From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #356 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, December 4 2000 Volume 09 : Number 356 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Polonius was right (Clothes, part IX) [Eb ] Re: boobs are us [GSS ] Re: boobs are us [Asshole Motherfucker ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #354 [DDerosa5@aol.com] while my guitar gently gets off ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: boobs are us [Ken Ostrander ] Re: boobs are us [GSS ] a waitress in a cocktail bar ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: red red red red red + 85% Ebmaniax content [Eb ] grrr [Natalie Jacobs ] 1 Re: It's a small Red Planet after all, it's a small small Red Planet [C] Re: a waitress in a cocktail bar [Asshole Motherfucker ] John Lennon Story [overbury@cn.ca] Sci Fi [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:01:37 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Polonius was right (Clothes, part IX) Viv doth continue to fight for her modus operandi: >Quail, you're finding gold in a pile of shit. The original post which >started all this merely stated, in slightly more words, "Martha's >cleavage-sporting allows me to not take her seriously, especially as she >is far too fat to be attractive." As I said in another recent post, my original post said *nothing* about Martha's weight, unless you count the unflattering connotations of the word "udders." I also must note that my original post expressed equal dislike for her "triumphant grin" performance style, but I guess no one minded *this* objection. Incidentally, it must be noted that belly-low cleavage is *especially* distracting and off-putting when the person is aggressively strumming a guitar (and thus, aggressively jiggling said cleavage). Eb PS We *are* seeing unusually zesty subject lines lately, aren't we? ;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:15:08 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: boobs are us Hey splangies, Back in college when I was an angry young man, I got high everyday, and aggravated the fuck out of every professor unless they were attractive females. I just did not fit, so I dropped out and got a job. Fuck, I wish I hadn't done that. Ooh, this was about boobs wasn't it? I love boobs, though they can be distracting. I like small ones, big ones, pointed, round, pale and dark. I just like girls period. And then there are the butts. I love butts even more than boobs. Goddamn it I like butts. I think girls are kick-ass, big, small, short and tall. They rule my world, and most everything else. But, there is place for certain things and a place for certain other things, and over-revealing can take away the mystery and the fantasy that I associate with members of the opposite sex, whether they are on stage or not. I would like all woman to walk around naked or at least wearing blue jeans and tube tops and I would love to be able to exert myself all over one or two or eleven of them at once whenever I desired (like most of the time). But, I know that this is not practical and would end up making sex not near as fun. Anyway, what were we talking about? Ooh yeah, boobs. Where did all the tube-tops go? Would you girls mind if I asked you start wearing those things again? Boobs are cool, but bottoms are better. Leave 'em out or leave 'em in, it will not affect my opinion of the person as an artist. Though I have to admit that if I went to a show and a male performer came on stage with his dangley hanging out, it would turn me off, not in regard to him as artist, but to him as a performer of his art. gss Repenting other lives unknown They call and say, "Come dance with me" And murmur vague obscenities At ugly girls like me at seventeen - janis ian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:27:47 -0800 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: boobs are us >Though I have to admit that if I went to a show and a male performer >came on stage with his dangley hanging out, it would turn me off, not in >regard to him as artist, but to him as a performer of his art. what if he were using it to tease really funky sounds out of his geetar? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:34:58 EST From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #354 In a message dated 12/4/00 12:16:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: > From: "Yudt.Matthew" > Subject: Environmental Hitchcock (I mean Health) > > Hello fegs. > Regarding a few recent posts containg words like "dioxin" and > "endocrine disruptors" I have taken it upon myself to share > information with you. To those of you who don't care - sorry, but > others seemed knowledgeable and interested (or just interested) so I > thought I'd put some taxpayer (U.S.) money to use and post some > info-links. Since I work here at the Nat'l Inst. of Env. Health > Sciences it represents the FIRST time I can post to this list AND do > my job at the same time! Thank you for this opportunity. > > Dioxins: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oc/factsheets/dioxin.htm > > Endocrine Disruptors: > http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/topic/endodisrupt.html > > or just visit the home site and browse around: > http://www.niehs.nih.gov/ > well, since Matthew (welcome!) was kind enough to start this thread (at least for me, I have a lot of catching up to do), I thought a few of you might be interested in how I spent my birthday, especially since it didn't seem to get much press coverage. I was in Louisiana at one of the top dioxin producers in the country: PPG, Pittsburgh Paint and glass, in Lake Charles (not in Cancer Alley, they need a better publicist.) I was in a greenpeace action where we blockaded two railroad tracks going to the mercury cell where they produce PVC, trichloroethylene, and perchloroethylene. One track was blockaded by a school bus with a giant stop sign on it and acticists (GP and local) chained to it, all coordinated by my old lady Amy. The second was blockaded by the Greenpeace coach Terrapin, on its retirement run. I was blockaded into the cargo bay with another person (from Seattle) with a few days worth of food, protective equipment, some books, and a chess set. It was small, and I'm claustrophobic (not as much any more...) but we prevented a bit of dioxin before the US wnet to SOuth Afrcia to ruin the POPs treaty talks, so it was worth it. And, oh well, we were only in the bunker for 8 hours, rather than the 3 days we were prepared for. It's amazing how much damage two jackehammers, a jaws of life, four sawzalls and a bunch of beefy Bubbas with sledgehammers can do to even the most fortified construction. RH content: I was contemplating the song "I often dream of trains" as they jackhammered me out before dragging me out by my feet. that is all. dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:43:08 -0800 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: while my guitar gently gets off At 01:27 PM 12/4/00 -0800, Asshole Motherfucker wrote: > >Though I have to admit that if I went to a show and a male performer > >came on stage with his dangley hanging out, it would turn me off, >not in > >regard to him as artist, but to him as a performer of his art. > >what if he were using it to tease really funky sounds out of his geetar? There was a discussion recently, either on the loopers list or the David Torn list, about the use of dildos as sustaining devices for guitars. Torn himself utilized one for this purpose. I don't think a real schlong would have the same effect. Unless maybe you've had a lot of caffeine. - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 16:49:51 -0500 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: boobs are us >>Though I have to admit that if I went to a show and a male performer >>came on stage with his dangley hanging out, it would turn me off, >not in >>regard to him as artist, but to him as a performer of his art. > >what if he were using it to tease really funky sounds out of his geetar? i believe the official term for that is wanking. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:03:21 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: boobs are us > >Though I have to admit that if I went to a show and a male performer > >came on stage with his dangley hanging out, it would turn me off, > not in > >regard to him as artist, but to him as a performer of his art. > > what if he were using it to tease really funky sounds out of his geetar? Like wacking the headstock or along the neck and whispering "who's your daddy?". You know what I'll be doing when I get home. I'll make sure the tape is rolling. ;-} gss ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:13:32 -0800 (PST) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: a waitress in a cocktail bar > From: The Great Quail > of Conformity, and only the Goths ever seemed to steer away from the > fellow win the tie-die-- which made me enjoy it all the more. It's a primal fear thing. I feel it too. > Reed because I hate the name "Lou," and I still have no interest in > "The Archers of Loaf." Or "Fountains of Wayne." Or the "Afghan Whigs." I would have loved Jonathan Fire*Eater even if I hadn't, though. > Yes! Yes! Yes! I thought I was the only crazy one who "sees" color in > music! A whole album is definitely affected by the dominant color > scheme of the cover, even a black and white photograph..... I got an advance dub of _Under the Pink_ well before it came out (you people probably do this all the time, but it was novel for me). It was a white cassette lettered in green. It was very jarring when the album came out and was gray. The music all sounds like rain to me now. I was actually expecting vivid pinks or oranges from the drab _Boys for Pele_. > From: Christopher Gross > Subject: Re: The Trickster > > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Asshole Motherfucker wrote: > > > can there be such a thing as non-gratuitous use of boobs on an album > > cover? is it possible, in other words, that without the boobs on > > the album cover, the contents of the album would be completely > meaningless? > > Lords of Acid, _Voodoo-U_ (1994). Oh, you're still talking about breasts! I was going to answer "any Cinderella album." Actually it would apply in either case. Mmmmm... Keiferlicious. > From: Asshole Motherfucker > or let's even take it to film. you can't live three seconds without > hearing somebody complaining about "gratuitous nudity" this, and > "gratuitous nudity" that. is there any nude scene in any movie in > which the nudity in non-gratuitous? okay, The Crying Game. *perhaps* > Blue Velvet. probably are some others. but damned few. certainly > not The Piano, for example. actually, i guess there's a pretty easy > litmus test: if they cut the offending shots for broadcast teevee, > would it render the movie "indecipherable"? Nudity or sexual content can have artistic justification without being "gratuitous." Just because you could do/understand the scene without it doesn't mean the scene would be the same either way. Seeing Harvey Keitel in the altogether with Holly Hunter changes _The Piano_; the film wouldn't be quite the same without it. You might think it's a poor artistic choice but it's not inconsequential. I must turn again to our dear friend Prince and the cover of _Lovesexy_. What's the cover like if instead of Prince it's a flower or something? How might that change your perception of what's gonna be inside? [Viv] > Drew isn't implying that Rufus needs to change his behavior, He does! He needs cheeseburgers! Badly! > From: The Great Quail > Or would Ralph Nader exert any > authority with see-through ass-pants? What a fabulous sentence! Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:32:07 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: red red red red red + 85% Ebmaniax content Blatzman: >A third factor. For many big films, there are gross profit >participants. These folks, typically the really heavy hitters like >Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford, and Michael Crichton, get a percentage >of all money collected by the distributor. I figure Lorne Michaels also must be in this bracket, which explains why he keeps pumping out these *dreadful* SNL-derived films. What does it matter if he keeps trashing the film careers of his outgoing SNL stars? He's guaranteed a chunk o' dough off the top! Grr. Pardon my gripe...he's a pet peeve of mine, nowadays. Interesting post, Blatzy. You often say things which grate on me, but since you're actually *in* the film business, I think Jeme's way out of his depth arguing with you on this particular issue. - ---- The Go-Betweens show, in shorthand: The Knitting Factory: in the heart of Hollywood Boulevard's tourist block, on a Saturday night. People everywhere. Just half a block up the street, Disney's El Capitan Theater is doing a major hype job for "102 Dalmatians." Huge line, out front. Next door is a temporary installment called "The Dog House" -- sort of a dalmatian-themed carnival in an adjunct to the theater. On my way back to my car later, I walked in and took a look, but was quickly booted out. Turns out you needed a ticket, even in there. Oh, and I saw plenty of people with black spots painted on their faces. Eeeeek. Even saw one woman on the street, walking a real dalmatian. Franklin Bruno opened for the Go-Betweens: Arrrgh, there's that whiny little toad again. This particular setlist didn't irk me quite as much, for whatever reason. It was him, plus an upright-bass player. Obviously excited to be opening for a band he admires. Go-Betweens: only three of them. Disappointing. Grant and Robert, plus a female bassist/backing singer. Surprised there was no drummer. Was hoping for the full experience this time, after seeing Grant and Robert as a self-named duo several months ago. Good music, nevertheless. Not much of a visual/performance component, but that's hardly unexpected, is it? The crowd: Ohhh, what an odd combination of emotions were in my head. Firstly, the Go-Betweens audience was like being at a high-school reunion. The previous '80s generation of clubgoers. All these vaguely familiar faces whom I used to see in clubs 10 years ago, but hadn't seen since. "Oh yeah...THAT guy!" I'm sure they thought the same of me. In fact, I talked to Jenny Homer (the one-time, remarkable singer of Downy Mildew, a horrendously underrated, forgotten band who should've rode the success of 10,000 Maniacs and 4AD acts to late-'80s stardom...) and she even *said* I looked familiar. Support for my longstanding nightclub theory: If they look familiar to you, you must look familiar to them. ;) Hadn't seen her in years either, though (as I recently stated) I've seen Downy Mildew more than almost any other band, partially due to being wildly head over heels for a huge DM fan back in the day. So, there was that element...