After gaming night, I watched:

THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
"Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they explained
them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only mentioned that
the script used his name only a few times.

What did you watch?

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 2022-10-20 08:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:

> What did you watch?

Just GH - At the end, it's revealed that Lucy is alive. Meanwhile, Anna
searches for Lucy, and suspects foul play, when Victor shows up to act
all innocent. Anna knows he's full of s*** and is responsible. The cops
are called, and Dante shows up... At Wyndemere(sp?), Nikolas tries to
stall Ava, not wanting her to discover captive Esme. Later, Esme almost
escapes, but Nikolas catches her, and locks her in the bathroom!! (I
love Esme being the one getting tortured, for once!) It looks like
Robert Scorpio and Diane Miller may be developing a "thing".

Recorded for later: Stargirl.

--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!

Ian J. Ball <IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-10-20 08:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
>
>> What did you watch?
>
>
> Recorded for later: Stargirl SG1.

Huh? How?!

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 10/20/2022 2:40 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Ian J. Ball <IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2022-10-20 08:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>>
>> Recorded for later: Stargirl SG1.
>
> Huh? How?!
>
>
>

I functional DVR?

I watched:

D.C.'s Stargirl - Episode 7 - I don't know. Stuff happened. Something
to do with Green Lantern and Shade. And other stuff.

Chucky - "The Sinners Are Much More Fun" and "Hail, Mary!" - Episodes 2
and 3. We get more evil "Jennifer Tilly" and her captive whose arms and
legs she cut off. Evil Tilly is hard core! Meanwhile the kids are at
the church rehabilitation center, or whatever it is, being tormented by
one of the Chucky Dolls (how many are left is a big question!). They
manage to capture him and seemingly brainwash him to being good again.
I have to mention the new friend the kids have made at the school. This
friend who has bright red hair and I'm guessing is about the same age as
Glenn/Glenda. Glenn and Glenda who were conveniently introduced at the
end of episode 2, but without showing their faces. If this show thinks
everyone watching hasn't already figured out that kid is one of them,
then I have a bridge to sale! Although for that kid to be I guess
Glenda, does raise some timeline questions because I'm pretty sure she
was already there a while before the others arrived.

The Equalizer - "Gaslight" - The writing staff watched the New
"Invisible Man" movie and decided to do their own version of it.

On 2022-10-20 23:38:03 +0000, Arthur Lipscomb said:

> I watched:
>
>
> D.C.'s Stargirl - Episode 7 - I don't know. Stuff happened. Something
> to do with Green Lantern and Shade. And other stuff.

Shade is still around in season #3?!!

In other news, I noticed that Nick Tarabay has a plumb
guest(/recurring?) role on Fox's "The Cleaning Lady".

--
"Who would ever do this to him!?" - HottCiara on DOOL (04-27-2020), asking
who would stab Victor Kirakis... How about ANYONE WHO'S EVER MET HIM??!!

On 10/20/2022 4:55 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> On 2022-10-20 23:38:03 +0000, Arthur Lipscomb said:
>
>> I watched:
>>
>>
>> D.C.'s Stargirl - Episode 7 - I don't know.  Stuff happened.
>> Something to do with Green Lantern and Shade.  And other stuff.
>
> Shade is still around in season #3?!!
>

I think he was in the premier then popped up again in this episode.
He's been more of an anti hero lately.

I forgot to mention I also watched:

Andor (Disney+) - "Announcement" - In the aftermath of last week's
awesome episode, the Empire is now aware of a new player or that is an
old player that just made a very public "announcement" that they are a
force to be reckoned with. While Andor tries and fails to lie low, the
Empire starts to crack down hard on everyone. Which is actually what
the alliance of rebels wants them to do as it will just bring more
people to their cause.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 10/20/2022 2:40 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Ian J. Ball <IJBall@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2022-10-20 08:30:41 +0000, Ubiquitous said:
>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>>
>>> Recorded for later: Stargirl SG1.
>>
>> Huh? How?!
>>
>>
>>
>
> I functional DVR?
>
>
> I watched:
>
>
> D.C.'s Stargirl - Episode 7 - I don't know. Stuff happened. Something
> to do with Green Lantern and Shade. And other stuff.

Which green lantern?

