Re: [RE][scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,

[Daryle Lockhart]

It's sad, but I'm with  you. I have watched every single episode of  
DSV. Loved it. Post shark jumping, DSV 2032 was a spectacle of high  
concept  bad TV.  The DeLuise brothers working together? Dawn  
Robinson on TV? Ted Raimi? A damn near 21 Jumpstreet reunion? What  
could be worse?  But, what could be better at the same time. I think  
we all kind of grew up at the same time and DSV turned into the  
silliest show in the world. That  last episode...whoo boy. Makes the  
Stargate Episode (their little homage tothe Farscape episode "The  
Locket") look like "City On the Edge of Forever". Gods bless those of  
you bold enough to admit DSV was a bad show then. Giving up SeaQuest  
was like putting away the Rush tapes for me. A moment  of growing up  
and looking for some serious science fiction. Or, dating more.


I had the same problem with Ironside. MAN did I love him in Starship  
Troopers, though.



On Jul 18, 2009, at 8:13 AM, votomguy wrote:

Is it sad that I liked the show even after the Alien Hijacking? I  
thought it was awesome. I did have a hard time accepting Ironside  
as a hero. I was an 80s baby and grew up with him being the top  
henchman in every other action flick. He didn't do a terrible job.  
**cough Starship Troopers cough** Ironside not withstanding, I  
think I watched it pretty much until the end. the Alien Hijacking  
was awesome, but they probably shouldn't have come back to Earth.  
DSV: Atlantis or something.


--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Baxter"  
 wrote:

>
> Could have indeed, George. I watched it faithfully until the  
Alien Hijacking Ep. (shudder)

>
>
>
>
>
-[ Received Mail Content ]--
>
Subject : [scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,
>
Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
>
From : George Arterberry 
>
To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Haven't watched since it aired on NBC. If this show didn't jump  
the shark it could have been real good.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
>

[scifinoir2] Re: Anyone going to Comic Con in San Diego?

[votomguy]

I gave up on Black Panther when Priest stopped writing it
--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, George Arterberry  
wrote:
>
> Wanna hear Reginald Hudlin's excuse for Black Panther
>

Re: [RE][scifinoir2] Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible?

[Keith Johnson]

Terminator 3 wasn't that bad. Not nearly as good as the first two, but not a 
bad movie. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Baxter"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 3:34:03 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible? 






U... that's because H'Wood doesn't give a crap about fans. It's 
just the bottom line ($). IMO, the only threequel that's been done 
right was LOTR, Oh, and the original SW trilogy. 






-[ Received Mail Content ]-- 
Subject : [scifinoir2] Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible? [1 
Attachment] 
Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:00:11 -0700 
>From : "Tracey de Morsella"  
To :  

Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible? 

By Charlie Jane Anders , 4:04 PM 
on Tue 
Jul 7 2009, 46,538 views (Edit , to 
draft , 
un-top 
, Slurp 
) 
Top of Form 
Copy this whole post to another site 
Slurp cancel 




Bottom of Form 
Movie sequels that don't suck are rare creatures - like flying unicorns - 
but they do exist. But it's almost impossible to find an example of a third 
movie in a series that didn't self-immolate. Why is that? 
After yesterday's list of sequels that don't suck - and I still cling to 
RoboCop 2, although maybe I should watch it again - people asked for a list 
of threequels that do suck. Which seemed kind of pointless, because that 
would be the same as a complete list of threequels. Search For Spock? 
Sucked. Return Of The Jedi? Blew. Spider-Man 3 
? Superman III 
? RoboCop 3? X-Men 3 
? It's making my head pound just to list them. 
Alien³? 
In the non-"this movie is melting my pituitary gland" category, there's... 
Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade. Which isn't science fiction, and for my 
money isn't quite as good as Raiders. But it's way better than Temple Of 
Doom. There are also some movies with numbers 
higher than three that were decent, like Star Treks IV and VI. 

So why are so many "threequels" so horrifyingly bad? Here are some possible 
explanations. 
There's no ready-made formula. 
Talking to Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman about Transformers 2 drove 
something home for me: there's a standard formula for the second movie in 
the series, just like there is for the first. In the first movie, the young 
hero discovers his (usually his) heroic destiny and learns from a father 
figure, who frequently dies or transcends somehow. In the second movie, the 
hero rejects his heroic mission and tries to return to a normal life - just 
like Superman in Superman II, Spidey in Spider-Man II and Sam in 
Transformers 2. Even in Star Trek II, you 
could argue that Kirk is questioning whether he's too old to keep 
adventuring. 
But what happens in the third movie? Uhh... The hero gets a new hairstyle? 
There are more bad guys than before? What? There's no road map. 

Studio interference. 
Sam Raimi blames Sony 

for-spider-man-4/> for the disaster that was Spider-Man 3, and I sort of 
believe him. Once a movie series becomes cash-cowy enough for the studio to 
want to do a third go-around, I guess the suits get a bit antsy. They start 
insisting on shoe-horning Venom into a movie where he and his giant alien 
tongue just don't belong. Or they demand random rewrites of a perfectly good 
script, or weird stunt casting. (Hello, Richard Pryor!) The same execs who 
might have been willing to let a film-maker have a long leash the first 
couple times start tugging at that leash more, and choking the director and 
writers, because there's more at stake. 
Just google the phrases "third movie" and "studio interference" 
, and you'll see what I mean. Terminator 3, Alien3, 
X-Men 3... all blamed on studio bigshots stepping in and meddling. 

Creative attrition. 
Sam Raimi's presence on Spider-Man 3 was, in itself, an aberration. 
Normally, after directing two awesome movies in a series, someone like Raimi 
would have stepped out to do a serious Nazi epic or cop drama, leaving 
Spider-Man in the hands of Brett Ratner or Joel Schumacher. I'm actually not 
the world's biggest fan of Tim Burton's first two Bat-films, but compared to 
the Schumacher films that followed, Batman and Batman Returns look like 
Citizen Kane and Citizen Kane's Big Score. (Now I'm picturing Citizen Kane 
In Africa - sorry, in-joke .) 
For some reason, very few writers and directors are willing to stick around 
for a third ride on the blockbuster-mobile, even if they're up for a second. 

Creative exhaustion. 
And even if any of the original creative team do come along, it's entirely 
possible to get a bit burned out after spending years of your life working 
on one saga. (It's probably a different matter if you're filming a trilogy 
all in one go, like Lord Of The Rings.) As much as any studio nonsense, I'm 
willing to bet that Sam Raimi's Spider-fatigue was a big reason for 
Spider-Man 3's problems. Raimi needed to go work on a smaller, less 
mainstream project, like Drag Me To Hell

Re: [scifinoir2] Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible?

[Keith Johnson]

good points he makes, but I have to--as I have for years--disagree with putting 
"The Search for Spock" in as a terrible sequel. To me, the core of Star Trek 
has always involved three main elements: scifi/action, the element of "fun" and 
adventure, and deep dramatic stories. "The Wrath of Khan", with its battles, 
Montalban posing as the heavily muscled Khan, and death of Spock, was the the 
crowd pleasing scifi/action Trek movie. "The Voyage Home", with its lighter 
touch, violation of aspects of the Prime Directive (Transparent aluminum), less 
stringent scifi, and more humourous touches, was the fun adventure that pleased 
non-Trekkies. and I feel that "The Search for Spock" is the one that showcased 
the deep drama and human bonds that to me is Trek at its core. In this film you 
get that opening scene of Spock's death played out in a slowly growing picture, 
starting with black and white, fading into color (arguably the best Trek movie 
opening scene ever, though Star Trek TMP and the latest movie could argue with 
that). That sets the tone for a deep emotional story. You get Bones "infected" 
with Spock's soul, Kirk deciding to go against Starfleet and save his friend, 
McCoy and the gang deciding to risk court martial to go along. There's the 
death of David. There's the amazing sacrifice of the Enterprise, as we watch 
that beloved vessel literally flaming to the ground, Kirk saying "My God, 
Bones: what have I done" (For my money, still arguably the single most dramatic 
scene in Trek movies, up there with Spock's death). There's the explosion of 
the Genesis planet and Kirk's pained "Goodbye David" as the ship leaves. And 
there's the amazing moment of the Klingon ship soaring through the skies of 
Vulcan like a graceful bird. Annnd, the moment when Spock is back, and the 
touching scene "Because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many", 
and "Jim...your name is Jim". 

