[RE][scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
I caught the season premiere of 24 last night. Tony Almeida, who, if memory serves, stopped more than a few bullets last season, is alive and kicking. Need I say more? -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:43:05 -0800 From : Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Cc : 'Chris de Morsella' cdemorse...@yahoo.com,'Cinque3000' cinque3...@verizon.net,'paul demorsella' pc...@yahoo.com, ggs...@yahoo.com By Josh Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyone's mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harvey's missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV t-possible-two-face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok it's not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dark-Knight-s-Two-Face-May-Not-Be-Dead-11515. html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Alan Moore Spitting venom On Watchmen
I saw the version with dialog, Keith, and it just left me... BLAH. A trailer is supposed to make you jump up and say, Gotta see that! Caught the trailer for Push as well, and I was jumping in my seat with anticipation. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Alan Moore Spitting venom On Watchmen Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:38:05 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com What about the trailer left you cold? Is it the first trailer that's set to music, or the new second trailer that has more dialog? I plan to find an inexpensive copy of the graphic novel this week. -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter I really can't fault Moore's venom. Just saw the trailer for Watchmen, and I was less than moved by it. Even if I weren't a hermit-in-training, I'd pass on this and dig out my trade copy for rereading. Keith - READ IT. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Alan Moore Spitting venom On Watchmen Date : Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:54:43 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Apologies if this was posted before. Given the age of the article, I'll bet it was. But i've recently started following the Watchmen movie news, and came across this interview. Moore's spitting venom on the project? Intense, though i can understand the spirit of his objections given how H'wood screws up things. Maybe he should ask Frank Miller what led him to let 300 and Sin City be filmed? I find Terry Gilliam's position that it deserves a five-hour miniseries treatment to be intriguing. There really are some works that just can't be done full justice in a two or three hour movie. I recall that LOTR was originally slated to be two films, but Peter Jackson prevailed on New Line to do three. Even then some stuff was left out. No idea what if anything Snyder had to cut to make the film, nor do I know how long it is. From what I understand of the complicated structure of the comics--a couple of stories running, jumps in time--it will require some skill. Sounds like som! ething that would have been up Chris Nolan's alley. But still, the trailers look great, and early buzz from those who've seen an extended piece of the movie has been favourable. I must confess, I've never read Watchmen (something I'm about to remedy). When it debuted, I was swept up in DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths maxi series, and then all the Year One retellings of Superman, Batman, and others that followed. At that time I was also relatively new to Marvel's universe, having just discovered X-Men and Spider-Man three years before. So, I was also immersed in understanding the world of mutants, catching up on backstories such as the Gwen Stacy thing, and diving into Marvel's Official Handbood of the Marvel Universe. Watchmen was all around me, but i could never find the time... Is it indeed as good as the hype of these last two decades? And while i'm on the confessional kick, I have to admit I haven't read From Hell, V for Vendetta (or seen the movie), or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (saw the movie--unfortunately). ** http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/09/alan-moore-on-w.html Alan Moore on 'Watchmen' movie: 'I will be spitting venom all over it' 12:48 PM PT, Sep 18 2008 For the record, Alan Moore has not softened his view on Hollywood nor its plan to bring his classic graphic novel Watchmen to the screen next March. I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying, Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can't we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change. Moore is often described as a recluse but, really, I think it's more precise to say he is simply too busy at his writing desk. Yes, perhaps I should get out more, he said with a chuckle. In conversation, the 54-year-old iconoclast is everything his longtime readers would expect -- articulate, witty, obstinate and selectively enigmatic. Far from grouchy, he only gets an edge in his voice when he talks about the effect of Hollywood on the comics medium that he so memorably energized in the 1980s with Saga of the Swamp Thing, V for Vendetta, Marvelman and, of course, Watchmen, his 1986 masterpiece. The Warner Bros. film version of Watchmen is due in theaters in March although the project has encountered some turbulence with a lawsuit
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms
you all are very funny! everything that was said i totally agree with. here is my question though. why on earth move the chair 2 area 51? if u know that the Wraith are coming, how can the commanding officer of the most secure facility on Earth be heading a task force? being a Marine, i do know that when there is something going on in the world, my boss was on base. no matter where he was, if it was big, he was on base. i did appreciate that nod 2 general hammond. as for the dog-fight over area 51? we all know that photogs constantly keep that place under surveillance 24/7. plus, there are too many universities, planetariums, amateur astronomers, and the like who would have seen the fight and the Wrait ship (both whole and then the explosion) to quiet all of them. then look at Atlantis. sitting in the middle of San Francisco Bay, albeit cloaked, still it is sitting there in the bay! now, the Navy has quarantined the bay. how many questions would THAT raise? but enough of how u are going 2 keep it hidden, let's talk about how they totally screwed the pooch on this one. everyone is saying it was a 1 hour finale. me and my trustly stop watch accurately timed that finale (if u want 2 call it that?) was 40 minutes and 59 seconds! all of that in 40 minutes. i was hurt that they did not give us more time, especially with the team onboard the hive ship. that in itself could have been a good 15 minutes of seeing what the zpm was doing 2 the ship. no, i am going to stop here. that fact that i invested 5 years into this to be screwed at the end is madding. on the flip side, has anyone watch 'Death Race'? for something 2 just laugh at while enjoying a few cold libations? it is soo much fun. check it out if u have not. Fate. --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com wrote: From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 7:26 AM I did think that about Carter's explanation for Landry's absence. I haven't seen The Ark of Truth or anything on it, so I don't know if he was involved in it in any way either. As for that FBI position, I'm not sure they'd take me on, what with my past HomeInsec track record. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms Date : Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:10:47 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com I caught Sam's explanation for Landry being absent, just thought it was goofy. Maybe Beau Bridges decided to get back to a movie career and was unavailable, or maybe they couldn't afford to pay him? You do indeed show a facility for obfuscating the truth. I just got an e-mail from a friend telling me the FBI is hiring. You should look 'em up! -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter If memory serves, the reason that Colonel Carter was running the SGC was because General Landry was on a special mission. BTB, did you catch the tribute to Don Davis they threw in, by renaming the ship Carter was going to command from the Phoenix to the General Hammond? As for the battle being seen, yes, several people would've seen it, or even captured footage, but they'd be pretty much relegated to conspiracy theorists, Atlantis falling to earth explained away as a meteorite or some such, the explosion of the hive ship made out to be a near-earth collision of two bodies in space. (Hey, I think I've got a career cooking as a Guv'mint disinformation guy.) And yes, I'd figure that setting off a nuke near a ZPM would take out Earth and the Moon. No, I figure that Atlantis will mosey on back to Pegasus, because the Wraith threat is still serious. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms Date : Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:00 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Mild spoilers Same here. Ronan's death was so sudden I figured it couldn't possibly be permanent. The whole show was rushed, with all that action in one hour. A two hour movie would definitely have allowed more plot to be explored. Sam Carter, for example, running SG-C seemed contrived. How convenient the general wasn't on base. And talk about convenient: Rodney just happened to have been working on wormhole drive, something apparently the Ancients never even perfected, and it not only worked, but worked well enough to move the entire city? Uh-huh. Everyone I liked was given too little to do, and the threat of the Wraith near Earth deserved a much more detailed treatment. How and when will Atlantis go back to Pegasus? Is there a chance it'll stay? Will Rodney and the doctor get married? Given that I still think that major battle would have been noticed and recorded by
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms
Thank you! And there's something I didn't think of until you mentioned it, Landry's being tied up with some task force when such trouble is brewing. If stuff like this comes down, you hightail it back to the office. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:51:18 -0800 (PST) From : Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com you all are very funny! everything that was said i totally agree with. here is my question though. why on earth move the chair 2 area 51? if u know that the Wraith are coming, how can the commanding officer of the most secure facility on Earth be heading a task force? being a Marine, i do know that when there is something going on in the world, my boss was on base. no matter where he was, if it was big, he was on base. i did appreciate that nod 2 general hammond. as for the dog-fight over area 51? we all know that photogs constantly keep that place under surveillance 24/7. plus, there are too many universities, planetariums, amateur astronomers, and the like who would have seen the fight and the Wrait ship (both whole and then the explosion) to quiet all of them. then look at Atlantis. sitting in the middle of San Francisco Bay, albeit cloaked, still it is sitting there in the bay! now, the Navy has quarantined the bay. how many questions would THAT raise? but enough of how u are going 2 keep it hidden, let's talk about how they totally screwed the pooch on this one. everyone is saying it was a 1 hour finale. me and my trustly stop watch accurately timed that finale (if u want 2 call it that?) was 40 minutes and 59 seconds! all of that in 40 minutes. i was hurt that they did not give us more time, especially with the team onboard the hive ship. that in itself could have been a good 15 minutes of seeing what the zpm was doing 2 the ship. no, i am going to stop here. that fact that i invested 5 years into this to be screwed at the end is madding. on the flip side, has anyone watch 'Death Race'? for something 2 just laugh at while enjoying a few cold libations? it is soo much fun. check it out if u have not. Fate. --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Martin Baxter wrote: From: Martin Baxter Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 7:26 AM I did think that about Carter's explanation for Landry's absence. I haven't seen The Ark of Truth or anything on it, so I don't know if he was involved in it in any way either. As for that FBI position, I'm not sure they'd take me on, what with my past HomeInsec track record. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms Date : Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:10:47 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com I caught Sam's explanation for Landry being absent, just thought it was goofy. Maybe Beau Bridges decided to get back to a movie career and was unavailable, or maybe they couldn't afford to pay him? You do indeed show a facility for obfuscating the truth. I just got an e-mail from a friend telling me the FBI is hiring. You should look 'em up! -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter If memory serves, the reason that Colonel Carter was running the SGC was because General Landry was on a special mission. BTB, did you catch the tribute to Don Davis they threw in, by renaming the ship Carter was going to command from the Phoenix to the General Hammond? As for the battle being seen, yes, several people would've seen it, or even captured footage, but they'd be pretty much relegated to conspiracy theorists, Atlantis falling to earth explained away as a meteorite or some such, the explosion of the hive ship made out to be a near-earth collision of two bodies in space. (Hey, I think I've got a career cooking as a Guv'mint disinformation guy.) And yes, I'd figure that setting off a nuke near a ZPM would take out Earth and the Moon. No, I figure that Atlantis will mosey on back to Pegasus, because the Wraith threat is still serious. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms Date : Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:00 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Mild spoilers Same here. Ronan's death was so sudden I figured it couldn't possibly be permanent. The whole show was rushed, with all that action in one hour. A two hour movie would definitely have allowed more plot to be explored. Sam Carter, for example, running SG-C seemed contrived. How convenient the general wasn't on base. And talk about convenient: Rodney just happened to have been working on wormhole drive, something apparently the Ancients never even perfected, and it
Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason being that Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery. Killng him off would make no sense, even given the license movies take with comic properties. I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public belief that Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way to exonerate him than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame? Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to be a love interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in an organic way might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too obvious. If Selina is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina Jolie doesn't get the role. -- Original message -- From: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com By Josh http://www.cinemablend.com/features/About-Us-296.html#Josh%20Tyler Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 javascript:void(0) ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyone's mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harvey's missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/01/11/dark-knight-star-aaron-eckhart-hints-a t-possible-two-face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok it's not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dark-Knight-s-Two-Face-May-Not-Be-Dead-11515. html ---BeginMessage--- By Josh Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyones mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the films debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harveys missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyones surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey if hes not dead is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok its not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. Its probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, its unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe theres a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since thats no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dark-Knight-s-Two-Face-May-Not-Be-Dead-11515.html ---End Message---
Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek. i think that she would be great! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Cc: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com, 'Chris de Morsella' cdemorse...@yahoo.com, 'Cinque3000' cinque3...@verizon.net, 'paul demorsella' pc...@yahoo.com, ggs...@yahoo.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason being that Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery. Killng him off would make no sense, even given the license movies take with comic properties. I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public belief that Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way to exonerate him than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame? Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to be a love interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in an organic way might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too obvious. If Selina is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina Jolie doesn't get the role. -- Original message - - From: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multicultur aladvantage. com By Josh http://www.cinemabl end.com/features /About-Us- 296.html# Josh%20Tyler Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 javascript: void(0) ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyone's mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harvey's missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV http://splashpage. mtv.com/2009/ 01/11/dark- knight-star- aaron-eckhart- hints-a t-possible-two- face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok it's not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemabl end.com/new/ Dark-Knight- s-Two-Face- May-Not-Be- Dead-11515. html
[scifinoir2] More Adults read in '08, survey says
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6206097.html Study: More people reading whether they want to or not By HILLEL ITALIE Associated Press Jan. 12, 2009, 3:26AMShare Reading on the rise declares a new government study, which reports a surprising and welcome increase in the number of adults who recently read a novel, short story, play or other work of literature. But the study also suggests that not every person who reads necessarily wants to. According to Reading on the Rise, being issued today by the National Endowment for the Arts, just over half of the people surveyed 18 or older read some kind of literature in 2008, up from 46.7 percent in 2002, when the number had dropped by seven percentage points over the previous decade. NEA chairman Dana Gioia called the results astonishing and an important new cultural trend. According to the survey, which reflects both online works and paper texts, reading rates increased for whites, blacks and Hispanics, for men and for woman, for all levels of education and across virtually all ages. Reading among 18-to-24 year olds jumped from 42.8 in 2002 to 51.7 percent last year. For much of the decade, Gioia and the NEA have warned of a crisis in literacy and have implemented numerous programs to encourage reading. In a preface to the new report, being released shortly before Gioia steps down after heading the endowment for seven years, he cites a nationwide effort and says the results demonstrate that our faith in positive social and cultural change was not misplaced. But the preface does not mention a countertrend: a drop among people not obligated to read. Adults who read books of any kind fiction or nonfiction, online or on paper that were not assigned by a teacher or employer dropped from 56.6 percent of adults in 2002 to 54.3 percent last year. The fall was greatest among those younger than 55. And while the number of adults who say they read a non-required book is 3.5 million higher than in 2002, the report notes that that the total adult population increased by 19 million, meaning an increase in the number of people who didn't voluntarily read books of 15.5 million, a huge disparity confirmed by NEA research director Sunil Iyengar. Gioia believes the NEA report is essentially positive if only because good news about reading is so rare but says that we're still in a culture in which all kinds of reading are under pressure from other forms of leisure and entertainment. The NEA chair, himself a published poet, doesn't have a definitive answer to the large gap between voluntary readers and reading overall. He speculates, just a hypothesis, about a large subgroup of shallow readers, people who feel compelled to take on a book for a class or a reading program but are not inspired to finish the text or to read independently. We have so many of these programs around the country, and I always tell our people that we can't expect to make permanent readers out of everyone, he says. So have we become a nation of Lionel Trillings? asks Gioia, referring to the late and supremely erudite literary critic. The answer is absolutely not yet. The NEA report, based on a sample of more than 18,000 adults, is based on data gathered in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau.