>
>
> Chucky - "The Sinners Are Much More Fun" and "Hail, Mary!" - Episodes 2
> and 3. We get more evil "Jennifer Tilly" and her captive whose arms and
> legs she cut off. Evil Tilly is hard core! Meanwhile the kids are at
> the church rehabilitation center, or whatever it is, being tormented by
> one of the Chucky Dolls (how many are left is a big question!). They
> manage to capture him and seemingly brainwash him to being good again.
> I have to mention the new friend the kids have made at the school. This
> friend who has bright red hair and I'm guessing is about the same age as
> Glenn/Glenda. Glenn and Glenda who were conveniently introduced at the
> end of episode 2, but without showing their faces. If this show thinks
> everyone watching hasn't already figured out that kid is one of them,
> then I have a bridge to sale! Although for that kid to be I guess
> Glenda, does raise some timeline questions because I'm pretty sure she
> was already there a while before the others arrived.
>
>
> The Equalizer - "Gaslight" - The writing staff watched the New
> "Invisible Man" movie and decided to do their own version of it.
>

If they were clever, they’d have made Chris Noth invisible.

Yes.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article
<1523852511.688012345.047601.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

> > D.C.'s Stargirl - Episode 7 - I don't know. Stuff happened. Something
> > to do with Green Lantern and Shade. And other stuff.
>
> Which green lantern?

Alan Scott. Scott is dead but they're using his daughter (or maybe
it's his granddaughter) in the show.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1523852511.688012345.047601.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>>> D.C.'s Stargirl - Episode 7 - I don't know. Stuff happened. Something
>>> to do with Green Lantern and Shade. And other stuff.
>>
>> Which green lantern?
>
>
> Alan Scott. Scott is dead but they're using his daughter (or maybe
> it's his granddaughter) in the show.
>

Thanks

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article <201020222335117839%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

>>> D.C.'s Stargirl - Episode 7 - I don't know. Stuff happened. Something
>>> to do with Green Lantern and Shade. And other stuff.
>>
>> Which green lantern?
>
>Alan Scott. Scott is dead but they're using his daughter

How did that happen?

--
Let's go Brandon!

In article <UBI20221019@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

> After gaming night, I watched:
>
> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they explained
> them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only mentioned that
> the script used his name only a few times.
>
> What did you watch?

The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
$705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.

Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.

On 10/21/2022 8:57 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <UBI20221019@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
>> After gaming night, I watched:
>>
>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they explained
>> them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only mentioned that
>> the script used his name only a few times.
>>
>> What did you watch?
>
>
> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>
> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.

I love The Time Machine, but I don't think WotW would have worked as a
period piece. Seeing the Martians defeat modern weapons and even
survive a nuke is much more exciting than seeing then defeat primitive
Victorian (or whenever) weapons.

In article <tivukn$rrn6$1@dont-email.me>, Arthur Lipscomb
<arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

> On 10/21/2022 8:57 PM, A Friend wrote:
> > In article <UBI20221019@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> After gaming night, I watched:
> >>
> >> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
> >> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
> >> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
> >> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they
> >> explained
> >> them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only mentioned
> >> that
> >> the script used his name only a few times.
> >>
> >> What did you watch?
> >
> >
> > The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
> > when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
> > a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
> > Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
> > $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
> > proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
> >
> > Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
> > sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
> > previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
> > California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
>
> I love The Time Machine, but I don't think WotW would have worked as a
> period piece. Seeing the Martians defeat modern weapons and even
> survive a nuke is much more exciting than seeing then defeat primitive
> Victorian (or whenever) weapons.

Good point. Maybe you're right.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 10/21/2022 8:57 PM, A Friend wrote:
>> In article <UBI20221019@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> After gaming night, I watched:
>>>
>>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
>>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
>>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
>>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they explained
>>> them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only mentioned that
>>> the script used his name only a few times.
>>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>>
>> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
>> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
>> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
>> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
>> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
>> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>>
>> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
>> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
>> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
>> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
>
> I love The Time Machine, but I don't think WotW would have worked as a
> period piece. Seeing the Martians defeat modern weapons and even
> survive a nuke is much more exciting than seeing then defeat primitive
> Victorian (or whenever) weapons.
>

