contrast, Stan Lee\'s ubiquitous appearances in the Marvel franchise
get to be too predictable. OTOH, Howard\'s appearance at the end of
_Guardians of the Galaxy_ was completely unexpected! (any thought
of Howard immediately brings to mind _The Thief of Bagmom_ as I
found it to be one of the most amusing/memorable \"inside jokes\")]

But the sequels of these Guardians were not bad at all IIRC
(not sure how many they were). I did not remember Howard, had to
look up now who that was...

I found the sequel to Guardians to be similarly disappointing.

[Howard was a comic-book character from the 70\'s so quite a bit
of nostalgia, there. The \"Bagmom\" (BagDAD!) issue particularly so!]

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 2/24/2022 18:39, Don Y wrote:

On 2/24/2022 6:37 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/24/2022 14:07, Don Y wrote:

The Blues Brothers was good though I had nearly forgotten about
it after having watched the first one.

I\'m fond of the music.  And, it was surprisingly consistent in the
quality
of performances chosen, along with the talent used!  Also, I recognized
many of the spots where it was filmed, having lived in Chicagoland for
many years.  There\'s a fair bit of subtle -- and NOT so subtle -- humor
in it that leaves a pleasant \"after taste\".

[We frequently rewatch Flushed Away for similar reasons.  The slugs are
hilarious and we find opportunities to \"quote\" them, harmoniously,
often!]

Then the second one hit me
and I rewatched the first one and really liked it. The moment in
the second one when Dan Aykroyd spots the car he wants was really
good .

Never watched the second.  I tend to avoid most sequels as they
are almost always \"a disappointment\".

Perhaps not as good as the first one but I don\'t think it will
be a disappointment. In a distant hindsight if I think of rewatching
one I think of the first one though.

I\'ll look for it.  But, John Goodman seems like a good predictor of
mediocrity in a film.  :

Well you can see him as that in that film, too - but overall Dan Aykroyd
does well enough to keep you intact, there is also a police girl,
Nia Peeples, who adds some charm by her reactions to chase failures
by the police etc., I think you will watch it until the end.

I found the sequel to Guardians to be similarly disappointing.

[Howard was a comic-book character from the 70\'s so quite a bit
of nostalgia, there.  The \"Bagmom\" (BagDAD!) issue particularly so!]

Ah during the 70-s I have been well isolated on the wrong side of the
iron curtain, this explains why I did not know about him.

Did you watch \"Cruella\"? By far the best film I have seen for many
years.

 

[Don Y]

On 2/24/2022 11:33 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 2/24/2022 18:39, Don Y wrote:
On 2/24/2022 6:37 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/24/2022 14:07, Don Y wrote:

The Blues Brothers was good though I had nearly forgotten about
it after having watched the first one.

I\'m fond of the music. And, it was surprisingly consistent in the quality
of performances chosen, along with the talent used! Also, I recognized
many of the spots where it was filmed, having lived in Chicagoland for
many years. There\'s a fair bit of subtle -- and NOT so subtle -- humor
in it that leaves a pleasant \"after taste\".

[We frequently rewatch Flushed Away for similar reasons. The slugs are
hilarious and we find opportunities to \"quote\" them, harmoniously, often!]

Then the second one hit me
and I rewatched the first one and really liked it. The moment in
the second one when Dan Aykroyd spots the car he wants was really
good .

Never watched the second. I tend to avoid most sequels as they
are almost always \"a disappointment\".

Perhaps not as good as the first one but I don\'t think it will
be a disappointment. In a distant hindsight if I think of rewatching
one I think of the first one though.

I\'ll look for it. But, John Goodman seems like a good predictor of
mediocrity in a film. :

Well you can see him as that in that film, too - but overall Dan Aykroyd
does well enough to keep you intact, there is also a police girl,
Nia Peeples, who adds some charm by her reactions to chase failures
by the police etc., I think you will watch it until the end.

I will check the library\'s catalog. Older titles tend to be hard to
come by, though; media gets damaged and lack of availability usually
dooms a title to falling out of the catalog. Especially if it wasn\'t
particularly popular (which means they likely only ordered a dozen
copies for the entire city to \"share\").

Sadly, the library doesn\'t have a strong commitment to keeping titles
(not just AV media) around. Instead, they look at viewer/reader-ship
and *discard* titles that aren\'t circulating. <shrug> I guess there
is a certain logic to this; the library expects its collection to
reside in *homes*, not on shelves. And, if a title isn\'t popular
enough for patrons to store it in THEIR homes (temporarily), then
why should the library devote space to it?!