*plus* the Knitting Factory's outer bar was just *stuffed* with the chic, dressy Latino dance-music crowd. What a strange clash of cultures. So, one could leave behind the gentle, all-acoustic Go-Betweens and return to the bar, where high-gloss salsa-pop and things were blasting as exuberant Saturday-night partiers (*all* in sleek, black suits and black cocktail dresses) boogied and looked for nookie. I'm sure Jeme would've pulled out a machete and started hacking his way through the crowd, Indiana Jones-style. Eventually, the doorman to the performance room stopped doing his job, and this crowd started filtering in and out of the room in small numbers and talking *way too loudly*. People kept "SHHHH"-ing between songs. Bizarre. It sorta helped the show in a way though, because the crowd seemed really *alive*. I believe the group did three encores, because the applause was so loud (even if some of the applauders may not have had a clue who the band was). Anyway, I have never felt so "single" at a concert in my life, if you know what I mean. I was right in the heart of the meat market. Heck, a strange woman even started a conversation with me. What could she have been thinking?? ;) OBstarf*cking content: When I entered the performance room, I held the door open for the girl behind me (notorious gentleman that I am), and she turned out to be Sara Rue, the actress who plays Carmen on the TV show "Popular." (She was also Grace's little sister on a recent "Will & Grace" episode which I unfortunately happened to catch.) You might remember that I also spotted her amidst the Spinal Tap crowd, two months ago. Anyway, we ended up chatting several times throughout the night. Very nice girl. After our first exchange, she even came back to me a bit later and initiated another conversation. I was quite impressed that a 21-year-old showbiz actress would be hip to a cultish, '80s-generation band like the Go-Betweens. She must be wise beyond her years. ;) Yesterday, I looked up her acting credits on the IMDB site, and the only "Biographical Trivia" included was that she collects/plays vintage guitars. Huh! Anyway, I'm shortchanging this anecdote's entertainment value, but that's the breaks. Time's a-wastin'. Eb (fool, buffoon, trickster, sexist, etc.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:38:44 -0600 From: Gene Hopstetter Subject: Anybody got Careful, She's Got Them Boobie's first album? From: "Brian Huddell" >Careful, she's got them boobies. Finally! The band name I've dreamt of! Thanks! "Red Planet"? Absolutely hated it. Worse than "Misson to Mars". I'm almost afraid to go to movies now. When, oh when will somebody make an intelligent science fiction movie again? Oh well, I've always got Netflix.com. I cannot wait to see "2001" when it's rereleased next year. Oh man, is that gonna rock. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 17:43:44 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: lennon tributes this is from ross... >From: overbury@cn.ca >To: woj sven-woj >Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:56:12 -0500 >Subject: Forward to the list for me? >Reply-to: overbury@cn.ca > >>From: "Russ Reynolds" > >>Fegs, > >>I'd like to call upon your vast musical knowledge to help me >>assemble a collection of Lennon tribute songs. > >Ellis Paul - "Who Killed John Lennon" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 18:56:08 -0500 (EST) From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: grrr > > Fair goddesses. And jeebus, girl, fasten a couple more buttons on your > > shirt! I grew weary of those oppressive udders. This bothers me the more I think about it. So Martha Wainwright, a respectable musician who happens to be female and perhaps plumper than average (I haven't seen her picture) decides to show some cleavage onstage. All of a sudden, she is no longer respectable. She is no longer even HUMAN. She's a BARNYARD ANIMAL. Folks, this isn't just a matter of "Gosh, she sure looked goofy with all that cleavage showing." This is HATE, pure and simple - hate and disgust towards women's bodies and women's sexuality. Would Eb have referred to a man as a barnyard animal if he took his shirt off onstage? I doubt it. Only women get that treatment - only women are reduced to animals when they dare to express themselves with anything other than with perfect modest decorum. Perhaps Eb would have been happier - and less threatened - - if Ms. Wainwright had dressed in full Muslin body and face veils, so he wouldn't have to see her vile "udders" and disgusting, less-than-stick-thin body. If Eb talked about black people the way he talks about women, he would have been hounded off this list a long time ago. Imagine what would happen if Eb compared a black musician to an animal (say, an ape) simply because he was black. We'd never hear the end of it. But when a woman is referred to as a cow, that's apparently just fine and dandy. Eb, Martha Wainwright is not a barnyard animal. But misogynists like you certainly come close. oink oink, n. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:31:23 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: 1 Re: It's a small Red Planet after all, it's a small small Red Planet On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: > << Home video: 46.6% > TV: 28.8% > Theatrical box office: 24.6% >> > > Can I reason then that if a film doesn't make 25% of it's total cost in > theatrical release, that it will lose money? No. Note that this is total revenue breakdown for the studio, not breakdown for a particular film. Just a few years ago, as you stated, these numbers were wildly different, showing much more of the reveneue dependent on theatrical box office. Why has that changed? Because video distribution of old films is growing, of course. The MPAA affiliated studios have a MASSIVE backlog of old work that is still 100% exclusively their domain and most of the people associated with the production of many of those works are Dead. The only additional cost is distribution and the rest is gravy. > What your saying is Red Planet didn't make enough in it's theatrical > run to break even over the life of the film. Your numbers only > bolster my argument that it is very easy for a film not to break even. I'm saying that Red Planet's revenue distribution does not mirror that of the studios as a whole and no particular film does because MOST of the films providing that revenue ended their initial release more than ten years ago. On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: > Today I looked into what it takes for a film to break even. The first > place I looked basically confirmed everything I learned on the > subject. It's always nice when you find justification for your beliefs in the first place you look. > So, since this list has been polluted with misinformation, I am > posting an article on what it takes to break even at the box office. And did you cite your references? What you have posted here is from the rec.arts.movies.current-releases FAQ. It was written by a fellow named Peter Reiher whose homepage is here: You'll see that he's an adjunct professor of computer science at UCLA. Surely that's authoritative. > Take note of certain subjects, such as :DOMESTIC BOX OFFICE DRIVES > REVENUE IN ALL OTHER MARKETS. That means it's next to impossible to > turn a disasterous domestic box office run into a video goldmine. Again, it's hardly a credible source. I'm not saying I am much MORE credible (nor are you), but it's hardly outside verification of your theories and it blatantly disregards ongoing revenue beyond the first five or ten years of distribution. Remember that the studio owns that flick forEVER under the current regime. > Clearly then, Red Planets $25 Million Return on a 75 Million Dollar > film spells disaster for the studio. That is what is called a Loss. Let's go WAY out on a limb and assume that your "article" was totally accurate. What this fellow says is that domestic BO, foreign BO, and video distribution make up roughly thirds... so a US$25M domestic for a US$75M film would break dead even... plus have eighty more years of paying off the man. And the film is considered a flop. > This film will never be profitable. Never is a big word. > By the way, you're just being argumentative and moronic when you say > stupid things like "People saw this film on video first, so it > shouldn't be up for and Academy Award". I'm not at all being argumentative. The Academy Award rules say that a film distributed over the internet is not elligible... there is no provision for how it is screened to the public. This is a comment ONLY on the distribution method. That's discriminatory and designed to keep people working on low budgets locked out. Remember that the internet is just a network of networks and is not equal to home users and their web browsers. There are other protocols, other applications, and whole other user sets. Internet distribution doesn't REQUIRE that a film be shown in a web browser or in a particular format, resolution, or bandwidth. > The rules allow for this, and if you've ever been in an edit bay you'd > understand why this is necessary. I spent two years of my life in an edit bay. If you've ever spent any time analyzing backbone internet traffic at interexchange points, you'd realize what I'm saying about internet distribution being distinct from any particular viewing method. > A film