While I hear what you’re saying, i’ve seen a lot of different versions of
War of the Worlds and none of them worked as period pieces or later
contemporary pieces either. Maybe 1953 is the only year it works in.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 10/22/2022 5:13 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> On 10/21/2022 8:57 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>> In article <UBI20221019@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> After gaming night, I watched:
>>>>
>>>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
>>>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
>>>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
>>>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they explained
>>>> them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only mentioned that
>>>> the script used his name only a few times.
>>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>>
>>> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
>>> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
>>> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
>>> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
>>> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
>>> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>>>
>>> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
>>> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
>>> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
>>> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
>>
>> I love The Time Machine, but I don't think WotW would have worked as a
>> period piece. Seeing the Martians defeat modern weapons and even
>> survive a nuke is much more exciting than seeing then defeat primitive
>> Victorian (or whenever) weapons.
>>
>
> While I hear what you’re saying, i’ve seen a lot of different versions of
> War of the Worlds and none of them worked as period pieces or later
> contemporary pieces either. Maybe 1953 is the only year it works in.
>

You may be right about that. Thinking out loud...In 1953 humanity had
not yet mastered space travel. There wasn't even primitive space
travel. Sputnik hadn't even been launched yet. Mars wasn't really a
mystery to astronomers but for the average person Mars was probably a
mystery. Maybe it could support life, who knows. Then you had the atom
bomb, which most people spent their entire lives in a world without
atomic weapons. The one day these new mysterious weapons capable of
leveling an entire city in one blast appeared. WotW depicted these
Martians as capable of withstanding an atomic blast completely
unscathed. In 1953 that had to have been terrifying to an audience to
witness as the unstoppable Martians systematically wiped out civilization.

I thought Independence Day, which for all intents and purposes was a
remake of WotW, was a pretty good modern version. But I was extremely
frustrated with the the Spielberg version. As I recall at the time of
the release they publicly said they couldn't compete with ID4 so they
weren't even going to try. That was a huge mistake! The Spielberg
version left out all the military action and spectacle a movie like WotW
needs.

I've never seen one of the period piece versions. I'd be curious to
watch one, but the opportunity just never arose. And I never cared
enough to track one down.

On 10/22/2022 5:13 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> On 10/21/2022 8:57 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>> In article <UBI20221019@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> After gaming night, I watched:
>>>>
>>>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
>>>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
>>>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
>>>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they explained
>>>> them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only mentioned that
>>>> the script used his name only a few times.
>>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>>
>>> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
>>> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
>>> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
>>> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
>>> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
>>> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>>>
>>> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
>>> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
>>> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
>>> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
>>
>> I love The Time Machine, but I don't think WotW would have worked as a
>> period piece. Seeing the Martians defeat modern weapons and even
>> survive a nuke is much more exciting than seeing then defeat primitive
>> Victorian (or whenever) weapons.
>>
>
> While I hear what you’re saying, i’ve seen a lot of different versions of
> War of the Worlds and none of them worked as period pieces or later
> contemporary pieces either. Maybe 1953 is the only year it works in.
>
Because the Martians are Commies.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 10/22/2022 5:13 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2022 8:57 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>>> In article <UBI20221019@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After gaming night, I watched:
>>>>>
>>>>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
>>>>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
>>>>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
>>>>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they explained
>>>>> them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only mentioned that
>>>>> the script used his name only a few times.
>>>>>
>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
>>>> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
>>>> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
>>>> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
>>>> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
>>>> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>>>>
>>>> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
>>>> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
>>>> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
>>>> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
>>>
>>> I love The Time Machine, but I don't think WotW would have worked as a
>>> period piece. Seeing the Martians defeat modern weapons and even
>>> survive a nuke is much more exciting than seeing then defeat primitive
>>> Victorian (or whenever) weapons.
>>>
>>
>> While I hear what you’re saying, i’ve seen a lot of different versions of
>> War of the Worlds and none of them worked as period pieces or later
>> contemporary pieces either. Maybe 1953 is the only year it works in.
>>
>
> You may be right about that. Thinking out loud...In 1953 humanity had
> not yet mastered space travel. There wasn't even primitive space
> travel. Sputnik hadn't even been launched yet. Mars wasn't really a
> mystery to astronomers but for the average person Mars was probably a
> mystery. Maybe it could support life, who knows. Then you had the atom
> bomb, which most people spent their entire lives in a world without
> atomic weapons. The one day these new mysterious weapons capable of
> leveling an entire city in one blast appeared. WotW depicted these
> Martians as capable of withstanding an atomic blast completely
> unscathed. In 1953 that had to have been terrifying to an audience to
> witness as the unstoppable Martians systematically wiped out civilization.
>

Fair points, all.