[The flipside of this is that one can purchase discards cheaply in
the many \"booksales\" they sponsor.]

I found the sequel to Guardians to be similarly disappointing.

[Howard was a comic-book character from the 70\'s so quite a bit
of nostalgia, there. The \"Bagmom\" (BagDAD!) issue particularly so!]

Ah during the 70-s I have been well isolated on the wrong side of the
iron curtain, this explains why I did not know about him.

It was not a \"mainstream\" product, by any means! I suspect few people,
*here*, ever read a \"Howard\" comic. And, things like Pat & Nard or Fat
Freddy\'s Cat would likely be a big \"Huh?\"

[If you ever find a copy of _The Yum Yum Book_, set aside half an hour to
flip through it. And, another hour, later, to repeat the exercise with
more attention to detail!]

Did you watch \"Cruella\"? By far the best film I have seen for many
years.

On your recommendation, I put in a request for it. Looks like
that was near the end of *October* (!). I am presently #17 in the
queue, waiting on 50 copies. So, assuming patrons \"behave responsibly\"
(i.e., return titles before their due dates), I should see it sometime
in the next 3 weeks.

[Pandemic has screwed up operations -- coupled with a change in library
policies that does away with fines and due dates. <frown>]

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

torsdag den 24. februar 2022 kl. 20.29.13 UTC+1 skrev Don Y:

On 2/24/2022 11:33 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/24/2022 18:39, Don Y wrote:
On 2/24/2022 6:37 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 2/24/2022 14:07, Don Y wrote:

The Blues Brothers was good though I had nearly forgotten about
it after having watched the first one.

I\'m fond of the music. And, it was surprisingly consistent in the quality
of performances chosen, along with the talent used! Also, I recognized
many of the spots where it was filmed, having lived in Chicagoland for
many years. There\'s a fair bit of subtle -- and NOT so subtle -- humor
in it that leaves a pleasant \"after taste\".

[We frequently rewatch Flushed Away for similar reasons. The slugs are
hilarious and we find opportunities to \"quote\" them, harmoniously, often!]

Then the second one hit me
and I rewatched the first one and really liked it. The moment in
the second one when Dan Aykroyd spots the car he wants was really
good .

Never watched the second. I tend to avoid most sequels as they
are almost always \"a disappointment\".

Perhaps not as good as the first one but I don\'t think it will
be a disappointment. In a distant hindsight if I think of rewatching
one I think of the first one though.

I\'ll look for it. But, John Goodman seems like a good predictor of
mediocrity in a film. :

Well you can see him as that in that film, too - but overall Dan Aykroyd
does well enough to keep you intact, there is also a police girl,
Nia Peeples, who adds some charm by her reactions to chase failures
by the police etc., I think you will watch it until the end.
I will check the library\'s catalog. Older titles tend to be hard to
come by, though; media gets damaged and lack of availability usually
dooms a title to falling out of the catalog. Especially if it wasn\'t
particularly popular (which means they likely only ordered a dozen
copies for the entire city to \"share\").

Sadly, the library doesn\'t have a strong commitment to keeping titles
(not just AV media) around. Instead, they look at viewer/reader-ship
and *discard* titles that aren\'t circulating. <shrug> I guess there
is a certain logic to this; the library expects its collection to
reside in *homes*, not on shelves. And, if a title isn\'t popular
enough for patrons to store it in THEIR homes (temporarily), then
why should the library devote space to it?!

[The flipside of this is that one can purchase discards cheaply in
the many \"booksales\" they sponsor.]
I found the sequel to Guardians to be similarly disappointing.

[Howard was a comic-book character from the 70\'s so quite a bit
of nostalgia, there. The \"Bagmom\" (BagDAD!) issue particularly so!]

