Perhaps a bit off-topic for .written, but I went to see
Dune 2 last weekend. I quite enjoyed it (orders of magnitude
better than the the 1984 version with Sting, and better than
the 2000 miniseries).

It was an adept telling of the second half of the first novel,
terminating with the emperor kneeling to Muad'dib.

The best part was Paul's first worm-ride (done as a practical
effect rather than visual magic), but the rest of the film
(aside the modern cinemetographic tendancy to poor contrast
and lighting - not as bad as the first film, but still)
was excellent.

The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
one of which I think should not have been made in this time
and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
premiers.

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Perhaps a bit off-topic for .written, but I went to see
> Dune 2 last weekend. I quite enjoyed it (orders of magnitude
> better than the the 1984 version with Sting, and better than
> the 2000 miniseries).
>
> It was an adept telling of the second half of the first novel,
> terminating with the emperor kneeling to Muad'dib.
>
> The best part was Paul's first worm-ride (done as a practical
> effect rather than visual magic), but the rest of the film
> (aside the modern cinemetographic tendancy to poor contrast
> and lighting - not as bad as the first film, but still)
> was excellent.
>
> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
> premiers.
>

Thank you for the review. I agree, I think the series so far is way better
than the 1984 and 2000 ones and will look forward to see nr 2 in a few
weeks or so.

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
> premiers.

I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.

john

John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>> premiers.
>
>I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.

Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
to, and which I have no desire to promote.

On 3/6/2024 1:04 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Perhaps a bit off-topic for .written, but I went to see
> Dune 2 last weekend. I quite enjoyed it (orders of magnitude
> better than the the 1984 version with Sting, and better than
> the 2000 miniseries).
>
> It was an adept telling of the second half of the first novel,
> terminating with the emperor kneeling to Muad'dib.
>
> The best part was Paul's first worm-ride (done as a practical
> effect rather than visual magic), but the rest of the film
> (aside the modern cinemetographic tendancy to poor contrast
> and lighting - not as bad as the first film, but still)
> was excellent.
>
> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
> premiers.

I saw it on Friday at a high-end modern cinema - it definitely
benefits from a big screen and an excellent sound system.

It was much more engrossing than most movies, and a great
break from the MCU. I did watch Part One a couple days earlier,
which helped too.

No, it's not completely faithful to the text, but as its own
thing, it was captivating.

pt

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>>> premiers.
>>
>>I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
>
> Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
> to, and which I have no desire to promote.

I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
discussion? In short, who gives a shit?

john

John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>>>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>>>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>>>> premiers.
>>>
>>>I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
>>
>> Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
>> to, and which I have no desire to promote.
>
>I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
>existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
>what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
>discussion? In short, who gives a shit?

someone, I hope.

On 3/6/2024 12:04 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Perhaps a bit off-topic for .written, but I went to see
> Dune 2 last weekend. I quite enjoyed it (orders of magnitude
> better than the the 1984 version with Sting, and better than
> the 2000 miniseries).
>
> It was an adept telling of the second half of the first novel,
> terminating with the emperor kneeling to Muad'dib.
>
> The best part was Paul's first worm-ride (done as a practical
> effect rather than visual magic), but the rest of the film
> (aside the modern cinemetographic tendancy to poor contrast
> and lighting - not as bad as the first film, but still)
> was excellent.
>
> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
> premiers.

Thanks ! My 85 year old Dad and I are going to see it on Friday.

I am hoping for a complete series.

Lynn

In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>>>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>>>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>>>> premiers.
>>>
>>>I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
>>
>> Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
>> to, and which I have no desire to promote.
>
>I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
>existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
>what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
>discussion? In short, who gives a shit?

I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than
another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another Ghostbusters
film?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 3/6/2024 5:54 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
> John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>>>>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>>>>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>>>>> premiers.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
>>>
>>> Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
>>> to, and which I have no desire to promote.
>>
>> I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
>> existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
>> what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
>> discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
>
> I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than
> another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another Ghostbusters
> film?
> --scott

He is complaining about "Civil War".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0

Lynn

In article <usavo8$1cp$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
>John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>>>>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>>>>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>>>>> premiers.
>>>>
>>>>I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
>>>
>>> Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
>>> to, and which I have no desire to promote.
>>
>>I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
>>existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
>>what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
>>discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
>
>I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than
>another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another Ghostbusters
>film?
>--scott

Presumably, as the last was pretty entertaining.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 3/6/2024 6:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/6/2024 5:54 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
>> John  <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>>>>>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>>>>>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>>>>>> premiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
>>>> to, and which I have no desire to promote.
>>>
>>> I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
>>> existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
>>> what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
>>> discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
>>
>> I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than
>> another Ghostbusters film?  Can anything be any worse than another
>> Ghostbusters
>> film?
>> --scott
>
> He is complaining about "Civil War".
>    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
>
> Lynn
>

Thanks. I had no idea since that preview wasn't shown when I went.