Love that money, to me, still of all the Trek films the one that really 
showcases the emotional bonds, drama, and human interactions that are the core 
of Trek. 


- Original Message - 
From: "Tracey de Morsella"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 3:00:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible? [1 
Attachment] 




[ Attachment(s) from Tracey de Morsella included below] 



Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible? 
< http://io9.com/5309385/why-are-movie-threequels-always-so-terrible > 
By Charlie Jane Anders < http://io9.com/people/charliejane/posts/ > , 4:04 PM 
< http://io9.com/5309385/why-are-movie-threequels-always-so-terrible > on Tue 
Jul 7 2009, 46,538 views (Edit < http://publish.io9.com/ged/5309385 > , to 
draft < http://io9.com/5309385/why-are-movie-threequels-always-so-terrible > , 
un-top < http://io9.com/5309385/why-are-movie-threequels-always-so-terrible > 
, Slurp < http://io9.com/5309385/why-are-movie-threequels-always-so-terrible > 
) 
Top of Form 
Copy this whole post to another site 
Slurp cancel 
< http://io9.com/5309385/why-are-movie-threequels-always-so-terrible > 


Bottom of Form 
Movie sequels that don't suck are rare creatures - like flying unicorns - 
but they do exist. But it's almost impossible to find an example of a third 
movie in a series that didn't self-immolate. Why is that? 
After yesterday's list of sequels that don't suck - and I still cling to 
RoboCop 2, although maybe I should watch it again - people asked for a list 
of threequels that do suck. Which seemed kind of pointless, because that 
would be the same as a complete list of threequels. Search For Spock? 
Sucked. Return Of The Jedi? Blew. Spider-Man 3 
< http://io9.com/tag/spider_man-3/ > ? Superman III 
< http://io9.com/tag/superman-iii/ > ? RoboCop 3? X-Men 3 
< http://io9.com/tag/x_men-3/ > ? It's making my head pound just to list them. 
Alien³? 
In the non-"this movie is melting my pituitary gland" category, there's... 
Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade. Which isn't science fiction, and for my 
money isn't quite as good as Raiders. But it's way better than Temple Of 
Doom. There are also some movies < http://io9.com/tag/movies/ > with numbers 
higher than three that were decent, like Star Treks IV and VI. 

So why are so many "threequels" so horrifyingly bad? Here are some possible 
explanations. 
There's no ready-made formula. 
Talking to Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman about Transformers 2 drove 
something home for me: there's a standard formula for the second movie in 
the series, just like there is for the first. In the first movie, the young 
hero discovers his (usually his) heroic destiny and learns from a father 
figure, who frequently dies or transcends somehow. In the second movie, the 
hero rejects his heroic mission and tries to return to a normal life - just 
like Superman in Superman II, Spidey in Spider-Man II and Sam in 
Transformers 2. Even in Star Trek < http://io9.com/tag/star-trek/ > II, you 
could

Re: [scifinoir2] Stanley A. Miller's Transformers review

[Mr. Worf]

I guess there is one thing that you can say about the transformer movies
that is better than the cartoon. When a bot is killed, they usually stay
dead.

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM, ravenadal  wrote:

> http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/movies/48947651.html
>
> Transformers' sequel has both smashing fights, stupidity
>
> By Stanley A. Miller II of the Journal Sentinel
>
> Posted: June 23, 2009
>
> The robot battles in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" are the stars of
> this show: They're daring, dazzling and epically violent.
>
> The robot-on-robot action is hot - expertly and elegantly choreographed,
> like a Hong Kong kung fu fighting flick. Throw in some explosions, breaking
> buildings, orbital strikes and the U.S. military, and you have a summer
> action blockbuster that scorches your eyes and rattles you in your seat.
>
> In this sequel to the 2007 action hit, which in turn was based on the
> popular toy and cartoon from the 1980s, the stealth war between the Autobots
> and Decepticons rages on, but now the bad guys have raised the stakes with
> an ancient doomsday machine that can save their mechanical race - at the
> cost of human Armageddon.
>
> Massive destruction begins right away with racing chases, flying concrete
> and burning, twisted metal. What's going on? Who cares? Downtown Shanghai is
> going up in flames!
>
> "Revenge of the Fallen" entertains when things are being smashed, squished,
> ripped apart and blown into tiny pieces. The Transformers' animations and
> the chaos of their combat are intense and spectacular.
>
> Shia LaBeouf again finds himself in the middle of this robot civil war, but
> this time, he's really the center of attention, having accidentally absorbed
> some lost secrets that the Decepticons desperately need.
>
> When this hidden lore bubbles to the surface of his mind, it leaves poor
> LaBeouf chittering like a chipmunk, bucking his teeth, blinking his eyes and
> scrawling alien runes on any surface he can find.
>
> Unfortunately, LaBeouf has expanded his entourage. Now, in addition to
> Bumble Bee (the yellow Camaro) and the hottie girlfriend (Megan Fox), a
> college roommate (Ramon Rodriguez) and two really obnoxious Autobots - Skids
> and Mudflap - are tagging along.
>
> The group dynamics are the woefully unnecessary kind of slapstick
> foolishness that fills the dead space between battles.
>
> "Revenge of the Fallen" could easily lose 45 minutes of stupidity -
> including most of the scenes with LaBeouf's parents, his introduction to
> college life and the street-talking buffoonery of Skids and Mudflap - and be
> a lot better.
>
> But the movie's makers opted for quick, cheap laughs over storytelling or
> just more action. So let's watch Skids - or was it Mudflap? - spit out some
> jibba jabba and do a little shuffling dance to take the edge off the brutal
> violence and high human death toll.
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Post your SciFiNoir Profile at
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/app/peoplemap2/entry/add?fmvn=mapYahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years!
Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/

[scifinoir2] Anyone going to Comic Con in San Diego?

[George Arterberry]

Wanna hear Reginald Hudlin's excuse for Black Panther





 
















  

[scifinoir2] Stanley A. Miller's Transformers review

[ravenadal]

http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/movies/48947651.html

Transformers' sequel has both smashing fights, stupidity

By Stanley A. Miller II of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: June 23, 2009

The robot battles in "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" are the stars of 
this show: They're daring, dazzling and epically violent.

The robot-on-robot action is hot - expertly and elegantly choreographed, like a 
Hong Kong kung fu fighting flick. Throw in some explosions, breaking buildings, 
orbital strikes and the U.S. military, and you have a summer action blockbuster 
that scorches your eyes and rattles you in your seat.

In this sequel to the 2007 action hit, which in turn was based on the popular 
toy and cartoon from the 1980s, the stealth war between the Autobots and 
Decepticons rages on, but now the bad guys have raised the stakes with an 
ancient doomsday machine that can save their mechanical race - at the cost of 
human Armageddon.

Massive destruction begins right away with racing chases, flying concrete and 
burning, twisted metal. What's going on? Who cares? Downtown Shanghai is going 
up in flames!

"Revenge of the Fallen" entertains when things are being smashed, squished, 
ripped apart and blown into tiny pieces. The Transformers' animations and the 
chaos of their combat are intense and spectacular.

Shia LaBeouf again finds himself in the middle of this robot civil war, but 
this time, he's really the center of attention, having accidentally absorbed 
some lost secrets that the Decepticons desperately need.

When this hidden lore bubbles to the surface of his mind, it leaves poor 
LaBeouf chittering like a chipmunk, bucking his teeth, blinking his eyes and 
scrawling alien runes on any surface he can find.