Ah during the 70-s I have been well isolated on the wrong side of the
iron curtain, this explains why I did not know about him.
It was not a \"mainstream\" product, by any means! I suspect few people,
*here*, ever read a \"Howard\" comic. And, things like Pat & Nard or Fat
Freddy\'s Cat would likely be a big \"Huh?\"

Freak bothers are back, https://youtu.be/ah-uikFRW40

[If you ever find a copy of _The Yum Yum Book_, set aside half an hour to
flip through it. And, another hour, later, to repeat the exercise with
more attention to detail!]
Did you watch \"Cruella\"? By far the best film I have seen for many
years.
On your recommendation, I put in a request for it. Looks like
that was near the end of *October* (!). I am presently #17 in the
queue, waiting on 50 copies. So, assuming patrons \"behave responsibly\"
(i.e., return titles before their due dates), I should see it sometime
in the next 3 weeks.

afaikt $3.99 on amazon prime, https://www.amazon.com/Cruella-Emma-Stone/dp/B0977RSTF2

 

[Don Y]

On 2/24/2022 4:22 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

torsdag den 24. februar 2022 kl. 20.29.13 UTC+1 skrev Don Y:
[The flipside of this is that one can purchase discards cheaply in
the many \"booksales\" they sponsor.]
I found the sequel to Guardians to be similarly disappointing.

[Howard was a comic-book character from the 70\'s so quite a bit
of nostalgia, there. The \"Bagmom\" (BagDAD!) issue particularly so!]

Ah during the 70-s I have been well isolated on the wrong side of the
iron curtain, this explains why I did not know about him.
It was not a \"mainstream\" product, by any means! I suspect few people,
*here*, ever read a \"Howard\" comic. And, things like Pat & Nard or Fat
Freddy\'s Cat would likely be a big \"Huh?\"

Freak bothers are back, https://youtu.be/ah-uikFRW40

Ugh! That\'s just \"wrong\" -- on so many levels! :< Like remaking _Gone
with the Wind_ or a CGI version of a _Forbidden Planet_ *prequel* where
some artist imagines what Krell society would have been like (in addition
to the biology of the Krell!)

[If you ever find a copy of _The Yum Yum Book_, set aside half an hour to
flip through it. And, another hour, later, to repeat the exercise with
more attention to detail!]
Did you watch \"Cruella\"? By far the best film I have seen for many
years.
On your recommendation, I put in a request for it. Looks like
that was near the end of *October* (!). I am presently #17 in the
queue, waiting on 50 copies. So, assuming patrons \"behave responsibly\"
(i.e., return titles before their due dates), I should see it sometime
in the next 3 weeks.

afaikt $3.99 on amazon prime, https://www.amazon.com/Cruella-Emma-Stone/dp/B0977RSTF2

We don\'t pay for content as the local library is so convenient. If you\'re
not interested in \"latest releases\", then their selection is pretty adequate
(8173 DVD titles in the catalog).

The only issue is having a particular title available *when* you want to
watch it. But, if you don\'t care when you *see* it and have many other
titles immediately accessible, there\'s no real downside.

E.g., SWMBO has 20 titles stacked in the living room waiting for her to
make time to view them.

Our nearest local branch is a ~2.5 mile walk. There, I can look through ~500
items \"on the shelf\" (probably 200+ DVD titles -- not counting DVDs that are
more of a documentary/reference nature) and carry the title home that evening.

On-line, I can browse the catalog and locate a title that may be sitting on
a shelf in some other branch. Placing a \"reserve\" on one of these will cause
it to be transported to my branch (or a branch of my choosing) where it will
be set aside for me (giving me 10 days to claim it before it returns to
circulation).

If all copies are \"in use\", then my name is entered into a queue awaiting
an available copy. I am notified (phone or email) when a copy becomes
available for me and it is transported to my desired pick-up location.

Additionally, the library posts a list of DVDs *ordered* (purchased) each
month. So, browsing this list lets you place a reserve on a title *before*
the library even has acquired it!

[Of course, I can also *request* the library purchase a particular title.
Those requests tend to be honored as there is no other way for the staff
to know what folks *want* to read/view]

I\'m at the library at least twice a week, dropping off books/DVDs, picking
up titles, requesting technical articles through their inter-library loan
service, etc. So, there\'s never a shortage of stuff to watch (I also tend
to enjoy REwatching -- and RE-rewatching -- certain titles so if I happen
to see one of these on the shelf, I am likely to check it out -- again!
I\'ve probably watched _Serenity_ 4 or 5 times!)

It\'s really a delightful (free!) resource. And, they are tickled to see
their services used -- as it further justifies their \"overhead\" to the
city/county!

We also own a collection of select titles that we\'ve purchased, over the
years. Some as library discards ($1/each), some as \"knockouts\" from
discount stores ($3-5), and some \"full price\". These being titles that
I want to be able to watch *anytime* without concern for whether or not
the title still exists in the library\'s catalog, if it is available, etc.

