MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
but much better for 'making out'.


Agreed! Oh yes. Memories - ahhhhh!

Regards


Lanod(e)
--
(pronounciaton)

"Lanod" wrote

Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the
brilliance
of a good book.

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

If you are reduced to admiring the technical production of a movie,


Wow, what a one dimensional view of the cinematic artform.
The truth is that film is a melding of many arts and a sophisticated viewer
(which clearly Donal is not) can observe and enjoy the elements without
disturbing the work as a whole.

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

Now, Jaws the movie is clearly a better artistic achievment than the book


You read Jaws the book??

You are obviously a man of culture!

Taken in on it's own level, Jaws is well written and a lot of fun. I read many
types of fiction just as I watch many genre of film.
Donal, the more you write on this matter, the more you expose yourself as a
simp.
Best let it go. Get back to me if you ever read any Dickens. Actually, let me
know if you read any King or even Alan Dean Foster movie novels!

Bwahahahahaha!

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

Still, Donal's idea of comparing the film to the book is pretty sophmoric
stuff.

Huh?


And there you have it.

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
If you are reduced to admiring the technical production of a movie,


Wow, what a one dimensional view of the cinematic artform.
The truth is that film is a melding of many arts and a sophisticated
viewer
(which clearly Donal is not) can observe and enjoy the elements without
disturbing the work as a whole.

Pshycobabble!

A film is something that you watch. It is either entertaining, or it is
not.

If you have to comment on the technical aspects of a movie, then it must
have been a pile of crap.

Regards


Donal
--

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

Pretentious little prick, ain't he.


"Bobsprit" wrote ...

Wow, what a one dimensional view of the cinematic artform.
The truth is that film is a melding of many arts and a sophisticated
viewer
(which clearly Donal is not) can observe and enjoy the elements without
disturbing the work as a whole.

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

(which clearly Donal is not) can observe and enjoy the elements without
disturbing the work as a whole.

Pshycobabble!


In other words, poor Mighty Joe Young doesn't savy the cinematic arts.
Have another banana, Donal.

Bwahahahaha!

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

If you have to comment on the technical aspects of a movie, then it must
have been a pile of crap.


"Have" to comment? Poor Donal.

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

On 08 Jan 2004 22:46:24 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

Now, Jaws the movie is clearly a better artistic achievment than the book


You read Jaws the book??

You are obviously a man of culture!

Taken in on it's own level, Jaws is well written and a lot of fun. I read many
types of fiction just as I watch many genre of film.
Donal, the more you write on this matter, the more you expose yourself as a
simp.
Best let it go. Get back to me if you ever read any Dickens. Actually, let me
know if you read any King or even Alan Dean Foster movie novels!

Bwahahahahaha!

RB


Nobody can write a book from a screenplay better than Alan Dean
Foster!
IMO, of course. :o)
Mark E. Williams

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

You're living in the 20th century. This is the 21st.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Paramountly!!!

Funny - very punny indeed- you old fox!


My sense of humor is always Universal. At least we're United on that
point.

RB