Unfortunately, LaBeouf has expanded his entourage. Now, in addition to Bumble 
Bee (the yellow Camaro) and the hottie girlfriend (Megan Fox), a college 
roommate (Ramon Rodriguez) and two really obnoxious Autobots - Skids and 
Mudflap - are tagging along.

The group dynamics are the woefully unnecessary kind of slapstick foolishness 
that fills the dead space between battles.

"Revenge of the Fallen" could easily lose 45 minutes of stupidity - including 
most of the scenes with LaBeouf's parents, his introduction to college life and 
the street-talking buffoonery of Skids and Mudflap - and be a lot better.

But the movie's makers opted for quick, cheap laughs over storytelling or just 
more action. So let's watch Skids - or was it Mudflap? - spit out some jibba 
jabba and do a little shuffling dance to take the edge off the brutal violence 
and high human death toll.

 

[scifinoir2] Geekfest, anyone? Self-professed geek imagines what his fantasy festival

[ravenadal]

(for those of you scoring at home, Stanley A. Miller II, a tech writer for the 
Milwaukee Journal, is black).

(for those of you scoring at home, part two: Milwaukee is "the city of 
festivals" as we have a different ethnic festival every weekend of the summer - 
we just finished Bastille Days and go into Festa Italiana this weekend). 

http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/51046737.html

Geekfest, anyone?

Self-professed geek imagines what his fantasy festival would include

By Stanley A. Miller II of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: July 17, 2009

Milwaukee's summer festivals celebrate the city's diversity, but one important 
group - a group that crosses over ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status - 
is woefully unrepresented.

The geeks.

And I use that term with respect and adoration. After all, I count myself among 
the chosen. Yes, there was Gencon - long since moved to Indianapolis - but even 
that event back in its heyday here always had room to improve.

So as the Polish, Germans, Italians and others gather at Maier Festival Park 
weekend after weekend to party in the sun, I can't help daydreaming of what 
kind of Geekfest our city could host given a blue-sky budget, some aggressive 
organizing and a free weekend to run wild at the festival grounds.

Food: Pizza is paramount, but it doesn't have to be cheap. Sure, provide cheap 
pizza, but for those with more discriminating palates, sign on Bartolotta's to 
churn out those wood-fired oven Neapolitan pizzas, Louise's Trattoria for their 
gourmet pizzas, and Classic Slice in Bay View for New York-style pizza.

Mountain Dew must be available to keep participants awake 72 hours straight, as 
well as energy drinks like AMP, Red Bull and BAWLS, and coffee from Milwaukee's 
own Alterra. Burritos are also a popular staple of the geek diet, provided at 
Geekfest locally by Burrito Bueno as well as trucked in from La Bamba in 
Madison.

Music: This is one of the tougher areas to flesh out. Video Games Live, a 
traveling concert series featuring music from games, could team up with the 
Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra and headline one night.

•&enspMutaytor, a Los Angeles electro-retro-funk group, blends electronica, 
tribal drums, hoop dancers and aerial artists in one explosive spectacle. The 
group captivated crowds at the Electronic Entertainment Expo a few years ago 
and would be a thrilling Geekfest attraction.

•&enspLuke Sienkowski, also known as the great Luke Ski, the "jester of sci-fi" 
and "pimp of the geek nation," would also need some stage time to slay the 
crowd with his live comedy music show. His fandom parodies and original work 
make him a regular on the convention circuit, and he lives in Kenosha.

Entertainment: Celebrity appearances by Elijah Wood (Frodo!); Vin Diesel 
(action star and Dungeons & Dragons player who owns his own video game studio); 
and Samuel L. Jackson, who played Jedi Master Mace Windu in the "Star Wars" 
movies and is a self-professed geek who collects action figures, reads comic 
books and plays video games.

•&enspA live broadcast from Geekfest by Stephen Colbert, who played D&D in a 
former life and loves his Nintendo Wii.

•&enspRobot gladiator events starring the creations of students statewide, 
including teams from the FIRST robotics competition and the BOTS IQ program.

•&enspA late-evening comedy show by Dave Chappelle, who loves the "Grand Theft 
Auto" video game and "World of Warcraft" computer game.

•&enspProfessional sword fighting demonstrations, hopefully tapping some talent 
from the Bristol Renaissance Faire.

Activities: Games ranging from Dungeons & Dragons and other table-top 
role-playing games, to board games, to chess, to strategy and war games.

•&enspElectronic gaming LAN events (short for local area network) for computer 
and video game tournaments, too. Locally run Noobs Gaming Centers could 
organize the casual events, and the Pwnage Lounge, also based in Milwaukee, 
could run the hardcore for-cash competitions.

•&enspCostume contests - one for children, one for adults - preferably run by 
Anne Brown of West Allis, who still runs the dress-up competition for Gencon 
Indy. Anyone entering Geekfest's costume contest could march in the event's 
parade down Wisconsin Ave., ending at the festival grounds.

•&enspArt: An exhibition showing off fantasy and sci-fi art from local artists 
with special areas reserved for illustration, video and animation students. 
"Into the Pixel," a traveling exhibit featuring work from the electronic gaming 
industry, gets a special show at the Milwaukee Art Museum.

•&enspA free book exchange.

•&enspThe Tech Zone showing off the latest gadgets and rare devices.

•&enspComics and anime drawing workshops anchored by Lost Worlds of Wonder and 
the Collector's Edge, both local shops.

Re: [scifinoir2] Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow

[Keith Johnson]

Amen to that! 

- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Baxter"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 7:56:09 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow 






No, Keith, it's not just you. As Mr Worf said, H'Wood in all its 
formulaic stupididty, just takes the most popular body at the head of the line. 
(Can you say Beyonce?) 






-[ Received Mail Content ]-- 
Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow 
Date : Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:35:39 -0700 
>From : "Mr. Worf"  
To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 

They are going by popularity rating only. Hollywood is super formulaic. They 
probably could have found 3 dozen from here, but Scarlet Johannsen has more 
pull. 

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Keith Johnson wrote: 

> 
> 
> I guess it's just me, but I've never understood why they can't find actors 
> from the country their character calls home? There are no good, athletic 
> Russian actresses to play Widow? 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "George Arterberry" 
> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:16:08 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
> Subject: [scifinoir2] Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://thesuperficial.com/2009/07/scarlett_johansson_as_black_wi.php 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! 
Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds 
 

Re: [RE][scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,

[Keith Johnson]

I never got into the show. It was such an obvious attempt to compete with Star 
Trek TNG, from the captain down to a genius teen on the sub. The stories never 
engaged me, and as I write this, I honestly can't remember what the sub *looks* 
like. Now, the Seaview on "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", with it's unique 
design, and that wonderful little Flying Sub--ah, I remeber that quite well! 


- Original Message - 
From: "Martin Baxter"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 7:45:43 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [RE][scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV, 






Could have indeed, George. I watched it faithfully until the Alien 
Hijacking Ep. (shudder) 






-[ Received Mail Content ]-- 
Subject : [scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV, 
Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:30:31 -0700 (PDT) 
>From : George Arterberry  
To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 



Haven't watched since it aired on NBC. If this show didn't jump the shark it 
could have been real good. 























http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds 
 

Re: [scifinoir2] The Ten Top Earning Comedians

[Keith Johnson]

silly me, spending my spare TV time watching the History Channel and 
interesting programs like "The Universe", instead of their comedy and game 
shows... 

- Original Message - 
From: "Mr. Worf"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 11:36:46 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] The Ten Top Earning Comedians 






Both Howie and Jeff has game shows. So they get royalties from syndication and 
the video/board games. 


On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Keith Johnson < keithbjohn...@comcast.net > 
wrote: 






I'm trying to accept the fact that George Lopez tops twenty mill, and that 
Howie Mandell and Jeff Foxworthy each made so much last year. Wow! 