> I thought Independence Day, which for all intents and purposes was a
> remake of WotW, was a pretty good modern version. But I was extremely
> frustrated with the the Spielberg version. As I recall at the time of
> the release they publicly said they couldn't compete with ID4 so they
> weren't even going to try. That was a huge mistake! The Spielberg
> version left out all the military action and spectacle a movie like WotW
> needs.

Plus camcorders keep working right through the EMP and solenoids being
swapped out will fix your car right up.

>
> I've never seen one of the period piece versions. I'd be curious to
> watch one, but the opportunity just never arose. And I never cared
> enough to track one down.
>

Probably best you don’t.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 10/22/2022 5:13 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2022 8:57 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>>> In article <UBI20221019@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After gaming night, I watched:
>>>>>
>>>>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
>>>>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
>>>>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
>>>>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they explained
>>>>> them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only mentioned that
>>>>> the script used his name only a few times.
>>>>>
>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
>>>> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
>>>> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
>>>> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
>>>> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
>>>> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>>>>
>>>> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
>>>> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
>>>> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
>>>> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
>>>
>>> I love The Time Machine, but I don't think WotW would have worked as a
>>> period piece. Seeing the Martians defeat modern weapons and even
>>> survive a nuke is much more exciting than seeing then defeat primitive
>>> Victorian (or whenever) weapons.
>>>
>>
>> While I hear what you’re saying, i’ve seen a lot of different versions of
>> War of the Worlds and none of them worked as period pieces or later
>> contemporary pieces either. Maybe 1953 is the only year it works in.
>>
> Because the Martians are Commies.

Is that why they call it… The RED planet?!?

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51xpuPz9m8L._AC_SY780_.jpg

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 10/22/2022 9:20 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 10/22/2022 5:13 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2022 8:57 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>>> In article <UBI20221019@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After gaming night, I watched:
>>>>>
>>>>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
>>>>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a
>>>>> triple-
>>>>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential
>>>>> horror
>>>>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they
>>>>> explained
>>>>> them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only
>>>>> mentioned that
>>>>> the script used his name only a few times.
>>>>>
>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Time Machine (1960).  My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
>>>> when it was first released.  I've seen it all the way through at least
>>>> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
>>>> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
>>>> $705,000.  (The original budget was $750k.)  I think this has already
>>>> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>>>>
>>>> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea.  I've
>>>> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
>>>> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
>>>> California.  Maybe Pal thought so, too.
>>>
>>> I love The Time Machine, but I don't think WotW would have worked as a
>>> period piece.  Seeing the Martians defeat modern weapons and even
>>> survive a nuke is much more exciting than seeing then defeat primitive
>>> Victorian (or whenever) weapons.
>>>
>>
>> While I hear what you’re saying, i’ve seen a lot of different versions of
>> War of the Worlds and none of them worked as period pieces or later
>> contemporary pieces either.  Maybe 1953 is the only year it works in.
>>
> Because the Martians are Commies.

They do come from the Red Planet...

nope@noway.com wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

>> After gaming night, I watched:
>>
>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they
>> explained them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only
>> mentioned that the script used his name only a few times.
>>
>> What did you watch?
>
>The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
>when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
>a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
>Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
>$705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
>proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>
>Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
>sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
>previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
>California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.

Was that the one with Rod Stieger?
I always thought that movie from the 1950's, but I guess 1960 is as close as
one can get.

--
Let's go Brandon!

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> nope@noway.com wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>>> After gaming night, I watched:
>>>
>>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
>>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
>>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
>>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they
>>> explained them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only
>>> mentioned that the script used his name only a few times.
>>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
>> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
>> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
>> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
>> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
>> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>>
>> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
>> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
>> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
>> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
>
> Was that the one with Rod Stieger?
> I always thought that movie from the 1950's, but I guess 1960 is as close as
> one can get.