needs to have it's first public perfomance in a theater. > Public performance is what drives the rule, and you know it, so don't > be stupid. And internet distribution doesn't preclude public performance. You're the one being stupid. [Phew, gotta love that name calling.] On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Eb wrote: > Interesting post, Blatzy. You often say things which grate on me, but > since you're actually *in* the film business, I think Jeme's way out > of his depth arguing with you on this particular issue. Um, Blatz is editting a low budget film. He's in the BUSINESS of cutting low budget commercials for regional distribution. I worked on a commercial cut and shoot done in thirteen countries and have put together SuperBowl spots. (Incidentally, you can pretty clearly make out my voice-over even though my face was cut in the Li'L Penny "Could you DO that for a brotha?" spot back in 1997.) I've worked in the production crew for a few local low-budget pictures, done accounting work for a movie theater, and spent maybe three weeks fooling around with the cast and crew of My Own Private Idaho on the set in high school. And I wouldn't ever have said I was in the film business. My most important point, which is being ignored, is that the studios make most of their money in the LONG term. If all of their money was earned back in the first eighteen months of a film's release, why would they fight so tenaciously for things like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act? I'm done with the topic. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:24:29 -0800 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: a waitress in a cocktail bar well, by this logic you could argue that there's no such thing as "gratuitous nudity". *any* nudity (or any other, uh, extraneous signal) will "change your perception of what's gonna be inside". which is fine, i guess. i mean, it doesn't matter one whit (in my opinion) whether some, uh, extraneous signal -- regardless of its artistic merit -- does or does not meet the textbook definition of "gratuitous". i just think the phrase is used far too casually, is all. hmmm...that's really more an indictment of everybody else on the list (those -- including the women -- who haven't to-date hounded him off this list) than it is of eb, yes? if so (and speaking only for myself), i certainly wouldn't want *anyone* muzzled for expressing *any* opinion -- no matter how strongly i might disagree with it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 19:35:12 -0500 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: Sushi - ----- Quail: ...Wednesday nights are for Missouri brain sandwiches. - ----- Now with pumice! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 19:38:38 -0500 From: overbury@cn.ca Subject: John Lennon Story Eleanore said: >Finished watching the john lennen story on NBC, while my husband >finished watching the Dune mini series on SCI Fi. The lennon story >was not well acted, but was entertaining for a sunday night, and I >never seem to tire of hearing the story of how the beatles formed. >i would give it 2 stars. Last night presented a difficult choice: first the Lennon story, then an hour later, both McCartney live at the Cavern and "John Lennon's Year of Peace" a documentary of the events centred around the 1970 bed-ins at Toronto and Montreal. Too bad it was on CBC; it might have helped Jeme understand Lennon's impact on the youth of the day. PS: I *know* you all miss me, but you're not going to say so because I'd get all choked up. - -- Dimpled Chad ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:07:45 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Sci Fi Gene writes, >"Red Planet"? Absolutely hated it. Worse than "Misson to Mars". I'm >almost afraid to go to movies now. Hmmm... I liked it. I thought it was a fairly intelligent and well-made SF adventure story. I pretty much agree with Ebert's review: http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/red10f.html But what the hell, no one respects my movie opinions anyway -- not since my defense of The Big Boat Movie! > When, oh when will somebody make an >intelligent science fiction movie again? Now that's a damn good question! I really can't think of any excellent-grade SF movies to come out in the last few years. I mean, I certainly liked The Matrix, Existenz, Dark City, Red Planet, and a few others -- but it would be nice to see something *serious,* something, well, *literate* and well-made, like 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Bladerunner, Alien, or even the Abyss. By the way, have you been watching "Dune" on the SciFi Channel? It's been pretty good! Not as visually stunning as the Lynch film, but more genuine and comprehensible.... - --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #356 *******************************