- Original Message - 
From: "ravenadal" < ravena...@yahoo.com > 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:23:02 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [scifinoir2] The Ten Top Earning Comedians 






IMHO Jerry Seinfeld should not be on this list as his bank did not come from 
actually working as a comedian (hard to believe he still raking in $85 mil a 
year off Seinfeld reruns - but it must be nice to still be collecting from work 
you did stopped doing ten years ago!) which, of course, moves Mr. Chris Rock to 
the top spot. I find it fascinating that two ventriloquists made it on the 
list. And, I must be getting old, cause I never heard of Jeff Dunham. 

~rave! 

(see list at bottom) 

http://gokeese.notlong.com 

The Top-Earning Comedians 

Lacey Rose, 07.13.09, 5:44 PM ET 

The economy is ailing and the public is glum, but stand-up acts like Dane Cook, 
Russell Peters and Larry the Cable Guy are still laughing all the way to the 
bank. 

Comedy's 10 top earners--a list that also includes George Lopez, Jeff 
Foxworthy, Howie Mandel and Terry Fator--collectively raked in $256 million 
between June 2008 and June 2009. While each of them have been padding their 
wallets with stand-up earnings, they're also finding ways to cash in on 
merchandise, DVDs, television and Hollywood flicks. 

In Pictures: The 10 Top-Earning Comedians 

Jerry Seinfeld tops the list. He earned $85 million during the 12-month period. 
Syndication deals for his eponymous sitcom, which he produced, wrote and 
starred in, made up the bulk of his income. Off the air for more than a decade, 
the show about nothing continues to mint money. The funnyman was able to 
bolster his TV earnings with a pricey Microsoft campaign and lucrative stand-up 
gigs. 

Seinfeld's next project is a reality show titled The Marriage Ref, which he'll 
produce for his former network, NBC. The premise: opinionated stars will 
comment, judge and offer differing strategies to real-life couples in the midst 
of marital disputes. Despite heavy fan interest, the General Electric-owned 
network's one-time golden boy will reportedly remain behind the scenes. 

Chris Rock lands at No. 2 on the list with $42 million. Over the course of the 
year, he added a slew of big-screen flicks to his résumé (Madagascar: Escape 2 
Africa, the upcoming Death at a Funeral and Grown Ups), released a new 
top-rated HBO comedy special (Kill the Messenger) and snagged another book deal 
with Grand Central Publishing. Come fall, his TV show Everyone Hates Chris, 
which he created and narrates for the CW, will kick off its syndication run. 

Even more lucrative, Rock hit the road for his first worldwide stand-up tour. 
In addition to typical stateside stops like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, 
his "No Apologies" tour touched down in the UK, Australia and South Africa. "He 
was the first American comic to really break open international markets," says 
Steve Levine, Executive Vice President of the Concert Department at ICM, which 
counts Rock among its star clients. "The old saw was comedy doesn't translate, 
but that's definitely not the case with Chris Rock. They loved him." 

Rounding out the top three: ventriloquist Jeff Dunham, who banked an estimated 
$30 million over the course of the year (See Another Day, Another Doll(ar). 

His placement on this list is hardly a shock when you consider the red-hot year 
the YouTube sensation and relentless touring act--he performed some 145 shows 
during the 12-month time period--has had. Among the résumé highlights: the 
most-watched Comedy Central special in the Viacom-owned cable network's history 
and the best-rated Amazon DVD of all time. Still more impressive, Dunham was 
crowned North America's top-grossing touring comedy act of 2008 and has a 
Comedy Central sitcom slated to debut later this year. 

"The one thing I'm proud of most is that my show has no social redeeming value 
whatsoever," jokes Dunham. "I'm not here to teach anybody anything. You come 
and leave your brain at the door." And that's just what today's audience is 
after. 

The 10 Top-Earning Comedians 

1. Jerry Seinfeld $85 mil 
2. Chris Rock $42 mil 
3. Jeff Dunham $30 mil 
4. Dane Cook $20 mil 
4. George Lopez $20 mil 
6. Howie Ma

Re: [scifinoir2] Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow

[Keith Johnson]

Yeah, I get it, but I think Hollywood spends too much time trying to get "name" 
stars in certain roles. Maggie Gyllenhaal, for example, was cast as the new 
Rachel in "The Dark Knight". Did her casting really pull in anyone? Same for 
Katie Holmes, who was in the news 'cause of the bizarre marriage to Tom Cruise. 
Did having her really help the movie, past what the quality of the film itself 
did to draw audiences? Indeed, in every amateur and professional critical 
review of "Batman Begins", the one person cited as weak in the flick was 
Holmes. 
So I get it: Johannsen is considered hot, she has an old-school body that will 
look good in a tight-fighting costume. But if the movie is good, the action is 
good, and the story enjoyable, I contend they will do just as well with a 
no-name Russian actress as they will from whatever upfront audience she pulls 
in. Indeed, I'd say better, as a real Russian won't have to fake an accent. 

Just one of my movie pet peeves... 

- Original Message - 
From: "Mr. Worf"  
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 11:35:39 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow 






They are going by popularity rating only. Hollywood is super formulaic. They 
probably could have found 3 dozen from here, but Scarlet Johannsen has more 
pull. 


On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Keith Johnson < keithbjohn...@comcast.net > 
wrote: 






I guess it's just me, but I've never understood why they can't find actors from 
the country their character calls home? There are no good, athletic Russian 
actresses to play Widow? 

- Original Message - 
From: "George Arterberry" < brotherfromhow...@yahoo.com > 
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:16:08 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow 















http://thesuperficial.com/2009/07/scarlett_johansson_as_black_wi.php 








-- 
Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years! 
Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ 



 

[scifinoir2] Re: Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible?

[ravenadal]

Gotta love the "Citizen Kane's Big Score" and "Citizen Kane in Africa" 
references.  I know I do.

~rave!

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Tracey de Morsella"  wrote:
>
> Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible?
>  
> By Charlie Jane Anders  , 4:04 PM
>   on Tue
> Jul 7 2009, 46,538 views (Edit  , to
> draft  ,
> un-top 
> , Slurp 
> ) 
> Top of Form
> Copy this whole post to another site
> Slurp cancel
>   
>  
> 
> 
> Bottom of Form
>  Movie sequels that don't suck are rare creatures - like flying unicorns -
> but they do exist. But it's almost impossible to find an example of a third
> movie in a series that didn't self-immolate. Why is that?
> After yesterday's list of sequels that don't suck - and I still cling to
> RoboCop 2, although maybe I should watch it again - people asked for a list
> of threequels that do suck. Which seemed kind of pointless, because that
> would be the same as a complete list of threequels. Search For Spock?
> Sucked. Return Of The Jedi? Blew. Spider-Man 3
>  ? Superman III
>  ? RoboCop 3? X-Men 3
>  ? It's making my head pound just to list them.
> Alien³?
> In the non-"this movie is melting my pituitary gland" category, there's...
> Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade. Which isn't science fiction, and for my
> money isn't quite as good as Raiders. But it's way better than Temple Of
> Doom. There are also some movies   with numbers
> higher than three that were decent, like Star Treks IV and VI.
> 
>  So why are so many "threequels" so horrifyingly bad? Here are some possible
> explanations.
> There's no ready-made formula.
> Talking to Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman about Transformers 2 drove
> something home for me: there's a standard formula for the second movie in
> the series, just like there is for the first. In the first movie, the young
> hero discovers his (usually his) heroic destiny and learns from a father
> figure, who frequently dies or transcends somehow. In the second movie, the
> hero rejects his heroic mission and tries to return to a normal life - just
> like Superman in Superman II, Spidey in Spider-Man II and Sam in
> Transformers 2. Even in Star Trek   II, you
> could argue that Kirk is questioning whether he's too old to keep
> adventuring.
> But what happens in the third movie? Uhh... The hero gets a new hairstyle?
> There are more bad guys than before? What? There's no road map.
> 
>  Studio interference.
> Sam Raimi   blames Sony
>  for-spider-man-4/>  for the disaster that was Spider-Man 3, and I sort of
> believe him. Once a movie series becomes cash-cowy enough for the studio to
> want to do a third go-around, I guess the suits get a bit antsy. They start
> insisting on shoe-horning Venom into a movie where he and his giant alien
> tongue just don't belong. Or they demand random rewrites of a perfectly good
> script, or weird stunt casting. (Hello, Richard Pryor!) The same execs who
> might have been willing to let a film-maker have a long leash the first
> couple times start tugging at that leash more, and choking the director and
> writers, because there's more at stake.
> Just google the phrases "third movie" and "studio interference"
>  , and you'll see what I mean. Terminator 3, Alien3,
> X-Men 3... all blamed on studio bigshots stepping in and meddling.
> 
>  Creative attrition.
> Sam Raimi's presence on Spider-Man 3 was, in itself, an aberration.
> Normally, after directing two awesome movies in a series, someone like Raimi
> would have stepped out to do a serious Nazi epic or cop drama, leaving
> Spider-Man in the hands of Brett Ratner or Joel Schumacher. I'm actually not
> the world's biggest fan of Tim Burton's first two Bat-films, but compared to
> the Schumacher films that followed, Batman and Batman Returns look like
> Citizen Kane and Citizen Kane's Big Score. (Now I'm picturing Citizen Kane
> In Africa - sorry, in-joke  .)
> For some reason, very few writers and directors are willing to stick around
> for a third ride on the blockbuster-mobile, even if they're up for a second.
> 
> Creative exhaustion.
> And even if any of the original creative team do come along, it's entirely
> possible to get a bit burned out after s