Rod Taylor. Rod Steiger was in Hitchcock‘s “the birds“

>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article
<286750554.688403200.680992.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> > nope@noway.com wrote:
> >> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> After gaming night, I watched:
> >>>
> >>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
> >>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
> >>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
> >>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they
> >>> explained them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only
> >>> mentioned that the script used his name only a few times.
> >>>
> >>> What did you watch?
> >>
> >> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
> >> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
> >> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
> >> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
> >> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
> >> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
> >>
> >> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
> >> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
> >> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
> >> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
> >
> > Was that the one with Rod Stieger?
> > I always thought that movie from the 1950's, but I guess 1960 is as close
> > as
> > one can get.
>
> Rod Taylor. Rod Steiger was in HitchcockŒs ³the birds³

Ubi missed that I mentioned Rod Taylor in my post. Also, Rod Taylor
was in The Birds, too. Rod Steiger was not in The Birds nor in
anything we're discussing here.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article
> <286750554.688403200.680992.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> nope@noway.com wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> After gaming night, I watched:
>>>>>
>>>>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
>>>>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a triple-
>>>>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential horror
>>>>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they
>>>>> explained them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they only
>>>>> mentioned that the script used his name only a few times.
>>>>>
>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
>>>> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
>>>> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
>>>> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
>>>> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
>>>> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>>>>
>>>> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
>>>> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
>>>> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
>>>> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
>>>
>>> Was that the one with Rod Stieger?
>>> I always thought that movie from the 1950's, but I guess 1960 is as close
>>> as
>>> one can get.
>>
>> Rod Taylor. Rod Steiger was in HitchcockŒs ³the birds³
>
>
> Ubi missed that I mentioned Rod Taylor in my post. Also, Rod Taylor
> was in The Birds, too. Rod Steiger was not in The Birds nor in
> anything we're discussing here.
>

I know that. :-)

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article
<1569588651.688420390.926866.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <286750554.688403200.680992.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>> nope@noway.com wrote:
> >>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> After gaming night, I watched:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> THE MOVIES THAT MADE US:
> >>>>> "Halloween". It took a young team's blood, sweat and tears - and a
> >>>>> triple-
> >>>>> threat visionary - to make this bloodless yet scarily influential
> >>>>> horror
> >>>>> masterpiece. I rewatched this because I thought this was where they
> >>>>> explained them using THE SHAPE to describe Michael Meyers, but they
> >>>>> only
> >>>>> mentioned that the script used his name only a few times.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What did you watch?
> >>>>
> >>>> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
> >>>> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
> >>>> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
> >>>> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
> >>>> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
> >>>> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
> >>>>
> >>>> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
> >>>> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
> >>>> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
> >>>> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
> >>>
> >>> Was that the one with Rod Stieger?
> >>> I always thought that movie from the 1950's, but I guess 1960 is as close
> >>> as
> >>> one can get.
> >>
> >> Rod Taylor. Rod Steiger was in HitchcockŒs ³the birds³
> >
> >
> > Ubi missed that I mentioned Rod Taylor in my post. Also, Rod Taylor
> > was in The Birds, too. Rod Steiger was not in The Birds nor in
> > anything we're discussing here.
> >
>
> I know that. :-)

I know you know. That was just for the record. Ubi's all over the
place today, which is usually fine, but The Time Machine is sacred
material.

In article <251020221451077196%nope@noway.com>, nope@noway.com wrote:
>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> nope@noway.com wrote:

>>>> The Time Machine (1960). My mom took me to see this when I was seven,
>>>> when it was first released. I've seen it all the way through at least
>>>> a dozen times since, and at almost 70 I can't get over how good it is.
>>>> Special effects master Wah Chung once said they'd brought it in for
>>>> $705,000. (The original budget was $750k.) I think this has already
>>>> proven to be the film Rod Taylor will be remembered for.
>>>>
>>>> Doing the wraparound as a period piece was a brilliant idea. I've
>>>> sometimes thought that the worst thing about one of George Pal's
>>>> previous films, War of the Worlds, was setting it in modern-day
>>>> California. Maybe Pal thought so, too.
>>>
>>> Was that the one with Rod Stieger?
>>> I always thought that movie from the 1950's, but I guess 1960 is as close
>>> as one can get.
>>
>> Rod Taylor. Rod Steiger was in Hitchcock's �the birds�
>
>Ubi missed that I mentioned Rod Taylor in my post. Also, Rod Taylor
>was in The Birds, too. Rod Steiger was not in The Birds nor in
>anything we're discussing here.

For some reason, I thought that was the director, not the star.

--
Let's go Brandon!