On 3/6/2024 6:06 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/6/2024 12:04 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Perhaps a bit off-topic for .written, but I went to see
>> Dune 2 last weekend.  I quite enjoyed it (orders of magnitude
>> better than the the 1984 version with Sting, and better than
>> the 2000 miniseries).
>>
>> It was an adept telling of the second half of the first novel,
>> terminating with the emperor kneeling to Muad'dib.
>>
>> The best part was Paul's first worm-ride (done as a practical
>> effect rather than visual magic), but the rest of the film
>> (aside the modern cinemetographic tendancy to poor contrast
>> and lighting - not as bad as the first film, but still)
>> was excellent.
>>
>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>> premiers.
>
> Thanks !  My 85 year old Dad and I are going to see it on Friday.
>
> I am hoping for a complete series.

The director definitely want to do Dune Messiah.

But after that, who knows. Things get weird with
half-worm half human rulers, and gholas.

pt

On 6 Mar 2024 23:54:48 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
>John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>>>>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>>>>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>>>>> premiers.
>>>>
>>>>I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
>>>
>>> Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
>>> to, and which I have no desire to promote.
>>
>>I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
>>existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
>>what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
>>discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
>
>I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than
>another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another Ghostbusters
>film?

There are a lot of ... imaginative ... filmmakers out there.

Be careful what you wish for! Or even ask about!
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 7 Mar 2024 01:32:53 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
wrote:

>In article <usavo8$1cp$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
>>John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>>>>>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>>>>>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>>>>>> premiers.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
>>>> to, and which I have no desire to promote.
>>>
>>>I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
>>>existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
>>>what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
>>>discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
>>
>>I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than
>>another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another Ghostbusters
>>film?
>>--scott
>
>Presumably, as the last was pretty entertaining.

If you mean the one with the grandkids -- yes, actually, it was.

But, for me, it failed when the Originals had to show up to save the
day.

If I'm going to watch a film about kid Ghostbusters, I want it to be
about their triumph, not their rescue.

It was nice to see the originals once again, I must admit.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:04:21 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Perhaps a bit off-topic for .written, but I went to see
>Dune 2 last weekend. I quite enjoyed it (orders of magnitude
>better than the the 1984 version with Sting, and better than
>the 2000 miniseries).
>
>It was an adept telling of the second half of the first novel,
>terminating with the emperor kneeling to Muad'dib.
>
>The best part was Paul's first worm-ride (done as a practical
>effect rather than visual magic), but the rest of the film
>(aside the modern cinemetographic tendancy to poor contrast
>and lighting - not as bad as the first film, but still)
>was excellent.

I'll be seeing it when I can rent it from Amazon for a reasonable
price. Or it goes to Prime or Netflix.

I'm not clear on the "practical effect rather than visual magic".
Surely they didn't find a Worm and use it! Did they construct a
complete, full-size animatronic Worm? Or was it all of three inches
long?

The 1984 Worm looked pretty "practical" to me so, if it wasn't, it was
well-done.

One of the special features on the /Wild Wild West/ DVD (I went
through two of them and no disc versions appear to be available)
mentioned that they actually constructed one of the spider's legs. Out
of iron, as shown in the film. It was so heavy that it was clear that
such a spider simply couldn't have been built -- in 1869.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

In article <o6rjui547t7vu27pc112rsfllh0gm3gvg2@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On 7 Mar 2024 01:32:53 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <usavo8$1cp$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In article <86sf1357cv.fsf@building-m.net>,
>>>John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> writes:
>>>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>>>> The only sour note was during the previews before the film,
>>>>>>> one of which I think should not have been made in this time
>>>>>>> and place, and which I hope bombs at the box office when it
>>>>>>> premiers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree, nobody wanted *another* Ghostbusters movie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, that's minor compared to the one I was obliquely referring
>>>>> to, and which I have no desire to promote.
>>>>
>>>>I know, I was making fun of you for complaining about a movie whose
>>>>existence you consider so bad that you daren't speak its name... like
>>>>what are we supposed to take from that? What's it add to this
>>>>discussion? In short, who gives a shit?
>>>
>>>I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than
>>>another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another
>Ghostbusters
>>>film?
>>>--scott
>>
>>Presumably, as the last was pretty entertaining.
>
>If you mean the one with the grandkids -- yes, actually, it was.