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms
Yep, those were my objections too. Good point about the ZPM growing the Wraith ship. They talked about it but never really *showed* it. Hell, there was no interaction with the ship's crew either. No evil commander coming on screen saying We shall feed on the people of your world or even Resistance is futile. Just a bunch of weapons fire. I haven't seen the new Death Race. I was leery of seeing it because Crank was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I feared more of the same. But the homage to Death Race 2000 and the fact that Joan Allen was in this new film, made me curious. Thanks for the recommendation. -- Original message -- From: Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@yahoo.com you all are very funny! everything that was said i totally agree with. here is my question though. why on earth move the chair 2 area 51? if u know that the Wraith are coming, how can the commanding officer of the most secure facility on Earth be heading a task force? being a Marine, i do know that when there is something going on in the world, my boss was on base. no matter where he was, if it was big, he was on base. i did appreciate that nod 2 general hammond. as for the dog-fight over area 51? we all know that photogs constantly keep that place under surveillance 24/7. plus, there are too many universities, planetariums, amateur astronomers, and the like who would have seen the fight and the Wrait ship (both whole and then the explosion) to quiet all of them. then look at Atlantis. sitting in the middle of San Francisco Bay, albeit cloaked, still it is sitting there in the bay! now, the Navy has quarantined the bay. how many questions would THAT raise? but enough of how u are going 2 keep it hidden, let's talk about how they totally screwed the pooch on this one. everyone is saying it was a 1 hour finale. me and my trustly stop watch accurately timed that finale (if u want 2 call it that?) was 40 minutes and 59 seconds! all of that in 40 minutes. i was hurt that they did not give us more time, especially with the team onboard the hive ship. that in itself could have been a good 15 minutes of seeing what the zpm was doing 2 the ship. no, i am going to stop here. that fact that i invested 5 years into this to be screwed at the end is madding. on the flip side, has anyone watch 'Death Race'? for something 2 just laugh at while enjoying a few cold libations? it is soo much fun. check it out if u have not. Fate. --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com wrote: From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 7:26 AM I did think that about Carter's explanation for Landry's absence. I haven't seen The Ark of Truth or anything on it, so I don't know if he was involved in it in any way either. As for that FBI position, I'm not sure they'd take me on, what with my past HomeInsec track record. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms Date : Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:10:47 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com I caught Sam's explanation for Landry being absent, just thought it was goofy. Maybe Beau Bridges decided to get back to a movie career and was unavailable, or maybe they couldn't afford to pay him? You do indeed show a facility for obfuscating the truth. I just got an e-mail from a friend telling me the FBI is hiring. You should look 'em up! -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter If memory serves, the reason that Colonel Carter was running the SGC was because General Landry was on a special mission. BTB, did you catch the tribute to Don Davis they threw in, by renaming the ship Carter was going to command from the Phoenix to the General Hammond? As for the battle being seen, yes, several people would've seen it, or even captured footage, but they'd be pretty much relegated to conspiracy theorists, Atlantis falling to earth explained away as a meteorite or some such, the explosion of the hive ship made out to be a near-earth collision of two bodies in space. (Hey, I think I've got a career cooking as a Guv'mint disinformation guy.) And yes, I'd figure that setting off a nuke near a ZPM would take out Earth and the Moon. No, I figure that Atlantis will mosey on back to Pegasus, because the Wraith threat is still serious. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms Date : Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:03:00 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Mild spoilers Same here. Ronan's death was
Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to her that I could see working in a feline-themed character. -- Original message -- From: Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@yahoo.com i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek. i think that she would be great! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Cc: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com, 'Chris de Morsella' cdemorse...@yahoo.com, 'Cinque3000' cinque3...@verizon.net, 'paul demorsella' pc...@yahoo.com, ggs...@yahoo.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason being that Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery. Killng him off would make no sense, even given the license movies take with comic properties. I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public belief that Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way to exonerate him than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame? Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to be a love interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in an organic way might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too obvious. If Selina is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina Jolie doesn't get the role. -- Original message - - From: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multicultur aladvantage. com By Josh http://www.cinemabl end.com/features /About-Us- 296.html# Josh%20Tyler Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 javascript: void(0) ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyone's mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harvey's missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV http://splashpage. mtv.com/2009/ 01/11/dark- knight-star- aaron-eckhart- hints-a t-possible-two- face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok it's not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemabl end.com/new/ Dark-Knight- s-Two-Face- May-Not-Be- Dead-11515. html ---BeginMessage--- i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek. i think that she would be great!--- On Mon, 1/12/09, KeithBJohnson@comcast.net KeithBJohnson@comcast.net wrote:From: KeithBJohnson@comcast.net KeithBJohnson@comcast.netSubject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be DeadTo: scifino...@yahoogroups.com, scifino...@yahoogroups.comCc: "Tracey de Morsella" tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com, "'Chris de Morsella'" cdemorsella@yahoo.com, "'Cinque3000'" cinque3...@verizon.net, "'paul demorsella'" pc...@yahoo.com, ggs...@yahoo.comDate: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason being that Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery. Killng him off would make no sense, even given the license movies take with comic properties. I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public belief that Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way to exonerate him than have Two-Face back to
[scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
Saw Robin Given's immortal protrayal of herself in the superhero epic Blankman over the weekend. ~rave! --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, keithbjohn...@... wrote: Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to her that I could see working in a feline-themed character. -- Original message -- From: Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@... i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek. i think that she would be great! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@... keithbjohn...@... wrote: From: keithbjohn...@... keithbjohn...@... Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Cc: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@..., 'Chris de Morsella' cdemorse...@..., 'Cinque3000' cinque3...@..., 'paul demorsella' pc...@..., ggs...@... Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason being that Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery. Killng him off would make no sense, even given the license movies take with comic properties. I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public belief that Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way to exonerate him than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame? Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to be a love interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in an organic way might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too obvious. If Selina is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina Jolie doesn't get the role. -- Original message - - From: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multicultur aladvantage. com By Josh http://www.cinemabl end.com/features /About-Us- 296.html# Josh%20Tyler Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 javascript: void(0) ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyone's mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harvey's missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV http://splashpage. mtv.com/2009/ 01/11/dark- knight-star- aaron-eckhart- hints-a t-possible-two- face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok it's not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemabl end.com/new/ Dark-Knight- s-Two-Face- May- Not-Be- Dead-11515. html
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
NO! i cannot stand her. her casting would make me NOT, repeat, NOT see the next installment. Fate --- On Mon, 1/12/09, ravenadal ravena...@yahoo.com wrote: From: ravenadal ravena...@yahoo.com Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 1:33 PM Saw Robin Given's immortal protrayal of herself in the superhero epic Blankman over the weekend. ~rave! --- In scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, KeithBJohnson@ ... wrote: Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to her that I could see working in a feline-themed character. -- Original message - - From: Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_007@ ... i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek. i think that she would be great! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, KeithBJohnson@ ... KeithBJohnson@ ... wrote: From: KeithBJohnson@ ... KeithBJohnson@ ... Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Cc: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@... , 'Chris de Morsella' cdemorsella@ ..., 'Cinque3000' cinque3000@ ..., 'paul demorsella' pc...@..., ggs...@... Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason being that Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery. Killng him off would make no sense, even given the license movies take with comic properties. I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public belief that Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way to exonerate him than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame? Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to be a love interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in an organic way might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too obvious. If Selina is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina Jolie doesn't get the role. -- Original message - - From: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multicultu r aladvantage. com By Josh http://www.cinemabl end.com/features /About-Us- 296.html# Josh%20Tyler Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 javascript: void(0) ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyone's mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harvey's missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV http://splashpage. mtv.com/2009/ 01/11/dark- knight-star- aaron-eckhart- hints-a t-possible-two- face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok it's not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemabl end.com/new/ Dark-Knight- s-Two-Face- May- Not-Be- Dead-11515. html
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms
Keith, totally agree. i would have loved 2 see the 'underling' that usurped the Commander. here his monologue. the 'resistance is futile' would have been a GREAT line. i think u would really enjoy DR. also, Crank did suck, but Transporter 3 (forever here after mentioned as T3, not 2 be confused with T:3 ROTM). was fun. also with Tyrese Gibson playing the one of the bad guys, it was kool. u will also enjoy the just 4 no reason killing people. that makes it more fun. Fate. --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 1:16 PM Yep, those were my objections too. Good point about the ZPM growing the Wraith ship. They talked about it but never really *showed* it. Hell, there was no interaction with the ship's crew either. No evil commander coming on screen saying We shall feed on the people of your world or even Resistance is futile. Just a bunch of weapons fire. I haven't seen the new Death Race. I was leery of seeing it because Crank was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I feared more of the same. But the homage to Death Race 2000 and the fact that Joan Allen was in this new film, made me curious. Thanks for the recommendation. -- Original message - - From: Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_007@ yahoo.com you all are very funny! everything that was said i totally agree with. here is my question though. why on earth move the chair 2 area 51? if u know that the Wraith are coming, how can the commanding officer of the most secure facility on Earth be heading a task force? being a Marine, i do know that when there is something going on in the world, my boss was on base. no matter where he was, if it was big, he was on base. i did appreciate that nod 2 general hammond. as for the dog-fight over area 51? we all know that photogs constantly keep that place under surveillance 24/7. plus, there are too many universities, planetariums, amateur astronomers, and the like who would have seen the fight and the Wrait ship (both whole and then the explosion) to quiet all of them. then look at Atlantis. sitting in the middle of San Francisco Bay, albeit cloaked, still it is sitting there in the bay! now, the Navy has quarantined the bay. how many questions would THAT raise? but enough of how u are going 2 keep it hidden, let's talk about how they totally screwed the pooch on this one. everyone is saying it was a 1 hour finale. me and my trustly stop watch accurately timed that finale (if u want 2 call it that?) was 40 minutes and 59 seconds! all of that in 40 minutes. i was hurt that they did not give us more time, especially with the team onboard the hive ship. that in itself could have been a good 15 minutes of seeing what the zpm was doing 2 the ship. no, i am going to stop here. that fact that i invested 5 years into this to be screwed at the end is madding. on the flip side, has anyone watch 'Death Race'? for something 2 just laugh at while enjoying a few cold libations? it is soo much fun. check it out if u have not. Fate. --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Martin Baxter truthseeker013@ lycos.com wrote: From: Martin Baxter truthseeker013@ lycos.com Subject: Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 7:26 AM I did think that about Carter's explanation for Landry's absence. I haven't seen The Ark of Truth or anything on it, so I don't know if he was involved in it in any way either. As for that FBI position, I'm not sure they'd take me on, what with my past HomeInsec track record. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Atlantis Finale Underwhelms Date : Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:10:47 + From : KeithBJohnson@ comcast.net To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com I caught Sam's explanation for Landry being absent, just thought it was goofy. Maybe Beau Bridges decided to get back to a movie career and was unavailable, or maybe they couldn't afford to pay him? You do indeed show a facility for obfuscating the truth. I just got an e-mail from a friend telling me the FBI is hiring. You should look 'em up! -- Original message - - From: Martin Baxter If memory serves, the reason that Colonel Carter was running the SGC was because General Landry was on a special mission. BTB, did you catch the tribute to Don Davis they threw in, by renaming the ship Carter was going to command from the Phoenix to the General Hammond? As for the battle being seen, yes, several
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
Never seen it, was it any good? It was Wayans humour, which is hit-and-miss
with me...
