scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:8QnDI.6079$Tf7.3811@fx26.iad:

> Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> writes:
>>On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:18:01 -0700, William Hyde wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
>>> Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>> >begin fnord -dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes of
>>>> >> FOUNDATION will be available on September 24th this year.
>>>> >
>>>> >An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all
>>>> >to do with the project.
>>>> >
>>>> >Already people are complaining because the trailers show
>>>> >women doing things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is
>>>> >smoking.
>>>
>>> Asimov would probably be happy with that.
>>>
>>>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they
>>>> take place in a future so distant that the origin of the
>>>> human species is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord
>>>> Dorwin.)
>>>>
>>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>>
>>> In the category of women in the series who do a lot behind the
>>> scenes but don't show up much in the text, there's the second
>>> foundation agent on Kalgan who poses as a ditzy courtesan but
>>> is anything but, and Preem Palver's wife (enough in the
>>> background that I can't recall her name) who is also second
>>> foundation. Both could have expanded roles in a movie.
>>>
>>> William Hyde
>>
>>That would require thought and some desire to stay true to the
>>story. Much easier to gender and race swap characters at random
>>until you have the perfect mix for twitter of the current five
>>minutes. And "improve"(piss on) the story to bring it up to
>>current day standards(when the people improving it are
>>talentless hacks who will never produce anything that anyone
>>will remember 10 years from now not to mention 70+).
>
> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_ et
> alia?
>
> The people funding the series hope for a much larger audience.
> Much, much larger, or they're just throwing their money away; if
> they piss off a few hard-core science fiction fans in the
> process of making loads of money, they'll cry all the way to the
> bank.
>
> Sad, but true.
>
And very traditional.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:sbl7se$ch1$1@dont-email.me:

> On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:29:24 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> writes:
>>>On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:18:01 -0700, William Hyde wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
>>>> Heydt wrote:
>>>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>>> >begin fnord -dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes
>>>>> >> of FOUNDATION will be available on September 24th this
>>>>> >> year.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all
>>>>> >to do with the project.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Already people are complaining because the trailers show
>>>>> >women doing things other than fetching coffee, and nobody
>>>>> >is smoking.
>>>>
>>>> Asimov would probably be happy with that.
>>>>
>>>>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they
>>>>> take place in a future so distant that the origin of the
>>>>> human species is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask
>>>>> Lord Dorwin.)
>>>>>
>>>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>>>
>>>> In the category of women in the series who do a lot behind
>>>> the scenes but don't show up much in the text, there's the
>>>> second foundation agent on Kalgan who poses as a ditzy
>>>> courtesan but is anything but, and Preem Palver's wife
>>>> (enough in the background that I can't recall her name) who
>>>> is also second foundation. Both could have expanded roles in
>>>> a movie.
>>>>
>>>> William Hyde
>>>
>>>That would require thought and some desire to stay true to the
>>>story. Much easier to gender and race swap characters at random
>>>until you have the perfect mix for twitter of the current five
>>>minutes. And "improve"(piss on) the story to bring it up to
>>>current day standards(when the people improving it are
>>>talentless hacks who will never produce anything that anyone
>>>will remember 10 years from now not to mention 70+).
>>
>> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_ et
>> alia?
>>
>> The people funding the series hope for a much larger audience.
>> Much, much larger, or they're just throwing their money away;
>> if they piss off a few hard-core science fiction fans in the
>> process of making loads of money, they'll cry all the way to
>> the bank.
>>
>> Sad, but true.
>
> No offense intended but I have heard that argument a lot and it
> never made any sense to me. You pay money(often a lot of money)
> for the rights to something and then act like it is a set of
> chains you have to destroy. It seems to me if you are so much
> better than the property you are working on then you would be
> better off making your own story and putting the rights money
> into the budget for your own personal story.
>
A lot more people have heard *of* Foundation - and know it's "one
of the all time classics" than have actually *ready* it.

"Based on the title of a popular novel. That we haven't read. But
it's very popular. Now give us money."

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:RRnDI.6080$Tf7.4158@fx26.iad:

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>
>>> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters
>>> 2016[ed.]_, with a mostly female cast, with the
>>> dumb-blonde-secretary slot filled by the cute, blond, and
>>> definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>>>
>>I suspect that, where the fans are concerned, it's not so much
>>"but gurls has cooties" as it is "it's different than the
>>original that is the mostest bested classic movie ever made so
>>it has to suck." You'd see the same sort of reaction from mostly
>>the same people if you remade a class that originally starred
>>women with men in the same roles. If such things ever happened.
>>
>>How about recasting Wonder Woman as a man? Prince Dane of the
>>all male island of something-mumble, and so on. You *really*
>>think there wouldn't be the same (only more so) reaction to a
>>Wonder Man movie?
>
> I'm not sure I get the attraction of "Wonder Woman" (aside from
> the eye-candy). The 30 minutes of "Wonder Woman 1984" I caught
> on TV last week was _bad_. Bad acting, bad writing. Almost
> down to the level of Batman vs. Superman bad.
>
Is there some reason you believe that's representative of the
character overall? Or is it just that you don't think gurls and their
nasty cooties should be allowed into the superhero treehouse?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:sbl9ir$ch1$2@dont-email.me:

> On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 08:45:21 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> "edstas...@gmail.com" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:0d10ac3b-cf07-4cb4-9ed3-533b29d5d171n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> Steve Coltrin
>>>> > Dorothy J Heydt
>>>> >
>>>> > And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter
>>>> > Arkady.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in
>>>> the series
>>>
>>>> is apparently some sort of war crime.
>>>
>>> It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
>>> into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
>>> "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
>>> tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>>
>> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that
>> offends a significant part of the potential audience, you won't
>> get to make any more movies.
>
> Who would not having the correct percentage of
> minorities(determined by who?) actually offend?

If you're really interested, go read . . . pretty much anything
about any movie in the last 10 years, and note the bylines.

> A few people on
> twitter and their sock-puppet accounts? It is not like I said
> to myself I can not go to Black Panther because there are not
> enough white people in it.
>
And yet, there are those did just that.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2021-07-01 5:57 a.m., edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Steve Coltrin
>>> Dorothy J Heydt
>>>
>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>
>> Oh, and characters who were men in the stories being women in the series
>> is apparently some sort of war crime.
>
> It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast into women
> or minorities are presented as being somehow "empowering" when they’re
> actually all about attacking and tearing down White men and Western
> civilization.

Oh Eek. The Horror. I feel so attacked by Oceans Whatever.

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 17:28:34 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>In article <XnsAD5A58301AC12taustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:qvJqtD.1Bs4@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> In article <XnsAD59A60498037taustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>>>news:qvJE86.10nM@kithrup.com:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <e1841106-62b4-4dab-8d5e-b56836e40608n@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
>>>>>>Heydt wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>>>>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> >begin fnord
>>>>>>> >-dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes
>>>>>>> >> of
>>>>>>FOUNDATION will be
>>>>>>> >> available on September 24th this year.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all
>>>>>>> >to do with the project.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >Already people are complaining because the trailers show
>>>>>>> >women doing things other than fetching coffee, and nobody
>>>>>>> >is smoking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Asimov would probably be happy with that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they
>>>>>>> take place in a future so distant that the origin of the
>>>>>>> human species is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask
>>>>>>> Lord Dorwin.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the category of women in the series who do a lot behind the
>>>>>>scenes but don't show up
>>>>>>much in the text, there's the second foundation agent on
>>>>>>Kalgan who poses as a ditzy courtesan but is anything but, and
>>>>>>Preem Palver's wife (enough in the background
>>>>>>that I can't recall her name) who is also second foundation.
>>>>>>Both could have expanded
>>>>>>roles in a movie.
>>>>>
>>>>> So they well might.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's on Apple+, isn't it? I don't think my daughter
>>>>> subscribes to that. I'll have to wait for reviews after it
>>>>> launches, to see if I want to save my nickels and dimes and
>>>>> get the DVDs.
>>>>>
>>>>Does Apple release DVDs of their original productions?
>>>
>>> Damfino. I've described the time I had a secretarial job where
>>> everyone in the lab used Macs, and I had to too. If by any
>>> chance Apple did release DVDs, they'd likely be some format I
>>> couldn't play.
>>
>>If they *callI it a DVD, it will play. Otherwise, they'd be in
>>violation of the licensing agreement on the trademarks, and Apple
>>has very deep pockets.
>>
>>On the other hand, they're far more likely to release is in Blue
>>Ray. A lot of stuff doesn't actually get DVD releases any more.
>>>
>>> That, if you please, was me distrusting Apple.
>>
>>And not without reasons. They're very protective of their walled
>>garden. But they still have to abide by contractual obligations.
>>>
>>>>Amazon has a
>>>>habit of not always doing so (because then you won't subscribe
>>>>to Prime).
>>>
>>> Well, I do subscribe to Prime, because I consider (for example)
>>> getting cat food delivered on time worth it. YM almost
>>> certainly will V.
>>>
>>I live across the street from a grocery store. :) (There's nothing
>>I need from Amazon that I need that quickly without paying extra
>>for fast delivery. Plus, where I live, normal delivery is very,
>>very quick anyway. And in a real pinch, I could order through the
>>work account, which doesn't have Prime but has the same benefits
>>regarding fast, free delivery. Just makes payment a bit more
>>complicated.)
>
>Well, that's you. The nearest place that sells cat food is a Petco
>in a shopping mall several miles away; I don't drive; and
>currently I can't even walk without something to hold onto. If I
>need to buy something, it's Amazon or else persuade Hal to go out
>and get it for me, when he'd rather be sitting in front of his
>computer watching live videos of the current eruption in Iceland.
>
>We do what we can, and cope with what we can't.

I don't know about where you are but where I am Instacart will deliver
from Petco. Whether that's more economically attractive than Amazon
is an open question. They typically deliver in a few hours.