[RE][scifinoir2] Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible?

[Martin Baxter]

U... that's because H'Wood doesn't give a crap about fans. It's just the 
bottom line ($). IMO, the only threequel that's been done right was 
LOTR, Oh, and the original SW trilogy.





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [scifinoir2] Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible? [1 
Attachment]

 Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:00:11 -0700

 From : "Tracey de Morsella" 

 To : 


Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible?
 
By Charlie Jane Anders  , 4:04 PM
 on Tue
Jul 7 2009, 46,538 views (Edit  , to
draft  ,
un-top 
, Slurp 
) 
Top of Form
Copy this whole post to another site
Slurp cancel
 
 


Bottom of Form
 Movie sequels that don't suck are rare creatures - like flying unicorns -
but they do exist. But it's almost impossible to find an example of a third
movie in a series that didn't self-immolate. Why is that?
After yesterday's list of sequels that don't suck - and I still cling to
RoboCop 2, although maybe I should watch it again - people asked for a list
of threequels that do suck. Which seemed kind of pointless, because that
would be the same as a complete list of threequels. Search For Spock?
Sucked. Return Of The Jedi? Blew. Spider-Man 3
 ? Superman III
 ? RoboCop 3? X-Men 3
 ? It's making my head pound just to list them.
Alien³?
In the non-"this movie is melting my pituitary gland" category, there's...
Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade. Which isn't science fiction, and for my
money isn't quite as good as Raiders. But it's way better than Temple Of
Doom. There are also some movies  with numbers
higher than three that were decent, like Star Treks IV and VI.

 So why are so many "threequels" so horrifyingly bad? Here are some possible
explanations.
There's no ready-made formula.
Talking to Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman about Transformers 2 drove
something home for me: there's a standard formula for the second movie in
the series, just like there is for the first. In the first movie, the young
hero discovers his (usually his) heroic destiny and learns from a father
figure, who frequently dies or transcends somehow. In the second movie, the
hero rejects his heroic mission and tries to return to a normal life - just
like Superman in Superman II, Spidey in Spider-Man II and Sam in
Transformers 2. Even in Star Trek  II, you
could argue that Kirk is questioning whether he's too old to keep
adventuring.
But what happens in the third movie? Uhh... The hero gets a new hairstyle?
There are more bad guys than before? What? There's no road map.

 Studio interference.
Sam Raimi  blames Sony

for-spider-man-4/> for the disaster that was Spider-Man 3, and I sort of
believe him. Once a movie series becomes cash-cowy enough for the studio to
want to do a third go-around, I guess the suits get a bit antsy. They start
insisting on shoe-horning Venom into a movie where he and his giant alien
tongue just don't belong. Or they demand random rewrites of a perfectly good
script, or weird stunt casting. (Hello, Richard Pryor!) The same execs who
might have been willing to let a film-maker have a long leash the first
couple times start tugging at that leash more, and choking the director and
writers, because there's more at stake.
Just google the phrases "third movie" and "studio interference"
 , and you'll see what I mean. Terminator 3, Alien3,
X-Men 3... all blamed on studio bigshots stepping in and meddling.

 Creative attrition.
Sam Raimi's presence on Spider-Man 3 was, in itself, an aberration.
Normally, after directing two awesome movies in a series, someone like Raimi
would have stepped out to do a serious Nazi epic or cop drama, leaving
Spider-Man in the hands of Brett Ratner or Joel Schumacher. I'm actually not
the world's biggest fan of Tim Burton's first two Bat-films, but compared to
the Schumacher films that followed, Batman and Batman Returns look like
Citizen Kane and Citizen Kane's Big Score. (Now I'm picturing Citizen Kane
In Africa - sorry, in-joke  .)
For some reason, very few writers and directors are willing to stick around
for a third ride on the blockbuster-mobile, even if they're up for a second.

Creative exhaustion.
And even if any of the original creative team do come along, it's entirely
possible to get a bit burned out after spending years of your life working
on one saga. (It's probably a different matter if you're filming a trilogy
all in one go, like Lord Of The Rings.) As much as any studio nonsense, I'm
willing to bet that Sam Raimi's Spider-fatigue was a big reason for
Spider-Man 3's problems. Raimi needed to go work on a smaller, less
mainstream project, like Drag Me To Hell. (And here's hoping that his return
to low-budget horror has cleansed his palate a bit, so he can come back to
Peter Parker with a fresh eye.
And finally, there's always...
 Problems in the source material.
A lot of these big movie series are based on comic books, television shows
and older movies, which started out with a clear premise and a simple
format: a guy dresses up as a bat a

[RE][scifinoir2] Re: It's Buffy's Fault That Vampires Are Weak Now

[B. Smith]

Some of them would like that...alot.

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Baxter"  wrote:
>
> Sorry, that last launched incomplete.
> 
> Death by dull stake?
> 
> Martin (would suggest death by dull silver butter knife, but not certain if 
> it would work as intended)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-[ Received Mail Content ]--
> 
 Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: It's Buffy's Fault That Vampires Are Weak Now
> 
 Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:23:17 -
> 
 From : "votomguy" 
> 
 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
And what's with all the pedo vampires. I'm sorry but you're hundreds of years 
old what do you see in an 18/19/20 yr old at that friggin age. Heck, I'm 31 and 
I won't look at a woman younger than 24. DEATH TO THE PEDOVAMPS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
>

[RE][scifinoir2] OT- Hanging Out

[Martin Baxter]

Afraid not, Aubrey. It's been -- twenty-four years since I last set foot in 
Charm City. Just reach out and have a blast! And BE CAREFUL. :-D





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [scifinoir2] OT- Hanging Out

 Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:37:30 -0400

 From : Aubrey Leatherwood 

 To : 


So I'm hanging out in Baltimore this weekend. Last night went to the National 
Harbor and had a fine time. Anyone know of other entertainment this evening?

Aubrey Leatherwood
www.aubreyleatherwood.com
FaceBook * MySpace Imperfection
A tale of perfect commitment, perfect love... and perfect sex.
The People You Know, The Sex They Have
ROMANTIC TIMES NOMINEE FOR BEST CONTEMPORARY EROTICA 2008
ISBN: 978-0-9818905-0-0





_
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. 
Check it out.
http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

[scifinoir2] Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible? [1 Attachment]

[Tracey de Morsella]

Why Are Movie Threequels Always So Terrible?
 
By Charlie Jane Anders  , 4:04 PM
  on Tue
Jul 7 2009, 46,538 views (Edit  , to
draft  ,
un-top 
, Slurp 
) 
Top of Form
Copy this whole post to another site
Slurp cancel
  
 


Bottom of Form
 Movie sequels that don't suck are rare creatures - like flying unicorns -
but they do exist. But it's almost impossible to find an example of a third
movie in a series that didn't self-immolate. Why is that?
After yesterday's list of sequels that don't suck - and I still cling to
RoboCop 2, although maybe I should watch it again - people asked for a list
of threequels that do suck. Which seemed kind of pointless, because that
would be the same as a complete list of threequels. Search For Spock?
Sucked. Return Of The Jedi? Blew. Spider-Man 3
 ? Superman III
 ? RoboCop 3? X-Men 3
 ? It's making my head pound just to list them.
Alien³?
In the non-"this movie is melting my pituitary gland" category, there's...
Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade. Which isn't science fiction, and for my
money isn't quite as good as Raiders. But it's way better than Temple Of
Doom. There are also some movies   with numbers
higher than three that were decent, like Star Treks IV and VI.

 So why are so many "threequels" so horrifyingly bad? Here are some possible
explanations.
There's no ready-made formula.
Talking to Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman about Transformers 2 drove
something home for me: there's a standard formula for the second movie in
the series, just like there is for the first. In the first movie, the young
hero discovers his (usually his) heroic destiny and learns from a father
figure, who frequently dies or transcends somehow. In the second movie, the
hero rejects his heroic mission and tries to return to a normal life - just
like Superman in Superman II, Spidey in Spider-Man II and Sam in
Transformers 2. Even in Star Trek   II, you
could argue that Kirk is questioning whether he's too old to keep
adventuring.
But what happens in the third movie? Uhh... The hero gets a new hairstyle?
There are more bad guys than before? What? There's no road map.

 Studio interference.
Sam Raimi   blames Sony
  for the disaster that was Spider-Man 3, and I sort of
believe him. Once a movie series becomes cash-cowy enough for the studio to
want to do a third go-around, I guess the suits get a bit antsy. They start
insisting on shoe-horning Venom into a movie where he and his giant alien
tongue just don't belong. Or they demand random rewrites of a perfectly good
script, or weird stunt casting. (Hello, Richard Pryor!) The same execs who
might have been willing to let a film-maker have a long leash the first
couple times start tugging at that leash more, and choking the director and
writers, because there's more at stake.
Just google the phrases "third movie" and "studio interference"
 , and you'll see what I mean. Terminator 3, Alien3,
X-Men 3... all blamed on studio bigshots stepping in and meddling.

 Creative attrition.
Sam Raimi's presence on Spider-Man 3 was, in itself, an aberration.
Normally, after directing two awesome movies in a series, someone like Raimi
would have stepped out to do a serious Nazi epic or cop drama, leaving
Spider-Man in the hands of Brett Ratner or Joel Schumacher. I'm actually not
the world's biggest fan of Tim Burton's first two Bat-films, but compared to
the Schumacher films that followed, Batman and Batman Returns look like
Citizen Kane and Citizen Kane's Big Score. (Now I'm picturing Citizen Kane
In Africa - sorry, in-joke  .)
For some reason, very few writers and directors are willing to stick around
for a third ride on the blockbuster-mobile, even if they're up for a second.

Creative exhaustion.
And even if any of the original creative team do come along, it's entirely
possible to get a bit burned out after spending years of your life working
on one saga. (It's probably a different matter if you're filming a trilogy
all in one go, like Lord Of The Rings.) As much as any studio nonsense, I'm
willing to bet that Sam Raimi's Spider-fatigue was a big reason for
Spider-Man 3's problems. Raimi needed to go work on a smaller, less
mainstream proj

[scifinoir2] Re: De Niro Tipped To Star In Grindhouse Spin-off

[ravenadal]

The "Machete" trailer is hilarious (I love Danny Trejo's reaction shots)!  Can 
Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving" be far behind?  I read that Rob Zombie actually shot 
a half hour worth of footage for his trailer "Werewolf Women of the SS."  And 
who can't await with baited breath a film called "Hobo with a Shotgun" (seen 
primarily in Canadian versions)? 

~rave!

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Tracey de Morsella"  wrote:
>
> De Niro Tipped To Star In Grindhouse Spin-off
> 17 July 2009 6:26 PM, PDT
> Robert Rodriguez   has reportedly
> assembled an all-star cast for his new Grindhouse
>   spin-off, including Robert De Niro
>  , Jonah Hill
>  , and Michelle Rodriguez
>  .
> The movie is based on a fake trailer that appeared before Rodriguez and
> Quentin Tarantino  's 2007 Grindhouse
>   double-bill. 
> Two years on, the filmmaker has decided to turn it into a full-length film. 
> Danny Trejo   will reprise his role as
> Machete  , a madman hellbent on
> revenge, and De Niro will play a senator who double-crosses him, a tipster
> tells movie website Bloody-Disgusting.com. 
> Shooting on the spin-off is scheduled to begin on 29 July.
> http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0883443/
>

[scifinoir2] OT- Hanging Out

[Aubrey Leatherwood]

So I'm hanging out in Baltimore this weekend. Last night went to the National 
Harbor and had a fine time. Anyone know of other entertainment this evening?

Aubrey Leatherwood
www.aubreyleatherwood.com
FaceBook * MySpace Imperfection
A tale of perfect commitment, perfect love... and perfect sex.
The People You Know, The Sex They Have
ROMANTIC TIMES NOMINEE FOR BEST CONTEMPORARY EROTICA 2008
ISBN: 978-0-9818905-0-0





_
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. 
Check it out.
http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports

[scifinoir2] Re: De Niro Tipped To Star In Grindhouse Spin-off

[ravenadal]

The "Machete" trailer is hilarious (I love Danny Trejo's reaction shots)!  Can 
Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving" be far behind?  I read that Rob Zombie actually shot 
a half hour worth of footage for his trailer "Werewolf Women of the SS."  And 
who can't await with baited breath a film called "Hobo with a Shotgun" (seen 
primarily in Canadian versions)? 

~rave!

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Tracey de Morsella"  wrote:
>
> De Niro Tipped To Star In Grindhouse Spin-off
> 17 July 2009 6:26 PM, PDT
> Robert Rodriguez   has reportedly
> assembled an all-star cast for his new Grindhouse
>   spin-off, including Robert De Niro
>  , Jonah Hill
>  , and Michelle Rodriguez
>  .
> The movie is based on a fake trailer that appeared before Rodriguez and
> Quentin Tarantino  's 2007 Grindhouse
>   double-bill. 
> Two years on, the filmmaker has decided to turn it into a full-length film. 
> Danny Trejo   will reprise his role as
> Machete  , a madman hellbent on
> revenge, and De Niro will play a senator who double-crosses him, a tipster
> tells movie website Bloody-Disgusting.com. 
> Shooting on the spin-off is scheduled to begin on 29 July.
> http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0883443/
>

Re: [RE][scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,

[Martin Baxter]

Can't say, as I truly watched very few of those eps. Ironside didn't do a bad 
job at all, I'll admit, and I carried a lot of those same "he's a bad guy -- 
how can he be the good guy?" preconceptions myself. Maybe it was the writing 
that put me off, as it did Roy Scheider.





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : Re: [RE][scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,

 Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:13:34 -

 From : "votomguy" 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com


Is it sad that I liked the show even after the Alien Hijacking? I thought it 
was awesome. I did have a hard time accepting Ironside as a hero. I was an 80s 
baby and grew up with him being the top henchman in every other action flick. 
He didn't do a terrible job. **cough Starship Troopers cough** Ironside not 
withstanding, I think I watched it pretty much until the end. the Alien 
Hijacking was awesome, but they probably shouldn't have come back to Earth. 
DSV: Atlantis or something.