-- Original message --
From: ravenadal ravena...@yahoo.com
Saw Robin Given's immortal protrayal of herself in the superhero
epic Blankman over the weekend.
~rave!
--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, keithbjohn...@... wrote:
Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would
do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to
her that I could see working in a feline-themed character.
-- Original message --
From: Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@...
i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek. i
think that she
would be great!
--- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@... keithbjohn...@...
wrote:
From: keithbjohn...@... keithbjohn...@...
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@..., 'Chris de
Morsella' cdemorse...@..., 'Cinque3000' cinque3...@...,
'paul demorsella' pc...@..., ggs...@...
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM
I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason
being that
Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery.
Killng him off
would make no sense, even given the license movies take with
comic properties.
I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public
belief that
Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way
to exonerate him
than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame?
Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to
be a love
interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in
an organic way
might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too
obvious. If Selina
is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina
Jolie doesn't get
the role.
-- Original message - -
From: Tracey de Morsella tdli...@multicultur aladvantage. com
By Josh http://www.cinemabl end.com/features /About-Us-
296.html#
Josh%20Tyler
Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55
javascript: void(0) ShareThis
After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on
nearly everyone's
mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It
was a few
weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor
behind Harvey's
missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all
that the
character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors
indicating that
Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel,
Eckhart
seems to be backpedaling a little.
MTV
http://splashpage. mtv.com/2009/ 01/11/dark- knight-star-
aaron-eckhart-
hints-a
t-possible-two- face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the
Golden Globes,
where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return
question and to
everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I
think Harvey
- if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now
open! Ok it's
not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle
room than dead
as a doornail.
It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that
Nolan might be
working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that
Aaron would
even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim
ray of hope
here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the
one Two-Face
suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain
sort of sense
to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have
Joker return
for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer
possible why
not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two
films?
http://www.cinemabl end.com/new/ Dark-Knight- s-Two-Face- May-
Not-Be-
Dead-11515.
html
---BeginMessage---
Saw Robin Given's immortal protrayal of herself in the superhero
epic Blankman over the weekend.
~rave!
--- In scifino...@yahoogroups.com, KeithBJohnson@... wrote:
Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would
do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to
her that I could see working in a feline-themed character.
-- Original message
[scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday
Well, I guess Adrian Paul doesn't have problems getting work. He stars in a SciFi Originals movie airing this Saturday. Some hookum about Sir Francis Drake having gone on a desperate mission and encounter all kinds of magical creatures and such. Have no idea what to think about this flick. It being on SciFi, and Pau's saying in an interview that it was CGI-heavy and they'd have to see how that holds up, make me nervous. Oh well could be worse: Paul could be starring in another Highlander movie! Here's a blurb about the movie, and another about Wraiths of Roanoke, another film he did recently, airing Friday night. *** http://adrianpaulnewswire.blogspot.com/2008/07/sci-fi-channel-to-air-immortal-voyage.html The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money, he comments.CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasnt liked by very many people, Paul notes with a laugh.He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a hero was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that. Adrian Paul Sofia Pernas * Wraiths of Roanoke Re-Airs January 18 at 1 PM SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) In 1587, Sir Walter Raleigh recruited 117 men, women and children for a permanent settlement on Roanoke Island, located on North Carolina's coast. John White (Alex McArthur) was appointed governor of the new City of Raleigh. Among the colonists were White's pregnant daughter Eleanor Dare (Frida Show), his son-in-law Ananias Dare (Adrian Paul), and the Indian chief Manteo (Michael Teh), who had become an ally during his stay in Britain.The group journeyed from Britain to Roanoke Island and established the first English settlement in America. Within three years, however, they had vanished with scarcely a trace. England's initial attempt at colonization of the New World was a disaster, and one of America's most enduring legends was born...
Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info
Whoops! Left off the SciFi blurb on the movie. Here it is... * The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money, he comments.CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasnt liked by very many people, Paul notes with a laugh.He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a hero was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that. -- Original message -- From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Well, I guess Adrian Paul doesn't have problems getting work. He stars in a SciFi Originals movie airing this Saturday. Some hookum about Sir Francis Drake having gone on a desperate mission and encounter all kinds of magical creatures and such. Have no idea what to think about this flick. It being on SciFi, and Pau's saying in an interview that it was CGI-heavy and they'd have to see how that holds up, make me nervous. Oh well could be worse: Paul could be starring in another Highlander movie! Here's a blurb about the movie, and another about Wraiths of Roanoke, another film he did recently, airing Friday night. *** http://adrianpaulnewswire.blogspot.com/2008/07/sci-fi-channel-to-air-immortal-voyage.html The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money, he comments.CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasnt liked by very many people, Paul notes with a laugh.He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a hero was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that. Adrian Paul Sofia Pernas * Wraiths of Roanoke Re-Airs January 18 at 1 PM SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) In 1587, Sir Walter Raleigh recruited 117 men, women and children for a permanent settlement on Roanoke Island, located on North Carolina's coast. John White (Alex McArthur) was appointed governor of the new City of Raleigh. Among the colonists were White's pregnant daughter Eleanor Dare (Frida Show), his son-in-law Ananias Dare (Adrian Paul), and the Indian chief Manteo (Michael Teh), who had become an ally during his stay in Britain.The group journeyed from Britain to Roanoke Island and established the first English settlement in America. Within three years, however, they had vanished with scarcely a trace. England's initial attempt at colonization of the New World was a disaster, and one of America's most enduring legends was born...
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Alan Moore Spitting venom On Watchmen
The way the trailer's visuals so closely resembled the original graphic novel's were a real selling point for me and others who've read it. Justin On 12-Jan-09, at 12:58 PM, keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: The Watchmen trailer actually had me saying wow!, gotta see that! Maybe 'cause I haven't read the source material yet? If I'd seen the Push trailer alone I'd be skeptical. The scenes were intriguing but the camera work was way too fast for me. there were so many scene changes I got dizzy and started thinking Oh man, I hope the director isn't another from the too-fast-camera school of directing. What has me most excited about Push is reading a long article about it in Empire magazine. -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com I saw the version with dialog, Keith, and it just left me... BLAH. A trailer is supposed to make you jump up and say, Gotta see that! Caught the trailer for Push as well, and I was jumping in my seat with anticipation. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Alan Moore Spitting venom On Watchmen Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:38:05 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com What about the trailer left you cold? Is it the first trailer that's set to music, or the new second trailer that has more dialog? I plan to find an inexpensive copy of the graphic novel this week. -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter I really can't fault Moore's venom. Just saw the trailer for Watchmen, and I was less than moved by it. Even if I weren't a hermit-in- training, I'd pass on this and dig out my trade copy for rereading. Keith - READ IT. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] Alan Moore Spitting venom On Watchmen Date : Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:54:43 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Apologies if this was posted before. Given the age of the article, I'll bet it was. But i've recently started following the Watchmen movie news, and came across this interview. Moore's spitting venom on the project? Intense, though i can understand the spirit of his objections given how H'wood screws up things. Maybe he should ask Frank Miller what led him to let 300 and Sin City be filmed? I find Terry Gilliam's position that it deserves a five- hour miniseries treatment to be intriguing. There really are some works that just can't be done full justice in a two or three hour movie. I recall that LOTR was originally slated to be two films, but Peter Jackson prevailed on New Line to do three. Even then some stuff was left out. No idea what if anything Snyder had to cut to make the film, nor do I know how long it is. From what I understand of the complicated structure of the comics--a couple of stories running, jumps in time--it will require some skill. Sounds like som! ething that would have been up Chris Nolan's alley. But still, the trailers look great, and early buzz from those who've seen an extended piece of the movie has been favourable. I must confess, I've never read Watchmen (something I'm about to remedy). When it debuted, I was swept up in DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths maxi series, and then all the Year One retellings of Superman, Batman, and others that followed. At that time I was also relatively new to Marvel's universe, having just discovered X-Men and Spider-Man three years before. So, I was also immersed in understanding the world of mutants, catching up on backstories such as the Gwen Stacy thing, and diving into Marvel's Official Handbood of the Marvel Universe. Watchmen was all around me, but i could never find the time... Is it indeed as good as the hype of these last two decades? And while i'm on the confessional kick, I have to admit I haven't read From Hell, V for Vendetta (or seen the movie), or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (saw the movie--unfortunately). ** http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/09/alan-moore-on-w.html Alan Moore on 'Watchmen' movie: 'I will be spitting venom all over it' 12:48 PM PT, Sep 18 2008 For the record, Alan Moore has not softened his view on Hollywood nor its plan to bring his classic graphic novel Watchmen to the screen next March. I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying, Moore told me during an hour-long phone call from his home in England. It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The 'Watchmen' film sounds like more regurgitated
Re: [scifinoir2] Push movie trailer
can we say netflix rental...sure you can On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:44 PM, ravenadal ravena...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNGu1QWwK9I I am a sucker for this kind of stuff. Djimon Hounsou? Check. Camilla Belle? Check. Dakota Fanning? Check. Chris Evans (well, okay...). ~rave! -- cwm blog http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com STRING THEORY http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com
[scifinoir2] OT: Bush Admits Mission accomplished banner was a mistake
Don't know whether to laugh, cry, or curse ** Mission accomplished banner was a mistake: Bush http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090112/pl_afp/uspoliticsbushiraqlegacy_newsmlmmd WASHINGTON (AFP) President George W. Bush admitted Monday it had been a mistake to hang a banner saying mission accomplished on a US battleship where he declared major combat operations in Iraq over in 2003. Clearly, putting a 'mission accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake, Bush said when asked at what he said would be his final press conference about any errors he had made in his eight years in office. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently but, nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. The conflict in Iraq launched with the US-led invasion in March 2003 is now approaching its sixth anniversary and thousands of US troops remain in the country. Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake, Bush said, adding: I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better or, you know, mistakes I made. As Bush prepares to hand over to president-elect Barack Obama on January 20 and return to his home in Texas, he acknowledged he had experienced some let-downs during his two terms in office. There have been disappointments. You know, not having weapons of mass destruction was a dig disappointment, he said, referring to his administration's earlier assertions that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was stockpiling such arms. The accusations were used as the basis for the US-led invasion of Iraq, but were subsequently found to be baseless. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way, Bush said. Anyway. I think historians will look back and be able to have a better look at mistakes after some time has passed. But he cautioned: There is no such thing as short-term history. I don't think you can possibly get the full breadth of an administration until time has passed. The outgoing US leader was more circumspect about Hurricane Katrina which struck New Orleans in 2005 for which his administration has been sharply criticized for its slow response. Could things have been done better? Absolutely. Absolutely, Bush said, adding he had thought long and hard about his administration's handling of the crisis which left thousands of people stranded and homeless. But when I hear people say the federal response was slow, then what are they going to say to those chopper drivers or the 30,000 that got pulled off the roofs? he added. Post your SciFiNoir Profile at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/app/peoplemap2/entry/add?fmvn=mapYahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:scifinoir2-dig...@yahoogroups.com mailto:scifinoir2-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: scifinoir2-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now?