Yeah, that one. As PitchMeeting mentioned, the teen boy was kind of
useless, but I really liked the grandaughter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeDx92783us
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:04:21 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Perhaps a bit off-topic for .written, but I went to see
>>Dune 2 last weekend. I quite enjoyed it (orders of magnitude
>>better than the the 1984 version with Sting, and better than
>>the 2000 miniseries).
>>
>>It was an adept telling of the second half of the first novel,
>>terminating with the emperor kneeling to Muad'dib.
>>
>>The best part was Paul's first worm-ride (done as a practical
>>effect rather than visual magic), but the rest of the film
>>(aside the modern cinemetographic tendancy to poor contrast
>>and lighting - not as bad as the first film, but still)
>>was excellent.
>
>I'll be seeing it when I can rent it from Amazon for a reasonable
>price. Or it goes to Prime or Netflix.
>
>I'm not clear on the "practical effect rather than visual magic".
>Surely they didn't find a Worm and use it! Did they construct a
>complete, full-size animatronic Worm? Or was it all of three inches
>long?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvBqDnNJKno

Jay E. Morris wrote:
> On 3/6/2024 6:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>>
>> He is complaining about "Civil War".
>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0

Normally I would click on that link.

But after recent experience, I fear that my normal selection of videos
on music, chess, SF, History, Mathematics, Science would be replaced by
more whiny neckbeard guys complaining about Abraham Lincoln.

And I have more than enough of those.

Oh for the days when you could tell youtube that you did not want a
certain video to influence your selections. What a paradise we lived
in long ago in 2016! You try telling that to kids today!

William Hyde

In article <usdevf$19frs$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jay E. Morris wrote:
>> On 3/6/2024 6:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>>>
>>> He is complaining about "Civil War".
>>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
>
>
>Normally I would click on that link.
>
>But after recent experience, I fear that my normal selection of videos
>on music, chess, SF, History, Mathematics, Science would be replaced by
>more whiny neckbeard guys complaining about Abraham Lincoln.
>
>And I have more than enough of those.
>
>Oh for the days when you could tell youtube that you did not want a
>certain video to influence your selections. What a paradise we lived
>in long ago in 2016! You try telling that to kids today!
>
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8fJPvXyfc0

Of course you'll probably get more, but that's not a bad thing for Ryan George
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 2024-03-07, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> He is complaining about "Civil War".
>>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
>
> Normally I would click on that link.
>
> But after recent experience, I fear that my normal selection of videos
> on music, chess, SF, History, Mathematics, Science would be replaced by
> more whiny neckbeard guys complaining about Abraham Lincoln.

That's why you open a new browser window in private mode to watch
random YouTube videos.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

William Hyde wrote:

> Jay E. Morris wrote:
> > On 3/6/2024 6:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
> > >
> > > He is complaining about "Civil War".
> > >     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
>
>
> Normally I would click on that link.
>
> But after recent experience, I fear that my normal selection of
> videos on music, chess, SF, History, Mathematics, Science would be
> replaced by more whiny neckbeard guys complaining about Abraham
> Lincoln.

Two ways to deal with that.

1. Open the video in a private window. This won't work if you need to
be signed in to see it.

2. Go to your history and delete that video from it.

Brian

In article <usdevf$19frs$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jay E. Morris wrote:
> > On 3/6/2024 6:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
> >>
> >> He is complaining about "Civil War".
> >>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
>
>
> Normally I would click on that link.
>
> But after recent experience, I fear that my normal selection of videos
> on music, chess, SF, History, Mathematics, Science would be replaced by
> more whiny neckbeard guys complaining about Abraham Lincoln.
>

It is a movie soon to be released; a very stupid one (that has little to
do with Abraham Lincoln), I believe that there is a Wikipedia article on
it.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/6/2024 5:54 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea what this film is but, really, can it be any worse than
>> another Ghostbusters film? Can anything be any worse than another Ghostbusters
>> film?
>
>He is complaining about "Civil War".
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0

Okay, yeah, that could be worse than another Ghostbusters film.

When I was booking films for Arisia, one of the film distributors tried to
interest me in some new blockbuster film. "What is it about?" I asked.
"It's about things blowing up," he answered. And it was.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Default User wrote:
> William Hyde wrote:
>
>> Jay E. Morris wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2024 6:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> He is complaining about "Civil War".
>>>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0
>>
>>
>> Normally I would click on that link.
>>
>> But after recent experience, I fear that my normal selection of
>> videos on music, chess, SF, History, Mathematics, Science would be
>> replaced by more whiny neckbeard guys complaining about Abraham
>> Lincoln.
>
> Two ways to deal with that.
>
> 1. Open the video in a private window. This won't work if you need to
> be signed in to see it.
>
> 2. Go to your history and delete that video from it.

Ah, thanks to you both.

William Hyde