[I\'ve purchased several $3 copies of Flushed Away to gift to friends...
I don\'t want to risk *loaning* my copy. And, other titles that we enjoy
sharing with house-guests. (Just purchased a copy of _9_ as \"entertainment\"
for some guests as I consider it a delightfully well-made/scripted story)]

The problem is finding *time* to watch/read everything that is of interest!
(so, you really want to be *sure* the time spent on a title is worth it!)

 

[Dean Hoffman]

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:32:07 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:

Rare for me to speak out against a film (series, in this case).

But, this was really pretty bad! And, thought itself \"interesting\"
enough to hint at a sequel! :

Not a fan of one-trick pony authors (pratchett, in this case -- but
there are (too many!) others). But, had hoped this *might* be at
least a *little* clever. Not. (By comparison, Hogfather was
almost tolerable)

Come up with an idea, flesh it out, present it -- then move on.

[The Lost Room was perhaps the \"best\" series, in this sense, in
that they knew when to kill it off. Firefly gains honorable
mention -- but, only because of Serenity\'s \"closure\"!]

Check out the TV show In the Heat of the Night. It\'s being rerun.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Heat_of_the_Night_(TV_series)>
Actor Carroll O\'Conner was on the CBS shows All in the Family and
Archie Bunker\'s Place.

 

[Don Y]

On 2/25/2022 10:07 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:32:07 PM UTC-6, Don Y wrote:
Come up with an idea, flesh it out, present it -- then move on.

[The Lost Room was perhaps the \"best\" series, in this sense, in
that they knew when to kill it off. Firefly gains honorable
mention -- but, only because of Serenity\'s \"closure\"!]

Check out the TV show In the Heat of the Night. It\'s being rerun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Heat_of_the_Night_(TV_series)
Actor Carroll O\'Conner was on the CBS shows All in the Family and
Archie Bunker\'s Place.

We tend to dislike serieses because they quickly fall into ruts.
The author/writer comes up with an idea/world/setting/etc. and then
runs out of new ideas to explore *in* that context.

The epitome of this are the \"formulaic\" shows that just throw a
different coat of \"paint\" on the same story, episode to episode.

_Lost in Space_, _Land of the Giants_, _All in the Family_, etc.
There\'s *one* underlying \"new idea\" and lots of attempts to paint
it from different angles. You *know* how Archie is going to react
to any scenario; you know what \"Meathead\"/Gloria will espouse. So,
it\'s how patient you are at being \"lectured\" about that particular
social issue (yeah, there may be a few amusing anecdotes -- often
at Archie\'s expense/ignorance -- but not enough to lift the show
out of it\'s \"comfortable rut\": \"Wow! Sammy Davis Junior *kissed*
the bigot!!\")

It\'s like watching Columbo (you KNOW how it\'s going to end within
minutes of its start!) -- but, at least, there, you can amuse
yourself trying to identify *what* clue(s) he is relying on in
reaching his conclusion.

Or, _The Road Runner_: You know Wylie is gonna get screwed.
But, you don\'t know how the laws of physics are going to
be *perverted* in doing so!

Amusingly, one can take this sort of formulaic presentation to
such an extreme that it becomes amusing. Pinky & The Brain
fits just such a formula. You don\'t know what the hare-brained
scheme will be, in this episode. But, you know what its goal
will be and that something silly/stupid will foil it. The
appeal lies in many of the (also formulaic) utterances that
come along (\"I think so, Brain. But, where are we going to
find a duck and a hose at this hour?\") Along with the
caricatures presented -- and the \"surprise credits\".

[N.B. When they were \"rewarded\" with their own \"show\", the
quality of episodes quickly fell as it was too hard to keep up
with new/original material]

By far, the *best* spoof on this sort of formulaic approach
is in the Buttons & Mindy episodes. Taken to an extreme
in _Les Boutons et le Ballon_ which doesn\'t *require*
subtitles for the viewer to KNOW what is being said!

OTOH, we enjoyed SOAP and Coupling because the situations
presented were so outlandish and the \"quips\" so unexpected!
(It\'s hard NOT to laugh at throw pillows! And, the hazards
of bathing!)

[Of course, Coupling suffered horribly in season 4 w/o Jeff.
But, the ending to the series was appropriate! (how *do*
you end a series?]