Been thinking a lot about President Bush, what he's done for (to) the world, what he intended to do, what his legacy will be, what he feels about everything. I find myself in some combination of anger, contempt, sympathy, bemusement, and pity for this man who now seems to be feeling the weight of what's gone wrong, but is still convinced that he did what was right and necessary. It's like chewing on a piece of food that you can't quite identify, working it over and over in the mouth, trying to decide whether to spit it out, or chew some more to decide on whether it's good or not. Here's my take on Bush: he's not a bad man, not even necessarily a stupid one, as many (me included) have often characterized him. Rather, I think he might fall more into the category of well-meaning bungler, or confident-but-clueless. The kind of guy who comes into a room and greats everyone by name, whether it's the help or the master of the house, who can make everyone laugh at a joke and put them at ease, but who then says something just kinda--well...hell, stupid. Maybe telling an off-color joke or ribbing someone a bit too much. A man who injects stories about how much he can bench press into a conversation about foreign policy. The kind of guy that makes you later say Nice enough guy, but a bit clueless... The more I hear his retrospectives and introspective musings, that's what I think. Stuff like Well, I guess the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was a mistake, or Yeah we made mistakes with Katrina--but what about all the people we *did* help? makes me feel that way. Stuff said with a sense of regret and second-guessing, but still bolstered by a game belief in his *rightness* make me think that. The more I read about him and listen to him and see him--gray and older, bowed but not beaten, impossibly upbeat even amidst the sense of melancholy that must be attacking him--the more I realize he really truly did what he thought was right and best for America. I contrast that to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who in my opinion really are egotistical, elitist, power-mad megalomaniacs. No, not a bad or ill-intentioned guy was George Bush the second, but still hurtful. A child with a gun can still kill someone, I say. Ever seen a kid accidentally cause a friend or pet to get injured? That look the child has in his eyes, wide-eyed and tearful, fearful of what he's done, not quite believing how that innocent rock throw at Fido or stab at a friend's eye with a stick could turn out so badly? The way that child wails, afraid both of what he's done, and of being punished, gamely trying to defend himself while tearfully admitting his guilt, pleading and defending, I didn't know that would happen. I didn't mean it. It's not my fault!? That's Bush, a child playing with something way beyond his ability to control or understand, now standing back going I didn't know *that* would happen! I didn't mean it! It's not my fault! But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. And in the end, perhaps that will Bush's epithet: a well-meaning fool who led this country down the wrong path, who harmed us without meaning too, and then stood by when it was done, thinking I didn't know that would happen! Somehow, George, it doesn't make me feel any better. Go to Dallas and build your library. Rest on your front porch and put up your boots while you sip whiskey and trade tall tales with your rich friends. Chop all the wood you can in Crawford. Play with your grandkids and tell 'em about the days when old Grandpa was the most powerful Texan in the world. Write your book and try to explain how it went so wrong. Watch the news about all of us who have lost jobs and homes, who are driving beat-up old cars for fear of taking on new payments, who stay in miserable jobs for fear of being jobless. Watch the coverage of dying soldiers in the Mideast, of terrorism barely abated, of New Orleans changed forever, of a people whoses very privacy is now less sacred. And at the end of the day, when the sun's setting and Laura and everyone's inside, and there's no one in the world but you and God, look up and whisper I didn't know that would happen, God. I didn't mean it It's not my fault--is it ? Can't answer that one, Georgie. That's for you and the Big Man upstairs to decide. You just go on inside now, George, and let us grown folk clean up the mess. And don't you come back out unless we tell you to, alright? Goodnight, George, don't forget to say your prayers--and say one for the rest of us while you're at it.
[RE][scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now?
Keith, I wish I could give him the benefit of the doubt in anything. But he indicted himself in my eyes with his, IMO, willful misprosecution of the War on Terror (reg, TM, copy), disregarding the advice of senior commanders (whose job it is to prosecute wars, if memory serves) and a single damning moment, as recounted by Pat Robertson. Normally not one I'm likely to quote in any fashion, his words, reported widely soon after the announcement that the US would begin military operations in Iraq, still chill me to the bone. He says that he called Mister Bush, to advise him to prepare the American public for the distinct possibility that American soldiers would be coming home in body bags. Mister Bush said, basically, We're not going to lose any soldiers over there. God told me so. Behold, the Ultimate Disconnect From Reality. George W Bush, Worst POTUS EVER. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:38:04 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Been thinking a lot about President Bush, what he's done for (to) the world, what he intended to do, what his legacy will be, what he feels about everything. I find myself in some combination of anger, contempt, sympathy, bemusement, and pity for this man who now seems to be feeling the weight of what's gone wrong, but is still convinced that he did what was right and necessary. It's like chewing on a piece of food that you can't quite identify, working it over and over in the mouth, trying to decide whether to spit it out, or chew some more to decide on whether it's good or not. Here's my take on Bush: he's not a bad man, not even necessarily a stupid one, as many (me included) have often characterized him. Rather, I think he might fall more into the category of well-meaning bungler, or confident-but-clueless. The kind of guy who comes into a room and greats everyone by name, whether it's the help or the master of the house, who can make everyone laugh at a joke and put them at ease, but who then says something just kinda--well...hell, stupid. Maybe telling an off-color joke or ribbing someone a bit too much. A man who injects stories about how much he can bench press into a conversation about foreign policy. The kind of guy that makes you later say Nice enough guy, but a bit clueless... The more I hear his retrospectives and introspective musings, that's what I think. Stuff like Well, I guess the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was a mistake, or Yeah we made mistakes with Katrina--but what about all the people we *did* help? makes me feel that way. Stuff said with a sense of regret and second-guessing, but still bolstered by a game belief in his *rightness* make me think that. The more I read about him and listen to him and see him--gray and older, bowed but not beaten, impossibly upbeat even amidst the sense of melancholy that must be attacking him--the more I realize he really truly did what he thought was right and best for America. I contrast that to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who in my opinion really are egotistical, elitist, power-mad megalomaniacs. No, not a bad or ill-intentioned guy was George Bush the second, but still hurtful. A child with a gun can still kill someone, I say. Ever seen a kid accidentally cause a friend or pet to get injured? That look the child has in his eyes, wide-eyed and tearful, fearful of what he's done, not quite believing how that innocent rock throw at Fido or stab at a friend's eye with a stick could turn out so badly? The way that child wails, afraid both of what he's done, and of being punished, gamely trying to defend himself while tearfully admitting his guilt, pleading and defending, I didn't know that would happen. I didn't mean it. It's not my fault!? That's Bush, a child playing with something way beyond his ability to control or understand, now standing back going I didn't know *that* would happen! I didn't mean it! It's not my fault! But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. And in the end, perhaps that will Bush's epithet: a well-meaning fool who led this country down the wrong path, who harmed us without meaning too, and then stood by when it was done, thinking I didn't know that would happen! Somehow, George, it doesn't make me feel any better. Go to Dallas and build your library. Rest on your front porch and put up your boots while you sip whiskey and trade tall tales with your rich friends. Chop all the wood you can in Crawford. Play with your grandkids and tell 'em about the days when old Grandpa was the most powerful Texan in the world. Write your book and try to explain how it went so wrong. Watch the news about all of us who have lost jobs and homes, who are driving beat-up old cars for fear of taking on new payments, who stay in miserable jobs for fear of being jobless. Watch
[RE][scifinoir2] OT: Bush Admits Mission accomplished banner was a mistake
(taking options 2 and 3) -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] OT: Bush Admits Mission accomplished banner was a mistake Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:30:16 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Don't know whether to laugh, cry, or curse ** Mission accomplished banner was a mistake: Bush http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090112/pl_afp/uspoliticsbushiraqlegacy_newsmlmmd WASHINGTON (AFP) � President George W. Bush admitted Monday it had been a mistake to hang a banner saying mission accomplished on a US battleship where he declared major combat operations in Iraq over in 2003. Clearly, putting a 'mission accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake, Bush said when asked at what he said would be his final press conference about any errors he had made in his eight years in office. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently but, nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. The conflict in Iraq launched with the US-led invasion in March 2003 is now approaching its sixth anniversary and thousands of US troops remain in the country. Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake, Bush said, adding: I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better or, you know, mistakes I made. As Bush prepares to hand over to president-elect Barack Obama on January 20 and return to his home in Texas, he acknowledged he had experienced some let-downs during his two terms in office. There have been disappointments. You know, not having weapons of mass destruction was a dig disappointment, he said, referring to his administration's earlier assertions that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was stockpiling such arms. The accusations were used as the basis for the US-led invasion of Iraq, but were subsequently found to be baseless. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way, Bush said. Anyway. I think historians will look back and be able to have a better look at mistakes after some time has passed. But he cautioned: There is no such thing as short-term history. I don't think you can possibly get the full breadth of an administration until time has passed. The outgoing US leader was more circumspect about Hurricane Katrina which struck New Orleans in 2005 for which his administration has been sharply criticized for its slow response. Could things have been done better? Absolutely. Absolutely, Bush said, adding he had thought long and hard about his administration's handling of the crisis which left thousands of people stranded and homeless. But when I hear people say the federal response was slow, then what are they going to say to those chopper drivers or the 30,000 that got pulled off the roofs? he added. Post your SciFiNoir Profile at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/app/peoplemap2/entry/add?fmvn=mapYahoo! Groups Links http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
No. NEVER. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:21:28 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to her that I could see working in a feline-themed character. -- Original message -- From: Augustus Augustus i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek.� i think that she would be great! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Cc: Tracey de Morsella , 'Chris de Morsella' , 'Cinque3000' , 'paul demorsella' , ggs...@yahoo.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason being that Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery. Killng him off would make no sense, even given the license movies take with comic properties. I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public belief that Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way to exonerate him than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame? Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to be a love interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in an organic way might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too obvious. If Selina is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina Jolie doesn't get the role. -- Original message - - From: Tracey de Morsella By Josh Josh%20Tyler Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyone's mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harvey's missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV hints-a t-possible-two- face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok it's not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemabl end.com/new/ Dark-Knight- s-Two-Face- May-Not-Be- Dead-11515. html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info
Really, Keith, you didn't have to go to all the trouble... I'll check this out, solely because of the promise of pirates. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:25 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Whoops! Left off the SciFi blurb on the movie. Here it is... * The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that.� -- Original message -- From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Well, I guess Adrian Paul doesn't have problems getting work. He stars in a SciFi Originals movie airing this Saturday. Some hookum about Sir Francis Drake having gone on a desperate mission and encounter all kinds of magical creatures and such. Have no idea what to think about this flick. It being on SciFi, and Pau's saying in an interview that it was CGI-heavy and they'd have to see how that holds up, make me nervous. Oh well could be worse: Paul could be starring in another Highlander movie! Here's a blurb about the movie, and another about Wraiths of Roanoke, another film he did recently, airing Friday night. *** http://adrianpaulnewswire.blogspot.com/2008/07/sci-fi-channel-to-air-immortal-voyage.html The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that.� Adrian Paul amp; Sofia Pernas * Wraiths of Roanoke Re-Airs January 18 at 1 PM SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) In 1587, Sir Walter Raleigh recruited 117 men, women and children for a permanent settlement on Roanoke Island, located on North Carolina's coast. John White (Alex McArthur) was appointed governor of the new City of Raleigh. Among the colonists were White's pregnant daughter Eleanor Dare (Frida Show), his son-in-law Ananias Dare (Adrian Paul), and the Indian chief Manteo (Michael Teh), who had become an ally during his stay in Britain.The group journeyed from Britain to Roanoke Island and established the first English settlement in America. Within three years, however, they had vanished with scarcely a trace. England's initial attempt at colonization of the New World was a disaster, and one of
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
Missed for me.
