To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3029
3028  |  3030
Subject: 
Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 29 Dec 1999 22:05:56 GMT
Viewed: 
2265 times
  
<FnIv3w.JtC@lugnet.com> <FnIvDJ.Kvp@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Of course, the short story *I* remember was called the "Sesquicentennial Man"
(150 years).


Dave Schuler wrote:

> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> >    Because of your description of this movie, I have made plans to go see
> > it.  Your "scathing" review has interested me in something I would  have
> > skipped, so thanks Dave!.  It sounds typical of movies, to leave much of the
> > story out, so should I read it first?  I think I did 12 years ago.  Maybe
> > thats why Larry could sense the characterization that didn't actually occur
> > in the film.  On that note, I often enjoy sucky movies when I have already
> > read (and enjoyed) the book they are based on.
> 
>   The short story is among my favorites in any genre, so I recommend it
> whether you plan to see the film or not.  I confess that I don't see how
> characterization that isn't in a film can affect the film, except by its
> absence, regardless of its presence or absence from other media.  I'm sure
> there are some who've enjoyed the movie, and more power to them!  For me,
> though, it falls short of what the original story could have been.
> 
>      Dave!

--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support          Netscape Communications Corp
|      Please do not associate my personal views with my employer



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Bicentennial Man (spoilers, and quite lengthy)
 
(...) Was that its original title? I only came across it about 7 years ago, but I'm almost certain it was "Bicentennial Man" even then. Dave! (27 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Bicentennial Man and Immortality (was Re: Who James Isn't (was:Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
 
(...) I haven't seen the movie (yet), so I hadn't been taking it into consideration. I'd consider it a bad trade, too - but then it wasn't me making the choice. To him, it may have been worth it (and I'll shut up now - at least until I see it). (...) (27 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

86 Messages in This Thread:


































Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR