MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

More likely, you're on drugs made from plants in Columbia.

"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

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

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


I agree!


RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Actually, let me
know if you read any King or even Alan Dean Foster movie novels!


King??? Don't wait up for my reply!


Regards


Donal
--

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:29:42 -0000, "Donal" wrote:


"MC" wrote in message
...


Donal wrote:



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


Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the
'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content
level a film generally contians far more data than a book.

I only consider the "experience".

I am not one of the literatii. I believe that a book, or film, should
entertain, or inform.


What about inspire, invigorate, motivate or otherwise move you?

I would suggest that they could all be covered by "entertain, or inform".
However, I do agree that they merit special mention.


I was attempting to distinguish the technical aspects of a film's production
from the viewable result of the technicians' efforts.
IMHO, you should be unaware of the "effects" while you are watching a movie.




I have never seen a film that entertained me more than the book. In
fact,
whenever I have seen the film of a book that I have read, it was a total
dissappointment.


In many cases, if you saw the movie first and then read the book, you
would
think the book didn't live up to the movie.

That's possible. However, usually the book contains much more than the
film.



IMHO, the cinematography and special effects should compliment the film
in a
totally passive way.


??? Is art worthless and meaningless?

No.

Are you one of those nitwits who think
that if it doesn't rhyme it's not poetry,

No, although some people produce meaningless jumbles of words, and call them
poetry.
I do enjoy that Japanese form of poetry (13 sylabills?) that doesn't seem to
rhyme at all.

and that you could throw paint on a
canvas as well as those no-talent artists represtented in the MOMA?

I get angry about the UK's Turner Prize. Piles of bricks, unmade beds,
and dead sheep are not art to me.

I must also admit that I don't understand Van Gogh. A field of yellow
flowers either looks accurate, or it looks like a smudge. However, when I
saw my wife's reaction to that painting, I recognised that she was affected
in the same way that a piece of music can affect me. I guess that our
brains are wired differently. We all respond to different things.





Regards


Donal
--

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
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.

Absolutely.

If you are watching a movie, and you are aware of the effects, then the
movie must be boring.


Regards


Donal
--

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

IMHO, you should be unaware of the "effects" while you are watching a movie.


Yeah...like in Blade Runner where everyone was CERTAIN the Spinners could
really fly....or in Frankenstein where Karloff just had a bad hair day...or in
Jurassic Park....yeah those were real T-Rexes!!! Sure...all poor films because
of attention drawn to elements that were obvious effects. Might as well throw
Citizen Kane in with it's myriad of easily spotted opticals! Oh...and let's not
forget King Kong where that was so clearly a real ape!

Donal, you are truly a moron! Bwahahahaha!

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

If you are watching a movie, and you are aware of the effects, then the
movie must be boring.


Star Wars? You weren't aware of the effects? You were bored? How about Alien?
You are one unsophisticated dude. You can't observe obvious effects artistry
AND enjoy a film? Let's give Donal some gum to chew and he'll pass right out!!!

Bwahahahahahaha! Kaching!

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

Actually Donal is not a real moron. It's done with special effects so well that
you can't tell the difference.


Wow! Seamless! Now that's art!


RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
IMHO, you should be unaware of the "effects" while you are watching a
movie.


Yeah...like in Blade Runner where everyone was CERTAIN the Spinners could
really fly....or in Frankenstein where Karloff just had a bad hair
day...or in
Jurassic Park....yeah those were real T-Rexes!!! Sure...all poor films
because
of attention drawn to elements that were obvious effects.

What a complete twit you are!

If the effects were any good, then you would believe that the dinosaurs
were real! You shouldn't have time to sit there and wonder at the amazing
effects.



Might as well throw
Citizen Kane in with it's myriad of easily spotted opticals! Oh...and
let's not
forget King Kong where that was so clearly a real ape!

Times move on, Bob!

Regards


Donal
--

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

If the effects were any good, then you would believe that the dinosaurs
were real!


Ohhhhhhhhh.....so if the effects looked real, you would have thought the T-Rex
was real.
I see.

You did this to yourself. I didn't even provide the rope!

RB