-[ Received Mail Content ]--
Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:56:26 +
From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net
To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Never seen it, was it any good? It was Wayans humour, which is hit-and-miss
with me...
-- Original message --
From: ravenadal
Saw Robin Given's immortal protrayal of herself in the superhero
epic Blankman over the weekend.
~rave!
--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, keithbjohn...@... wrote:
Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would
do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to
her that I could see working in a feline-themed character.
-- Original message --
From: Augustus Augustus
i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek.� i
think that she
would be great!
--- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@...
wrote:
From: keithbjohn...@...
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Tracey de Morsella , 'Chris de
Morsella' , 'Cinque3000' ,
'paul demorsella' , ggs...@...
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM
I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason
being that
Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery.
Killng him off
would make no sense, even given the license movies take with
comic properties.
I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public
belief that
Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way
to exonerate him
than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame?
Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to
be a love
interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in
an organic way
might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too
obvious. If Selina
is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina
Jolie doesn't get
the role.
-- Original message - -
From: Tracey de Morsella
By Josh
296.html#
Josh%20Tyler
Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55
ShareThis
After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on
nearly everyone's
mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It
was a few
weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor
behind Harvey's
missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all
that the
character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors
indicating that
Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel,
Eckhart
seems to be backpedaling a little.
MTV
aaron-eckhart-
hints-a
t-possible-two- face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the
Golden Globes,
where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return
question and to
everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I
think Harvey
- if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now
open! Ok it's
not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle
room than dead
as a doornail.
It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that
Nolan might be
working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that
Aaron would
even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim
ray of hope
here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the
one Two-Face
suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain
sort of sense
to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have
Joker return
for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer
possible why
not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two
films?
http://www.cinemabl end.com/new/ Dark-Knight- s-Two-Face- May-
Not-Be-
Dead-11515.
html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
Great minds, sir! -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:35:33 -0800 (PST) From : Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com NO! i cannot stand her. her casting would make me NOT, repeat, NOT see the next installment. Fate --- On Mon, 1/12/09, ravenadal wrote: From: ravenadal Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 1:33 PM Saw Robin Given's immortal protrayal of herself in the superhero epic Blankman over the weekend. ~rave! --- In scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, KeithBJohnson@ ... wrote: Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to her that I could see working in a feline-themed character. -- Original message - - From: Augustus Augustus i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek. i think that she would be great! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, KeithBJohnson@ ... wrote: From: KeithBJohnson@ ... Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Cc: Tracey de Morsella , 'Chris de Morsella' , 'Cinque3000' , 'paul demorsella' , ggs...@... Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason being that Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery. Killng him off would make no sense, even given the license movies take with comic properties. I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public belief that Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way to exonerate him than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame? Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to be a love interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in an organic way might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too obvious. If Selina is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina Jolie doesn't get the role. -- Original message - - From: Tracey de Morsella By Josh 296.html# Josh%20Tyler Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyone's mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harvey's missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV aaron-eckhart- hints-a t-possible-two- face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok it's not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemabl end.com/new/ Dark-Knight- s-Two-Face- May- Not-Be- Dead-11515. html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
here here! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com wrote: From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 4:24 PM Great minds, sir! -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:35:33 -0800 (PST) From : Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com NO! i cannot stand her. her casting would make me NOT, repeat, NOT see the next installment. Fate --- On Mon, 1/12/09, ravenadal wrote: From: ravenadal Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 1:33 PM Saw Robin Given's immortal protrayal of herself in the superhero epic Blankman over the weekend. ~rave! --- In scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, KeithBJohnson@ ... wrote: Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to her that I could see working in a feline-themed character. -- Original message - - From: Augustus Augustus i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek. i think that she would be great! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, KeithBJohnson@ ... wrote: From: KeithBJohnson@ ... Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifino...@yahoogro ups.com, scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Cc: Tracey de Morsella , 'Chris de Morsella' , 'Cinque3000' , 'paul demorsella' , ggs...@... Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason being that Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery. Killng him off would make no sense, even given the license movies take with comic properties. I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public belief that Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way to exonerate him than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame? Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to be a love interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in an organic way might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too obvious. If Selina is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina Jolie doesn't get the role. -- Original message - - From: Tracey de Morsella By Josh 296.html# Josh%20Tyler Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyone's mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harvey's missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV aaron-eckhart- hints-a t-possible-two- face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok it's not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemabl end.com/new/ Dark-Knight- s-Two-Face- May- Not-Be- Dead-11515. html
Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info
Keith, i am with Martin on this one. the promise of pirates and mr. paul will get me 2 watch it. i truly hope that it is better than that last highlander movie (and someone answer this 4 me...how can u have such a really good series, but such crappy movies?) Fate. --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com wrote: From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 4:20 PM Really, Keith, you didn't have to go to all the trouble... I'll check this out, solely because of the promise of pirates. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:25 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Whoops! Left off the SciFi blurb on the movie. Here it is... * The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that.� -- Original message -- From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Well, I guess Adrian Paul doesn't have problems getting work. He stars in a SciFi Originals movie airing this Saturday. Some hookum about Sir Francis Drake having gone on a desperate mission and encounter all kinds of magical creatures and such. Have no idea what to think about this flick. It being on SciFi, and Pau's saying in an interview that it was CGI-heavy and they'd have to see how that holds up, make me nervous. Oh well could be worse: Paul could be starring in another Highlander movie! Here's a blurb about the movie, and another about Wraiths of Roanoke, another film he did recently, airing Friday night. *** http://adrianpaulnewswire.blogspot.com/2008/07/sci-fi-channel-to-air-immortal-voyage.html The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that.� Adrian Paul amp; Sofia Pernas * Wraiths of Roanoke Re-Airs January 18 at 1 PM SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) In 1587, Sir Walter Raleigh recruited 117 men, women and children for a permanent settlement on Roanoke Island, located on North Carolina's coast. John White (Alex McArthur) was appointed governor of the new
[scifinoir2] What Happened to the Spirit?
http://io9.com/5122648/what-happened-to-the-spirit To be fair, there's more than a small case to be made for the fact that it's so bad a movie that it could never have been a massive success - You only have to look at the reviews to see that this was never going to be anything more than a cult classic at best (When even its supporters are left saying things like The pacing and motion of the picture felt tedious. About 40 minutes in, I began nodding off. And it took Sam Jackson in a Nazi Uniform doing a crazed mad man routine to get my attention or even Is THE SPIRIT a good movie? No. Is it entertainingly and inventively bad? Yes, you know things aren't looking too good), which really raises the question, Why Was This A Christmas Day Release? ~Graeme McMillan, 109.com
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now?
Wow, God told me so? That's disturbing. -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com Keith, I wish I could give him the benefit of the doubt in anything. But he indicted himself in my eyes with his, IMO, willful misprosecution of the War on Terror (reg, TM, copy), disregarding the advice of senior commanders (whose job it is to prosecute wars, if memory serves) and a single damning moment, as recounted by Pat Robertson. Normally not one I'm likely to quote in any fashion, his words, reported widely soon after the announcement that the US would begin military operations in Iraq, still chill me to the bone. He says that he called Mister Bush, to advise him to prepare the American public for the distinct possibility that American soldiers would be coming home in body bags. Mister Bush said, basically, We're not going to lose any soldiers over there. God told me so. Behold, the Ultimate Disconnect From Reality. George W Bush, Worst POTUS EVER. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:38:04 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Been thinking a lot about President Bush, what he's done for (to) the world, what he intended to do, what his legacy will be, what he feels about everything. I find myself in some combination of anger, contempt, sympathy, bemusement, and pity for this man who now seems to be feeling the weight of what's gone wrong, but is still convinced that he did what was right and necessary. It's like chewing on a piece of food that you can't quite identify, working it over and over in the mouth, trying to decide whether to spit it out, or chew some more to decide on whether it's good or not. Here's my take on Bush: he's not a bad man, not even necessarily a stupid one, as many (me included) have often characterized him. Rather, I think he might fall more into the category of well-meaning bungler, or confident-but-clueless. The kind of guy who comes into a room and greats everyone by name, whether it's the help or the master of the house, who can make everyone laugh at a joke and put them at ease, but who then says something just kinda--well...hell, stupid. Maybe telling an off-color joke or ribbing someone a bit too much. A man who injects stories about how much he can bench press into a conversation about foreign policy. The kind of guy that makes you later say Nice enough guy, but a bit clueless... The more I hear his retrospectives and introspective musings, that's what I think. Stuff like Well, I guess the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was a mistake, or Yeah we made mistakes with Katrina--but what about all the people we *did* help? makes me feel that way. Stuff said with a sense of regret and second-guessing, but still bolstered by a game belief in his *rightness* make me think that. The more I read about him and listen to him and see him--gray and older, bowed but not beaten, impossibly upbeat even amidst the sense of melancholy that must be attacking him--the more I realize he really truly did what he thought was right and best for America. I contrast that to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who in my opinion really are egotistical, elitist, power-mad megalomaniacs. No, not a bad or ill-intentioned guy was George Bush the second, but still hurtful. A child with a gun can still kill someone, I say. Ever seen a kid accidentally cause a friend or pet to get injured? That look the child has in his eyes, wide-eyed and tearful, fearful of what he's done, not quite believing how that innocent rock throw at Fido or stab at a friend's eye with a stick could turn out so badly? The way that child wails, afraid both of what he's done, and of being punished, gamely trying to defend himself while tearfully admitting his guilt, pleading and defending, I didn't know that would happen. I didn't mean it. It's not my fault!? That's Bush, a child playing with something way beyond his ability to control or understand, now standing back going I didn't know *that* would happen! I didn't mean it! It's not my fault! But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. And in the end, perhaps that will Bush's epithet: a well-meaning fool who led this country down the wrong path, who harmed us without meaning too, and then stood by when it was done, thinking I didn't know that would happen! Somehow, George, it doesn't make me feel any better. Go to Dallas and build your library. Rest on your front porch and put up your boots while you sip whiskey and trade tall tales with your rich friends. Chop all the wood you can in Crawford. Play with your grandkids and tell 'em about the days when old Grandpa was the
Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead
Ha-ha! That's the consensus. -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com No. NEVER. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:21:28 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to her that I could see working in a feline-themed character. -- Original message -- From: Augustus Augustus i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek.� i think that she would be great! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Cc: Tracey de Morsella , 'Chris de Morsella' , 'Cinque3000' , 'paul demorsella' , ggs...@yahoo.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 12:55 PM I always assumed he wasn't dead. The primary reason being that Two-Face is one of the main villains in Batman's rogue's gallery. Killng him off would make no sense, even given the license movies take with comic properties. I also assume a third flick would have to deal with the public belief that Batman committed the murders that Two-Face did. What better way to exonerate him than have Two-Face back to finally take the blame? Still thinking Ra's Al Ghul should return, with daughter Talia to be a love interest.. The only other villain I can see being brought in in an organic way might be Catwoman. But I don't know if Nolan would it's too obvious. If Selina is in the movie, I just hope someone overexposed like Angelina Jolie doesn't get the role. -- Original message - - From: Tracey de Morsella By Josh Josh%20Tyler Tyler: 2009-01-12 00:46:55 ShareThis After watching The Dark Knight one of the big questions on nearly everyone's mind was whether or not Two-Face was really and truly dead. It was a few weeks after the film's debut that Aaron Eckhart, the actor behind Harvey's missing face answers the question definitively, telling us all that the character was dead as a doornail. Now though, with rumors indicating that Chris Nolan has finally started work on the story for a sequel, Eckhart seems to be backpedaling a little. MTV hints-a t-possible-two- face-return/ caught up with Eckhart at the Golden Globes, where they asked that same old will Harvey Dent return question and to everyone's surprise got a different response. Said Eckhart, I think Harvey - if he's not dead - is in a serious coma. The window is now open! Ok it's not open by much, but that certainly leaves him more wiggle room than dead as a doornail. It's probably too little too soon to start speculating that Nolan might be working him into the sequel. Even if he is, it's unlikely that Aaron would even know about it at this stage. Still, maybe there's a slim ray of hope here. Movie characters have survived far worse falls than the one Two-Face suffered in TDK and with Heath Ledger gone it makes a certain sort of sense to bring Two-Face back. Originally the rumored plan was to have Joker return for some small part in the second film, since that's no longer possible why not use Harvey Dent as the connecting tissue between the two films? http://www.cinemabl end.com/new/ Dark-Knight- s-Two-Face- May-Not-Be- Dead-11515. html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds ---BeginMessage--- No. NEVER. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:21:28 From : KeithBJohnson@comcast.net To : scifino...@yahoogroups.com Hmm, interesting idea for Catwoman. Wonder how Robin Givens would do in the role? She already has a kind of slinky, snarly nature to her that I could see working in a feline-themed character. -- Original message -- From: Augustus Augustus i would love the role 2 go to Zoe from the new Star Trek.� i think that she would be great! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, KeithBJohnson@comcast.net wrote: From: KeithBJohnson@comcast.net Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Dark Knight's Two-Face May Not Be Dead To:
Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info
I fear the horribly bad CGI in all SciFi Originals --less impressive than some five year old video games i've seen--may have you and me both running away in horror... -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com Really, Keith, you didn't have to go to all the trouble... I'll check this out, solely because of the promise of pirates. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:25 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Whoops! Left off the SciFi blurb on the movie. Here it is... * The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that.� -- Original message -- From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Well, I guess Adrian Paul doesn't have problems getting work. He stars in a SciFi Originals movie airing this Saturday. Some hookum about Sir Francis Drake having gone on a desperate mission and encounter all kinds of magical creatures and such. Have no idea what to think about this flick. It being on SciFi, and Pau's saying in an interview that it was CGI-heavy and they'd have to see how that holds up, make me nervous. Oh well could be worse: Paul could be starring in another Highlander movie! Here's a blurb about the movie, and another about Wraiths of Roanoke, another film he did recently, airing Friday night. *** http://adrianpaulnewswire.blogspot.com/2008/07/sci-fi-channel-to-air-immortal-vo yage.html The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that.� Adrian Paul amp; Sofia Pernas * Wraiths of Roanoke Re-Airs January 18 at 1 PM SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) In 1587, Sir Walter Raleigh recruited 117 men, women and children for a permanent settlement on Roanoke Island, located on North Carolina's coast. John White (Alex McArthur) was appointed governor of the new City of Raleigh. Among the colonists were White's pregnant daughter
Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info
if it's that bad, i will be running right behind you both! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 7:06 PM I fear the horribly bad CGI in all SciFi Originals --less impressive than some five year old video games i've seen--may have you and me both running away in horror... -- Original message - - From: Martin Baxter truthseeker013@ lycos.com Really, Keith, you didn't have to go to all the trouble... I'll check this out, solely because of the promise of pirates. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:25 + From : KeithBJohnson@ comcast.net To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Whoops! Left off the SciFi blurb on the movie. Here it is... * * *** The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that.� -- Original message -- From: KeithBJohnson@ comcast.net Well, I guess Adrian Paul doesn't have problems getting work. He stars in a SciFi Originals movie airing this Saturday. Some hookum about Sir Francis Drake having gone on a desperate mission and encounter all kinds of magical creatures and such. Have no idea what to think about this flick. It being on SciFi, and Pau's saying in an interview that it was CGI-heavy and they'd have to see how that holds up, make me nervous. Oh well could be worse: Paul could be starring in another Highlander movie! Here's a blurb about the movie, and another about Wraiths of Roanoke, another film he did recently, airing Friday night. * * * http://adrianpaulne wswire.blogspot. com/2008/ 07/sci-fi- channel-to- air-immortal- vo yage.html The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found
Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info
Reminds me that I need to pick up new running shoes... -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:30:48 -0800 (PST) From : Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com if it's that bad, i will be running right behind you both! --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 7:06 PM I fear the horribly bad CGI in all SciFi Originals --less impressive than some five year old video games i've seen--may have you and me both running away in horror... -- Original message - - From: Martin Baxter Really, Keith, you didn't have to go to all the trouble... I'll check this out, solely because of the promise of pirates. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:25 + From : KeithBJohnson@ comcast.net To : scifino...@yahoogro ups.com Whoops! Left off the SciFi blurb on the movie. Here it is... * * *** The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that.� -- Original message -- From: KeithBJohnson@ comcast.net Well, I guess Adrian Paul doesn't have problems getting work. He stars in a SciFi Originals movie airing this Saturday. Some hookum about Sir Francis Drake having gone on a desperate mission and encounter all kinds of magical creatures and such. Have no idea what to think about this flick. It being on SciFi, and Pau's saying in an interview that it was CGI-heavy and they'd have to see how that holds up, make me nervous. Oh well could be worse: Paul could be starring in another Highlander movie! Here's a blurb about the movie, and another about Wraiths of Roanoke, another film he did recently, airing Friday night. * * * http://adrianpaulne wswire.blogspot. com/2008/ 07/sci-fi- channel-to- air-immortal- vo yage.html The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now?
When he said that, I recall being numb for an hour afterward. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? Date : Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:04:22 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Wow, God told me so? That's disturbing. -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter Keith, I wish I could give him the benefit of the doubt in anything. But he indicted himself in my eyes with his, IMO, willful misprosecution of the War on Terror (reg, TM, copy), disregarding the advice of senior commanders (whose job it is to prosecute wars, if memory serves) and a single damning moment, as recounted by Pat Robertson. Normally not one I'm likely to quote in any fashion, his words, reported widely soon after the announcement that the US would begin military operations in Iraq, still chill me to the bone. He says that he called Mister Bush, to advise him to prepare the American public for the distinct possibility that American soldiers would be coming home in body bags. Mister Bush said, basically, We're not going to lose any soldiers over there. God told me so. Behold, the Ultimate Disconnect From Reality. George W Bush, Worst POTUS EVER. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:38:04 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Been thinking a lot about President Bush, what he's done for (to) the world, what he intended to do, what his legacy will be, what he feels about everything. I find myself in some combination of anger, contempt, sympathy, bemusement, and pity for this man who now seems to be feeling the weight of what's gone wrong, but is still convinced that he did what was right and necessary. It's like chewing on a piece of food that you can't quite identify, working it over and over in the mouth, trying to decide whether to spit it out, or chew some more to decide on whether it's good or not. Here's my take on Bush: he's not a bad man, not even necessarily a stupid one, as many (me included) have often characterized him. Rather, I think he might fall more into the category of well-meaning bungler, or confident-but-clueless. The kind of guy who comes into a room and greats everyone by name, whether it's the help or the master of the house, who can make everyone laugh at a joke and put them at ease, but who then says something just kinda--well...hell, stupid. Maybe telling an off-color joke or ribbing someone a bit too much. A man who injects stories about how much he can bench press into a conversation about foreign policy. The kind of guy that makes you later say Nice enough guy, but a bit clueless... The more I hear his retrospectives and introspective musings, that's what I think. Stuff like Well, I guess the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was a mistake, or Yeah we made mistakes with Katrina--but what about all the people we *did* help? makes me feel that way. Stuff said with a sense of regret and second-guessing, but still bolstered by a game belief in his *rightness* make me think that. The more I read about him and listen to him and see him--gray and older, bowed but not beaten, impossibly upbeat even amidst the sense of melancholy that must be attacking him--the more I realize he really truly did what he thought was right and best for America. I contrast that to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who in my opinion really are egotistical, elitist, power-mad megalomaniacs. No, not a bad or ill-intentioned guy was George Bush the second, but still hurtful. A child with a gun can still kill someone, I say. Ever seen a kid accidentally cause a friend or pet to get injured? That look the child has in his eyes, wide-eyed and tearful, fearful of what he's done, not quite believing how that innocent rock throw at Fido or stab at a friend's eye with a stick could turn out so badly? The way that child wails, afraid both of what he's done, and of being punished, gamely trying to defend himself while tearfully admitting his guilt, pleading and defending, I didn't know that would happen. I didn't mean it. It's not my fault!? That's Bush, a child playing with something way beyond his ability to control or understand, now standing back going I didn't know *that* would happen! I didn't mean it! It's not my fault! But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. And in the end, perhaps that will Bush's epithet: a well-meaning fool who led this country down the wrong path, who harmed us without meaning too, and then stood by when it was done, thinking I didn't know that would happen! Somehow, George, it doesn't make me feel any better. Go
[RE][scifinoir2] What Happened to the Spirit?
Am I wrong, or is this guy saying what many here said long before the movie landed in theaters? -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] What Happened to the Spirit? Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:31:51 - From : ravenadal ravena...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com http://io9.com/5122648/what-happened-to-the-spirit To be fair, there's more than a small case to be made for the fact that it's so bad a movie that it could never have been a massive success - You only have to look at the reviews to see that this was never going to be anything more than a cult classic at best (When even its supporters are left saying things like The pacing and motion of the picture felt tedious. About 40 minutes in, I began nodding off. And it took Sam Jackson in a Nazi Uniform doing a crazed mad man routine to get my attention or even Is THE SPIRIT a good movie? No. Is it entertainingly and inventively bad? Yes, you know things aren't looking too good), which really raises the question, Why Was This A Christmas Day Release? ~Graeme McMillan, 109.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info
Fate, there's a special corner in this forum where we've been studying the answer to that for some time. Have a look around, and it's easy to spot. Lots of head-sized indentations in the wall... -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:23:07 -0800 (PST) From : Augustus Augustus jazzynupe_...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Keith, i am with Martin on this one. the promise of pirates and mr. paul will get me 2 watch it. i truly hope that it is better than that last highlander movie (and someone answer this 4 me...how can u have such a really good series, but such crappy movies?) Fate. --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Martin Baxter wrote: From: Martin Baxter Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 4:20 PM Really, Keith, you didn't have to go to all the trouble... I'll check this out, solely because of the promise of pirates. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Adrian Paul Stars in SciFi Original Movie This Saturday-- Info Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:25 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Whoops! Left off the SciFi blurb on the movie. Here it is... * The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake as not so much of a good guy. We found lots of black humor in that.� -- Original message -- From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Well, I guess Adrian Paul doesn't have problems getting work. He stars in a SciFi Originals movie airing this Saturday. Some hookum about Sir Francis Drake having gone on a desperate mission and encounter all kinds of magical creatures and such. Have no idea what to think about this flick. It being on SciFi, and Pau's saying in an interview that it was CGI-heavy and they'd have to see how that holds up, make me nervous. Oh well could be worse: Paul could be starring in another Highlander movie! Here's a blurb about the movie, and another about Wraiths of Roanoke, another film he did recently, airing Friday night. *** http://adrianpaulnewswire.blogspot.com/2008/07/sci-fi-channel-to-air-immortal-voyage.html The Immortal Voyage of Francis Drake SCI FI CHANNEL (USA) 1592Four years after England's defeat of the Spanish Armada, tensions still run deep, especially between Sir Francis Drake, The Queen's Pirate and his lifelong nemesis, Captain Don Sandovate. An encounter with a mysterious Syrian sultan, however, finds the two men and their crews engaged in a daring race against time, each embarking upon a desperate quest to exotic foreign lands where they face perilous obstacles and untold dangers at every turn. CAST: Adrian Paul, Peter Easton, Temuera Morrison, Wes Ramsey, Daniel Kash, Sofia Pernas, Nick Harvey, Mike Straub amp; George Zlatarev Production:: Sci Fi Channel Producers: Jeffery Beach, Phillip J. Roth Writer: Rafael Jordan Director: David Flores In a recent Starlog Magazine Interview Adrian stated: �It was an ambitious project, done for a small amount of money,� he comments.�CAPTAIN DRAKE is supposed to take place in about six different locations around the world, so there is going to be lots of CGI. We shall see whether the CGI holds up. The funny thing about Sir Francis Drake is that he wasn�t liked by very many people,� Paul notes with a laugh.�He was an egotistical, self-centered pirate. The only reason he was a �hero� was because Queen Elizabeth I sanctioned him. So it was fun to play Drake
Re: [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now?
It would mean something if he was willing to admit he and the rest of the cabinet manufactured the evidence for the Weapons of Mass Destruction and destroyed a country based on a pile of lies. It would be introspective if he admitted his actual part in the equation in stead of justifying his incompetence with a continued and that obvious pile of lies. It would be regret if he begged for forgiveness and turned himself over to the world court for prosecution as a War Criminal. Etthnic cleansing Serb War Criminals like Karadszic and Milosevich were boy scouts compared to Bush, Cheney and their ilk. He's not only the worst President in US History. He's the most undemocratic and biggest criminal. Anyone remember when we used recognize Habeus Corpus. Nixon was a saint compared to this PIG. It's unfortunate that nothing will ever come of his crimes both discovered and yet to be discovered. I'm currently wondering what Molly Ivins and Hunter S. Thompson might be saying about that speech. I miss them. God I miss them. We sure have needed them. Bosco --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net Subject: [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 2:38 PM Been thinking a lot about President Bush, what he's done for (to) the world, what he intended to do, what his legacy will be, what he feels about everything. I find myself in some combination of anger, contempt, sympathy, bemusement, and pity for this man who now seems to be feeling the weight of what's gone wrong, but is still convinced that he did what was right and necessary. It's like chewing on a piece of food that you can't quite identify, working it over and over in the mouth, trying to decide whether to spit it out, or chew some more to decide on whether it's good or not. Here's my take on Bush: he's not a bad man, not even necessarily a stupid one, as many (me included) have often characterized him. Rather, I think he might fall more into the category of well-meaning bungler, or confident-but- clueless. The kind of guy who comes into a room and greats everyone by name, whether it's the help or the master of the house, who can make everyone laugh at a joke and put them at ease, but who then says something just kinda--well. ..hell, stupid. Maybe telling an off-color joke or ribbing someone a bit too much. A man who injects stories about how much he can bench press into a conversation about foreign policy. The kind of guy that makes you later say Nice enough guy, but a bit clueless... The more I hear his retrospectives and introspective musings, that's what I think. Stuff like Well, I guess the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was a mistake, or Yeah we made mistakes with Katrina--but what about all the people we *did* help? makes me feel that way. Stuff said with a sense of regret and second-guessing, but still bolstered by a game belief in his *rightness* make me think that. The more I read about him and listen to him and see him--gray and older, bowed but not beaten, impossibly upbeat even amidst the sense of melancholy that must be attacking him--the more I realize he really truly did what he thought was right and best for America. I contrast that to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who in my opinion really are egotistical, elitist, power-mad megalomaniacs. No, not a bad or ill-intentioned guy was George Bush the second, but still hurtful. A child with a gun can still kill someone, I say. Ever seen a kid accidentally cause a friend or pet to get injured? That look the child has in his eyes, wide-eyed and tearful, fearful of what he's done, not quite believing how that innocent rock throw at Fido or stab at a friend's eye with a stick could turn out so badly? The way that child wails, afraid both of what he's done, and of being punished, gamely trying to defend himself while tearfully admitting his guilt, pleading and defending, I didn't know that would happen. I didn't mean it. It's not my fault!? That's Bush, a child playing with something way beyond his ability to control or understand, now standing back going I didn't know *that* would happen! I didn't mean it! It's not my fault! But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. And in the end, perhaps that will Bush's epithet: a well-meaning fool who led this country down the wrong path, who harmed us without meaning too, and then stood by when it was done, thinking I didn't know that would happen! Somehow, George, it doesn't make me feel any better. Go to Dallas and build your library. Rest on your front porch and put up your boots while you sip whiskey and trade tall tales with your rich friends. Chop all the wood you can in Crawford. Play with your grandkids and tell 'em about the days when old Grandpa was
Re: [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now?
(standing ovation) -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:48:33 -0800 (PST) From : Bosco Bosco ironpi...@yahoo.com To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com It would mean something if he was willing to admit he and the rest of the cabinet manufactured the evidence for the Weapons of Mass Destruction and destroyed a country based on a pile of lies. It would be introspective if he admitted his actual part in the equation in stead of justifying his incompetence with a continued and that obvious pile of lies. It would be regret if he begged for forgiveness and turned himself over to the world court for prosecution as a War Criminal. Etthnic cleansing Serb War Criminals like Karadszic and Milosevich were boy scouts compared to Bush, Cheney and their ilk. He's not only the worst President in US History. He's the most undemocratic and biggest criminal. Anyone remember when we used recognize Habeus Corpus. Nixon was a saint compared to this PIG. It's unfortunate that nothing will ever come of his crimes both discovered and yet to be discovered. I'm currently wondering what Molly Ivins and Hunter S. Thompson might be saying about that speech. I miss them. God I miss them. We sure have needed them. Bosco --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Subject: [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 2:38 PM Been thinking a lot about President Bush, what he's done for (to) the world, what he intended to do, what his legacy will be, what he feels about everything. I find myself in some combination of anger, contempt, sympathy, bemusement, and pity for this man who now seems to be feeling the weight of what's gone wrong, but is still convinced that he did what was right and necessary. It's like chewing on a piece of food that you can't quite identify, working it over and over in the mouth, trying to decide whether to spit it out, or chew some more to decide on whether it's good or not. Here's my take on Bush: he's not a bad man, not even necessarily a stupid one, as many (me included) have often characterized him. Rather, I think he might fall more into the category of well-meaning bungler, or confident-but- clueless. The kind of guy who comes into a room and greats everyone by name, whether it's the help or the master of the house, who can make everyone laugh at a joke and put them at ease, but who then says something just kinda--well. ..hell, stupid. Maybe telling an off-color joke or ribbing someone a bit too much. A man who injects stories about how much he can bench press into a conversation about foreign policy. The kind of guy that makes you later say Nice enough guy, but a bit clueless... The more I hear his retrospectives and introspective musings, that's what I think. Stuff like Well, I guess the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was a mistake, or Yeah we made mistakes with Katrina--but what about all the people we *did* help? makes me feel that way. Stuff said with a sense of regret and second-guessing, but still bolstered by a game belief in his *rightness* make me think that. The more I read about him and listen to him and see him--gray and older, bowed but not beaten, impossibly upbeat even amidst the sense of melancholy that must be attacking him--the more I realize he really truly did what he thought was right and best for America. I contrast that to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who in my opinion really are egotistical, elitist, power-mad megalomaniacs. No, not a bad or ill-intentioned guy was George Bush the second, but still hurtful. A child with a gun can still kill someone, I say. Ever seen a kid accidentally cause a friend or pet to get injured? That look the child has in his eyes, wide-eyed and tearful, fearful of what he's done, not quite believing how that innocent rock throw at Fido or stab at a friend's eye with a stick could turn out so badly? The way that child wails, afraid both of what he's done, and of being punished, gamely trying to defend himself while tearfully admitting his guilt, pleading and defending, I didn't know that would happen. I didn't mean it. It's not my fault!? That's Bush, a child playing with something way beyond his ability to control or understand, now standing back going I didn't know *that* would happen! I didn't mean it! It's not my fault! But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. And in the end, perhaps that will Bush's epithet: a well-meaning fool who led this country down the wrong path, who harmed us without meaning too, and then stood by when it was done, thinking I didn't know that would happen! Somehow, George, it doesn't make me feel any better. Go to Dallas and build your library. Rest on your front porch and
[scifinoir2] SHADOWLAW: THE SERIAL NOVEL available for sale
http://stores.lulu.com/brandoneaston In a Catholic-controlled future society, a disgraced soldier discovers a secret pact between the government he was sworn to protect and a powerful global Vampire cult. In a universe of faith based on lies, Rictor Caesaro must find the truth before all of mankind is enslaved and destroyed. Welcome to the world of Shadowlaw, the first in a series of novels in the new genre of Vampire-Mech: supernatural action mixed with men who pilot Mech suits, giant robotic suits of armor! NOTE: This is a SERIALIZED NOVEL, only the first few chapters are available with some other information in the back of this episode. It is a better idea to DOWNLOAD the story for now. For those who want to get part of the Shadowlaw story in advance, I am offering the first few chapters of the novel for sale in a SERIALIZED NOVEL FORMAT -- like what Stephen King did with the GREEN MILE novellas. It is far too expensive for print, so if you wish to purchase it, please use the DOWNLOAD option. Thanks in advance! B.
Re: [RE][scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now?
I hear that. -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@lycos.com When he said that, I recall being numb for an hour afterward. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? Date : Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:04:22 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Wow, God told me so? That's disturbing. -- Original message -- From: Martin Baxter Keith, I wish I could give him the benefit of the doubt in anything. But he indicted himself in my eyes with his, IMO, willful misprosecution of the War on Terror (reg, TM, copy), disregarding the advice of senior commanders (whose job it is to prosecute wars, if memory serves) and a single damning moment, as recounted by Pat Robertson. Normally not one I'm likely to quote in any fashion, his words, reported widely soon after the announcement that the US would begin military operations in Iraq, still chill me to the bone. He says that he called Mister Bush, to advise him to prepare the American public for the distinct possibility that American soldiers would be coming home in body bags. Mister Bush said, basically, We're not going to lose any soldiers over there. God told me so. Behold, the Ultimate Disconnect From Reality. George W Bush, Worst POTUS EVER. -[ Received Mail Content ]-- Subject : [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? Date : Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:38:04 + From : keithbjohn...@comcast.net To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Been thinking a lot about President Bush, what he's done for (to) the world, what he intended to do, what his legacy will be, what he feels about everything. I find myself in some combination of anger, contempt, sympathy, bemusement, and pity for this man who now seems to be feeling the weight of what's gone wrong, but is still convinced that he did what was right and necessary. It's like chewing on a piece of food that you can't quite identify, working it over and over in the mouth, trying to decide whether to spit it out, or chew some more to decide on whether it's good or not. Here's my take on Bush: he's not a bad man, not even necessarily a stupid one, as many (me included) have often characterized him. Rather, I think he might fall more into the category of well-meaning bungler, or confident-but-clueless. The kind of guy who comes into a room and greats everyone by name, whether it's the help or the master of the house, who can make everyone laugh at a joke and put them at ease, but who then says something just kinda--well...hell, stupid. Maybe telling an off-color joke or ribbing someone a bit too much. A man who injects stories about how much he can bench press into a conversation about foreign policy. The kind of guy that makes you later say Nice enough guy, but a bit clueless... The more I hear his retrospectives and introspective musings, that's what I think. Stuff like Well, I guess the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was a mistake, or Yeah we made mistakes with Katrina--but what about all the people we *did* help? makes me feel that way. Stuff said with a sense of regret and second-guessing, but still bolstered by a game belief in his *rightness* make me think that. The more I read about him and listen to him and see him--gray and older, bowed but not beaten, impossibly upbeat even amidst the sense of melancholy that must be attacking him--the more I realize he really truly did what he thought was right and best for America. I contrast that to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who in my opinion really are egotistical, elitist, power-mad megalomaniacs. No, not a bad or ill-intentioned guy was George Bush the second, but still hurtful. A child with a gun can still kill someone, I say. Ever seen a kid accidentally cause a friend or pet to get injured? That look the child has in his eyes, wide-eyed and tearful, fearful of what he's done, not quite believing how that innocent rock throw at Fido or stab at a friend's eye with a stick could turn out so badly? The way that child wails, afraid both of what he's done, and of being punished, gamely trying to defend himself while tearfully admitting his guilt, pleading and defending, I didn't know that would happen. I didn't mean it. It's not my fault!? That's Bush, a child playing with something way beyond his ability to control or understand, now standing back going I didn't know *that* would happen! I didn't mean it! It's not my fault! But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. And in the end,
Re: [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now?