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Baxter"  wrote:
>
> Could have indeed, George. I watched it faithfully until the Alien Hijacking 
> Ep. (shudder)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-[ Received Mail Content ]--
> 
 Subject : [scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,
> 
 Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
> 
 From : George Arterberry 
> 
 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't watched since it aired on NBC. If this show didn't jump the shark it 
> could have been real good.
>   
>
>   
>   
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
>





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

[RE][scifinoir2] Re: It's Buffy's Fault That Vampires Are Weak Now

[Martin Baxter]

Sorry, that last launched incomplete.

Death by dull stake?

Martin (would suggest death by dull silver butter knife, but not certain if it 
would work as intended)





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: It's Buffy's Fault That Vampires Are Weak Now

 Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:23:17 -

 From : "votomguy" 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com


And what's with all the pedo vampires. I'm sorry but you're hundreds of years 
old what do you see in an 18/19/20 yr old at that friggin age. Heck, I'm 31 and 
I won't look at a woman younger than 24. DEATH TO THE PEDOVAMPS!!




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

Re: [scifinoir2] Re: It's Buffy's Fault That Vampires Are Weak Now

[Augustus Augustus]

I DAMN SECOND THAT!
 
Fate

--- On Sat, 7/18/09, votomguy  wrote:


From: votomguy 
Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: It's Buffy's Fault That Vampires Are Weak Now
To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 18, 2009, 8:23 AM


  



And what's with all the pedo vampires. I'm sorry but you're hundreds of years 
old what do you see in an 18/19/20 yr old at that friggin age. Heck, I'm 31 and 
I won't look at a woman younger than 24. DEATH TO THE PEDOVAMPS!!

















  

[RE][scifinoir2] Re: It's Buffy's Fault That Vampires Are Weak Now

[Martin Baxter]

Death by dull stake?





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [scifinoir2] Re: It's Buffy's Fault That Vampires Are Weak Now

 Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:23:17 -

 From : "votomguy" 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com


And what's with all the pedo vampires. I'm sorry but you're hundreds of years 
old what do you see in an 18/19/20 yr old at that friggin age. Heck, I'm 31 and 
I won't look at a woman younger than 24. DEATH TO THE PEDOVAMPS!!




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

Re: [RE][scifinoir2] To boldly go to Mars, Buzz Aldrin writes

[Amy Harlib]

ahar...@earthlink.net
Yep - agree about the Moon first thing.
Peace,
Amy

Great story, Brent, and thanks for the send!

And, as much as I would love to see people on Mars in my lifetime, I 
believe that we need to have a strong foothold on the Moon first, to use it as 
a base of operations.





  -[ Received Mail Content ]--
  Subject : [scifinoir2] To boldly go to Mars, Buzz Aldrin writes
  Date : Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:13:47 -0400
  From : "brent wodehouse" 
  To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com

  http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/boldly+Mars/1798832/story.html 

  To boldly go to Mars 

  Forget the moon, the next goal should be to colonize the Red Planet, 
Buzz 
  Aldrin writes 

  By BUZZ ALDRIN, Freelance 

  July 17, 2009 


  On the spring morning in 1927 when Charles Lindbergh set off alone 
across 
  the Atlantic Ocean, only a handful of explorer-adventurers were 
capable of 
  even attempting the feat. Many had tried before Lindbergh's 
successful 
  flight, but all had failed and many lost their lives in the process. 
Most 
  people then thought transatlantic travel was an impossible dream. But 
40 
  years later, 20,000 people a day were safely flying the same route 
that 
  the "Lone Eagle" had voyaged. Transatlantic flight had become 
routine. 

  Forty years ago yesterday, Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and I began 
our 
  quarter-million-mile journey through the blackness of space to reach 
the 
  moon. 

  Neil and I walked its dusty ancient soil, becoming the first humans 
to 
  stand upon another world. Yet today, no nation - including the U.S. - 
is 
  capable of sending anyone beyond Earth's orbit, much less deeper into 
  space. 

  For the past four years, NASA has been on a path to resume lunar 
  exploration with people, duplicating (in a more complicated fashion) 
what 
  Neil, Mike and our colleagues did four decades ago. But this approach 
- 
  called the Vision for Space Exploration - is not visionary; nor will 
it 
  ultimately be successful in restoring U.S. space leadership. Like its 
  Apollo predecessor, this plan will prove to be a dead end littered 
with 
  broken spacecraft, broken dreams and broken policies. 

  Instead, I propose a new Unified Space Vision, a plan to ensure U.S. 
space 
  leadership for the 21st century. It wouldn't require building new 
rockets 
  from scratch, as current plans do, and it would make maximum use of 
the 
  capabilities we have without breaking the bank. It is a reasonable 
and 
  affordable plan - if we again think in visionary terms. 

  On television and in movies, Star Trek showed what could be achieved 
when 
  we dared to "boldly go where no man has gone before." In real life, 
I've 
  travelled that path, and I know that with the right goal and support 
from 
  most Americans, we can boldly go, again. 

  A race to the moon is a dead end. While the lunar surface can be used 
to 
  develop advanced technologies, it is a poor location for 
homesteading. The 
  moon is a lifeless, barren world, its stark desolation matched by its 
  hostility to all living things. And replaying the glory days of 
Apollo 
  will not advance the cause of U.S. space leadership or inspire the 
support 
  and enthusiasm of the public and the next generation of explorers. 

  Our next generation must think boldly in terms of a goal for the 
space 
  program: Mars for our future. I am not suggesting a few visits to 
plant 
  flags and do photo-ops but a journey to make the first homestead in 
space: 
  an American colony on a new world. 

  Robotic exploration of Mars has yielded tantalizing clues about what 
was 
  once a water-soaked planet. Deep beneath the soils of Mars might lie 
  trapped frozen water, possibly with traces of still-extant primitive 
life 
  forms. Climate change on a vast scale has reshaped Mars. With Earth 
in the 
  throes of its own climate evolution, human outposts on Mars could be 
a 
  virtual laboratory to study these vast planetary changes. And the 
best way 
  to study Mars is with the two hands, eyes and ears of a geologist, 
first 
  on a moon orbiting Mars and then on the Red Planet's surface. 

  Mobilizing the space program to focus on a human colony on Mars while 
at 
  the same time helping our international partners explore the moon on 
their 
  own would galvanize public support for space exploration and provide 
a 
  cause to inspire students. Mars exploration would renew our space 
industry

[RE][scifinoir2] To boldly go to Mars, Buzz Aldrin writes

[Martin Baxter]

Great story, Brent, and thanks for the send!

And, as much as I would love to see people on Mars in my lifetime, I believe 
that we need to have a strong foothold on the Moon first, to use it as a base 
of operations.





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [scifinoir2] To boldly go to Mars, Buzz Aldrin writes

 Date : Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:13:47 -0400

 From : "brent wodehouse" 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com


http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/boldly+Mars/1798832/story.html

To boldly go to Mars
 
Forget the moon, the next goal should be to colonize the Red Planet, Buzz
Aldrin writes
 
By BUZZ ALDRIN, Freelance

July 17, 2009


On the spring morning in 1927 when Charles Lindbergh set off alone across
the Atlantic Ocean, only a handful of explorer-adventurers were capable of
even attempting the feat. Many had tried before Lindbergh's successful
flight, but all had failed and many lost their lives in the process. Most
people then thought transatlantic travel was an impossible dream. But 40
years later, 20,000 people a day were safely flying the same route that
the "Lone Eagle" had voyaged. Transatlantic flight had become routine.

Forty years ago yesterday, Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and I began our
quarter-million-mile journey through the blackness of space to reach the
moon.