Couldn't have said it better myself. Though, you make my little boy more into evil Little Anthony from Twilight Zone than Dennis the Menance--can't argue with that. -- Original message -- From: Bosco Bosco ironpi...@yahoo.com It would mean something if he was willing to admit he and the rest of the cabinet manufactured the evidence for the Weapons of Mass Destruction and destroyed a country based on a pile of lies. It would be introspective if he admitted his actual part in the equation in stead of justifying his incompetence with a continued and that obvious pile of lies. It would be regret if he begged for forgiveness and turned himself over to the world court for prosecution as a War Criminal. Etthnic cleansing Serb War Criminals like Karadszic and Milosevich were boy scouts compared to Bush, Cheney and their ilk. He's not only the worst President in US History. He's the most undemocratic and biggest criminal. Anyone remember when we used recognize Habeus Corpus. Nixon was a saint compared to this PIG. It's unfortunate that nothing will ever come of his crimes both discovered and yet to be discovered. I'm currently wondering what Molly Ivins and Hunter S. Thompson might be saying about that speech. I miss them. God I miss them. We sure have needed them. Bosco --- On Mon, 1/12/09, keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net wrote: From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net keithbjohn...@comcast.net Subject: [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 2:38 PM Been thinking a lot about President Bush, what he's done for (to) the world, what he intended to do, what his legacy will be, what he feels about everything. I find myself in some combination of anger, contempt, sympathy, bemusement, and pity for this man who now seems to be feeling the weight of what's gone wrong, but is still convinced that he did what was right and necessary. It's like chewing on a piece of food that you can't quite identify, working it over and over in the mouth, trying to decide whether to spit it out, or chew some more to decide on whether it's good or not. Here's my take on Bush: he's not a bad man, not even necessarily a stupid one, as many (me included) have often characterized him. Rather, I think he might fall more into the category of well-meaning bungler, or confident-but- clueless. The kind of guy who comes into a room and greats everyone by name, whether it's the help or the master of the house, who can make everyone laugh at a joke and put them at ease, but who then says something just kinda--well. ..hell, stupid. Maybe telling an off-color joke or ribbing someone a bit too much. A man who injects stories about how much he can bench press into a conversation about foreign policy. The kind of guy that makes you later say Nice enough guy, but a bit clueless... The more I hear his retrospectives and introspective musings, that's what I think. Stuff like Well, I guess the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was a mistake, or Yeah we made mistakes with Katrina--but what about all the people we *did* help? makes me feel that way. Stuff said with a sense of regret and second-guessing, but still bolstered by a game belief in his *rightness* make me think that. The more I read about him and listen to him and see him--gray and older, bowed but not beaten, impossibly upbeat even amidst the sense of melancholy that must be attacking him--the more I realize he really truly did what he thought was right and best for America. I contrast that to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who in my opinion really are egotistical, elitist, power-mad megalomaniacs. No, not a bad or ill-intentioned guy was George Bush the second, but still hurtful. A child with a gun can still kill someone, I say. Ever seen a kid accidentally cause a friend or pet to get injured? That look the child has in his eyes, wide-eyed and tearful, fearful of what he's done, not quite believing how that innocent rock throw at Fido or stab at a friend's eye with a stick could turn out so badly? The way that child wails, afraid both of what he's done, and of being punished, gamely trying to defend himself while tearfully admitting his guilt, pleading and defending, I didn't know that would happen. I didn't mean it. It's not my fault!? That's Bush, a child playing with something way beyond his ability to control or understand, now standing back going I didn't know *that* would happen! I didn't mean it! It's not my fault! But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. And in the end, perhaps that will Bush's epithet: a well-meaning fool who led this country down the wrong path, who harmed us without
[scifinoir2] Lunar Buggy Prototype to Be on Display at Inauguration
Wow, of all the sights I expected at the inauguration next week, a Lunar rover prototype wasn't exactly high on the list. It's only only taken what? Five or six decades to get to a rover that's actually more than an open dune buggy? So the astronauts *could* travel in this thing sans suits, but I wouldn't recommend it! Be interesting to see what the other finalists look like. The article trumpets NASA's Cool Again, but I won't say that until I see that much-longed-for spinning doughnut wheel space station, a space shuttle that can make it all the way to the Moon, come back, and land under its own power instead of dropping like a brick, or a permanent base on the Lunar surface, complete with a cool glass dome! ** http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/92164?fp=1 NASA's Cool Again When was the last time anything from NASA made you say, Whoa, that's cool? Sometime during the Kennedy administration? Your justifiable cynicism may be about to disappear. A new and very impressive-looking moon buggy prototype has been unveiled by America's space agency. The buggy looks nothing like the tin foil-like moon rovers from years past. This thing is straight out of a Spielberg flick, with an impressive glass cockpit, iPod-like color scheme, and room for four passengers. Additionally, according to this video from the Houston Chronicle, the rover can also serve as a mobile living quarters. No need for astronauts to return to their base every night they can do the space equivalent of car camp instead. So what about the specs? MSNBC hosts an informative article. Apparently, the rover's top speed will be anywhere from 6-15 miles per hour. Not exactly the General Lee, but what it lacks in speed, it makes up for in maneuverability. During a test run in the Arizona desert, the buggy outpaced Hummers, Jeeps, and rugged trucks. It can even dip and rise like a low rider. But don't get too excited just yet. It's still only a prototype. And even if development goes perfectly, this vehicle won't see the moon's surface until 2020. That's a long way away, but those who can't wait should tune in next Tuesday. The lunar rover will make its public debut during Barack Obama's inaugural parade, where it will show off its moves for the new president. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28565952/ [From MSNBC] By Seth Borenstein updated 7:01 p.m. ET, Thurs., Jan. 8, 2009 WASHINGTON - Before it gets to space, a moon buggy will make history by being the first to boogie along an inaugural parade. NASA will participate in President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural parade with the crew of the latest shuttle mission and a small pressurized rover that is the current design for a mission to the moon in about 12 years. It will be driven by astronaut Michael Gernhardt. While NASA has been part of past inaugural parades, it has never used a lunar rover as its representative before, agency spokesman David Mould said Thursday. NASA hasn't chosen a final rover design yet, but the one in the parade is the leading prototype at the moment, succeeding wildly on a three-day desert trek in Arizona in October. It is different from the Apollo era open top rovers. It is sealed like a car, allowing two astronauts to sit in it without wearing bulky spacesuits. The 12-wheeled vehicle, which tops out around 6 mph, will then go on display for Washington media the next day, spokeswoman Ashley Edwards said. Also marching in the parade will be the crew of Endeavour: Chris Ferguson, Eric Boe, Donald Petit, Steve Bowen, Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper, Shane Kimbrough and Greg Chamitoff.
RE: [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now?
Keith, I couldn't read all of your post (I think I a late-blooming ADD guy), but you said this magnificently...unless you blew it in the second half...like the Giants...but I digress! I think the Bushwhacker's wife told him that if he didn't get out in front of his bumbling, rather inept 8 years, and take responsibility before somebody else (Like Jib-Jab?) put their opinion of his presidency out there, she would never sleep with him again. What a marooon! And yes, I sometimes feel a little sorry for him...like I would for a deer who was hit by a car without realizing what it was that killed her! _ From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of keithbjohn...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:38 PM To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [scifinoir2] OT: Does an Introspective Bush Mean Anything Now? Been thinking a lot about President Bush, what he's done for (to) the world, what he intended to do, what his legacy will be, what he feels about everything. I find myself in some combination of anger, contempt, sympathy, bemusement, and pity for this man who now seems to be feeling the weight of what's gone wrong, but is still convinced that he did what was right and necessary. It's like chewing on a piece of food that you can't quite identify, working it over and over in the mouth, trying to decide whether to spit it out, or chew some more to decide on whether it's good or not. Here's my take on Bush: he's not a bad man, not even necessarily a stupid one, as many (me included) have often characterized him. Rather, I think he might fall more into the category of well-meaning bungler, or confident-but-clueless. The kind of guy who comes into a room and greats everyone by name, whether it's the help or the master of the house, who can make everyone laugh at a joke and put them at ease, but who then says something just kinda--well...hell, stupid. Maybe telling an off-color joke or ribbing someone a bit too much. A man who injects stories about how much he can bench press into a conversation about foreign policy. The kind of guy that makes you later say Nice enough guy, but a bit clueless... The more I hear his retrospectives and introspective musings, that's what I think. Stuff like Well, I guess the 'Mission Accomplished' banner was a mistake, or Yeah we made mistakes with Katrina--but what about all the people we *did* help? makes me feel that way. Stuff said with a sense of regret and second-guessing, but still bolstered by a game belief in his *rightness* make me think that. The more I read about him and listen to him and see him--gray and older, bowed but not beaten, impossibly upbeat even amidst the sense of melancholy that must be attacking him--the more I realize he really truly did what he thought was right and best for America. I contrast that to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who in my opinion really are egotistical, elitist, power-mad megalomaniacs. No, not a bad or ill-intentioned guy was George Bush the second, but still hurtful. A child with a gun can still kill someone, I say. Ever seen a kid accidentally cause a friend or pet to get injured? That look the child has in his eyes, wide-eyed and tearful, fearful of what he's done, not quite believing how that innocent rock throw at Fido or stab at a friend's eye with a stick could turn out so badly? The way that child wails, afraid both of what he's done, and of being punished, gamely trying to defend himself while tearfully admitting his guilt, pleading and defending, I didn't know that would happen. I didn't mean it. It's not my fault!? That's Bush, a child playing with something way beyond his ability to control or understand, now standing back going I didn't know *that* would happen! I didn't mean it! It's not my fault! But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they say. And in the end, perhaps that will Bush's epithet: a well-meaning fool who led this country down the wrong path, who harmed us without meaning too, and then stood by when it was done, thinking I didn't know that would happen! Somehow, George, it doesn't make me feel any better. Go to Dallas and build your library. Rest on your front porch and put up your boots while you sip whiskey and trade tall tales with your rich friends. Chop all the wood you can in Crawford. Play with your grandkids and tell 'em about the days when old Grandpa was the most powerful Texan in the world. Write your book and try to explain how it went so wrong. Watch the news about all of us who have lost jobs and homes, who are driving beat-up old cars for fear of taking on new payments, who stay in miserable jobs for fear of being jobless. Watch the coverage of dying soldiers in the Mideast, of terrorism barely abated, of New Orleans changed forever, of a people whoses very privacy is now less sacred. And at the end of the day, when the sun's setting and Laura and everyone's inside, and there's no one in the world but you and