Neil and I walked its dusty ancient soil, becoming the first humans to
stand upon another world. Yet today, no nation - including the U.S. - is
capable of sending anyone beyond Earth's orbit, much less deeper into
space.

For the past four years, NASA has been on a path to resume lunar
exploration with people, duplicating (in a more complicated fashion) what
Neil, Mike and our colleagues did four decades ago. But this approach -
called the Vision for Space Exploration - is not visionary; nor will it
ultimately be successful in restoring U.S. space leadership. Like its
Apollo predecessor, this plan will prove to be a dead end littered with
broken spacecraft, broken dreams and broken policies.

Instead, I propose a new Unified Space Vision, a plan to ensure U.S. space
leadership for the 21st century. It wouldn't require building new rockets
from scratch, as current plans do, and it would make maximum use of the
capabilities we have without breaking the bank. It is a reasonable and
affordable plan - if we again think in visionary terms.

On television and in movies, Star Trek showed what could be achieved when
we dared to "boldly go where no man has gone before." In real life, I've
travelled that path, and I know that with the right goal and support from
most Americans, we can boldly go, again.

A race to the moon is a dead end. While the lunar surface can be used to
develop advanced technologies, it is a poor location for homesteading. The
moon is a lifeless, barren world, its stark desolation matched by its
hostility to all living things. And replaying the glory days of Apollo
will not advance the cause of U.S. space leadership or inspire the support
and enthusiasm of the public and the next generation of explorers.

Our next generation must think boldly in terms of a goal for the space
program: Mars for our future. I am not suggesting a few visits to plant
flags and do photo-ops but a journey to make the first homestead in space:
an American colony on a new world.

Robotic exploration of Mars has yielded tantalizing clues about what was
once a water-soaked planet. Deep beneath the soils of Mars might lie
trapped frozen water, possibly with traces of still-extant primitive life
forms. Climate change on a vast scale has reshaped Mars. With Earth in the
throes of its own climate evolution, human outposts on Mars could be a
virtual laboratory to study these vast planetary changes. And the best way
to study Mars is with the two hands, eyes and ears of a geologist, first
on a moon orbiting Mars and then on the Red Planet's surface.

Mobilizing the space program to focus on a human colony on Mars while at
the same time helping our international partners explore the moon on their
own would galvanize public support for space exploration and provide a
cause to inspire students. Mars exploration would renew our space industry
by opening up technology development to all players, not just the
traditional big aerospace contractors. If we avoided the pitfall of aiming
solely for the moon, we could be on Mars by the 60th anniversary year of
our Apollo 11 flight.

Much has been said recently about the Vision for Space Exploration and the
future of the international space station. As we all reflect upon our
historic lunar journey and the future of the space program, I challenge
America's leaders to think boldly and look beyond the moon. Yes, my vision
of "Mars for America" requires bold thinking. But as my friend and Gemini
crewmate Jim Lovell has noted, our Apollo days were a time when we did
bold things in space to achieve leadership. It is time we were bold again
in space.

Buzz Aldrin was the second man to walk on the m

[scifinoir2] Re: It's Buffy's Fault That Vampires Are Weak Now

[votomguy]

And what's with all the pedo vampires. I'm sorry but you're hundreds of years 
old what do you see in an 18/19/20 yr old at that friggin age. Heck, I'm 31 and 
I won't look at a woman younger than 24. DEATH TO THE PEDOVAMPS!!

Re: [RE][scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,

[votomguy]

Is it sad that I liked the show even after the Alien Hijacking? I thought it 
was awesome. I did have a hard time accepting Ironside as a hero. I was an 80s 
baby and grew up with him being the top henchman in every other action flick. 
He didn't do a terrible job. **cough Starship Troopers cough** Ironside not 
withstanding, I think I watched it pretty much until the end. the Alien 
Hijacking was awesome, but they probably shouldn't have come back to Earth. 
DSV: Atlantis or something.

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Baxter"  wrote:
>
> Could have indeed, George. I watched it faithfully until the Alien Hijacking 
> Ep. (shudder)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
-[ Received Mail Content ]--
> 
 Subject : [scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,
> 
 Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
> 
 From : George Arterberry 
> 
 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't watched since it aired on NBC. If this show didn't jump the shark it 
> could have been real good.
>   
>
>   
>   
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds
>

Re: [scifinoir2] Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow

[Martin Baxter]

No, Keith, it's not just you. As Mr Worf said, H'Wood in all its formulaic 
stupididty, just takes the most popular body at the head of the line. (Can you 
say Beyonce?)





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : Re: [scifinoir2] Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow

 Date : Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:35:39 -0700

 From : "Mr. Worf" 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com


They are going by popularity rating only. Hollywood is super formulaic. They
probably could have found 3 dozen from here, but Scarlet Johannsen has more
pull.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Keith Johnson wrote:

>
>
> I guess it's just me, but I've never understood why they can't find actors
> from the country their character calls home? There are no good, athletic
> Russian actresses to play Widow?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "George Arterberry" 
> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:16:08 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [scifinoir2] Scarlet Johansson as Black Widow
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://thesuperficial.com/2009/07/scarlett_johansson_as_black_wi.php
>
>
>
>
> 
>



-- 
Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years!
Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

[RE][scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,

[Martin Baxter]

Could have indeed, George. I watched it faithfully until the Alien Hijacking 
Ep. (shudder)





-[ Received Mail Content ]--

 Subject : [scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,

 Date : Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:30:31 -0700 (PDT)

 From : George Arterberry 

 To : scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com



Haven't watched since it aired on NBC. If this show didn't jump the shark it 
could have been real good.

 


















 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQdwk8Yntds

[scifinoir2] SeaQuest DSV,

[George Arterberry]

Haven't watched since it aired on NBC. If this show didn't jump the shark it 
could have been real good.

 


















  

Re: [scifinoir2] De Niro Tipped To Star In Grindhouse Spin-off

[Mr. Worf]

I was watching Spy Kids 3 the other day and the Machete character was in
that movie. I had a really good laugh. :)

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Tracey de Morsella <
tdli...@multiculturaladvantage.com> wrote:

>
>
> ***De Niro Tipped To Star In Grindhouse Spin-off*
>
> 17 July 2009 6:26 PM, PDT
>
> *Robert Rodriguez*  has reportedly
> assembled an all-star cast for his new 
> *Grindhouse*spin-off, including
> *Robert De Niro* , *Jonah 
> Hill*,
> and *Michelle Rodriguez* .
>
> The movie is based on a fake trailer that appeared before Rodriguez and 
> *Quentin
> Tarantino* 's 2007 
> *Grindhouse*double-bill.
>
> Two years on, the filmmaker has decided to turn it into a full-length film.
>
>
> *Danny Trejo*  will reprise his role
> as *Machete* , a madman hellbent on
> revenge, and De Niro will play a senator who double-crosses him, a tipster
> tells movie website Bloody-Disgusting.com.
>
> Shooting on the spin-off is scheduled to begin on 29 July.
>
> http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0883443/
>
>
> 
>



-- 
Bringing diversity to perversity for 9 years!
Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/

[scifinoir2] De Niro Tipped To Star In Grindhouse Spin-off

[Tracey de Morsella]

De Niro Tipped To Star In Grindhouse Spin-off
17 July 2009 6:26 PM, PDT
Robert Rodriguez   has reportedly
assembled an all-star cast for his new Grindhouse
  spin-off, including Robert De Niro
 , Jonah Hill
 , and Michelle Rodriguez
 .
The movie is based on a fake trailer that appeared before Rodriguez and
Quentin Tarantino  's 2007 Grindhouse
  double-bill. 
Two years on, the filmmaker has decided to turn it into a full-length film. 
Danny Trejo   will reprise his role as
Machete  , a madman hellbent on
revenge, and De Niro will play a senator who double-crosses him, a tipster
tells movie website Bloody-Disgusting.com. 
Shooting on the spin-off is scheduled to begin on 29 July.
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0883443/