On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 15:44:05 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>In article <m2tulem51i.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:
>>begin fnord
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>>> It's on Apple+, isn't it? I don't think my daughter subscribes
>>> to that. I'll have to wait for reviews after it launches, to see
>>> if I want to save my nickels and dimes and get the DVDs.
>>
>>I wouldn't give good odds of it ever showing up on DVD.
>
>Well, then, I'm saving some money by not buying it.
>
>>While I'm well aware money doesn't grow on trees, you might also be
>>interested in Apple+' _For All Mankind_, whose opening scenes take place
>>on June 26, 1969, as the world watches Alexei Leonov take the first
>>steps on the Moon...
>
>No, thanks.

Actually it wasn't bad at all. On their _second_ lunar mission the
Soviets send a woman, so the US has to hurriedly put the Mercury 13 on
official status. I'm looking forward to the third season, although
two of my favorite characters are leaving. They do do the usual
modern hatchet job on von Braun though.

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:r6isdgllc8elpngdqsnfjbl2kt27a8qk90@4ax.com:

> They do do the usual modern hatchet job on von Braun though.
>
Can't be any worse than how The Right Stuff treated him.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

In article <XnsAD5A9D9C0FE8Ftaustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:8frrdgho4jvopdg7hchjbtbtv7qnqib3tf@4ax.com:
>
>> Note: I didn't see the remake because of the reviews.
>
>I didn't see the remake because I don't boether with remakes.
>
>(Though the presence of Melissan McCarthy would have done it, too.
>Like Will Ferrell, she's very good at what she does, and what she
>does is annoying as shit to me.)
>
Well, the only thing I've seen her in was the _Ghostbusters_
remake, which I liked a lot. Suum cuique.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

On 7/1/2021 11:31 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>
>>> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2016[ed.]_,
>>> with a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot
>>> filled by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>>>
>> I suspect that, where the fans are concerned, it's not so much "but
>> gurls has cooties" as it is "it's different than the original that
>> is the mostest bested classic movie ever made so it has to suck."
>> You'd see the same sort of reaction from mostly the same people if
>> you remade a class that originally starred women with men in the
>> same roles. If such things ever happened.
>>
>> How about recasting Wonder Woman as a man? Prince Dane of the all
>> male island of something-mumble, and so on. You *really* think
>> there wouldn't be the same (only more so) reaction to a Wonder Man
>> movie?
>
> I'm not sure I get the attraction of "Wonder Woman" (aside from the
> eye-candy). The 30 minutes of "Wonder Woman 1984" I caught on TV
> last week was _bad_. Bad acting, bad writing. Almost down to the
> level of Batman vs. Superman bad.
>
The first Gal Gadot Wonder Woman movie was very good.

The second (WW84) was not very good.

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

On 7/1/2021 1:17 PM, Magewolf wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:29:24 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> writes:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:18:01 -0700, William Hyde wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>>>> begin fnord -dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes of
>>>>>>> FOUNDATION will be available on September 24th this year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck all to do
>>>>>> with the project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
>>>>>> things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>>>>
>>>> Asimov would probably be happy with that.
>>>>
>>>>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they take place
>>>>> in a future so distant that the origin of the human species is a
>>>>> matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask Lord Dorwin.)
>>>>>
>>>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter Arkady.
>>>>
>>>> In the category of women in the series who do a lot behind the scenes
>>>> but don't show up much in the text, there's the second foundation
>>>> agent on Kalgan who poses as a ditzy courtesan but is anything but,
>>>> and Preem Palver's wife (enough in the background that I can't recall
>>>> her name) who is also second foundation. Both could have expanded
>>>> roles in a movie.
>>>>
>>>> William Hyde
>>>
>>> That would require thought and some desire to stay true to the story.
>>> Much easier to gender and race swap characters at random until you have
>>> the perfect mix for twitter of the current five minutes. And
>>> "improve"(piss on) the story to bring it up to current day
>>> standards(when the people improving it are talentless hacks who will
>>> never produce anything that anyone will remember 10 years from now not
>>> to mention 70+).
>>
>> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_ et alia?
>>
>> The people funding the series hope for a much larger audience. Much,
>> much larger, or they're just throwing their money away; if they piss off
>> a few hard-core science fiction fans in the process of making loads of
>> money, they'll cry all the way to the bank.
>>
>> Sad, but true.
>
> No offense intended but I have heard that argument a lot and it never
> made any sense to me. You pay money(often a lot of money) for the rights
> to something and then act like it is a set of chains you have to
> destroy. It seems to me if you are so much better than the property you
> are working on then you would be better off making your own story and
> putting the rights money into the budget for your own personal story.
>
Movie/TV Rights to books are not bought with the intention of being
faithful to the book. The Rights are bought so they can use the well
know title to draw people in to seeing their piece of crap personal
story with some names slapped on it.

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:06:04 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 15:44:05 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
> >In article <m2tulem...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> >Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
> >>begin fnord
> >>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >>
> >>> It's on Apple+, isn't it? I don't think my daughter subscribes
> >>> to that. I'll have to wait for reviews after it launches, to see
> >>> if I want to save my nickels and dimes and get the DVDs.
> >>
> >>I wouldn't give good odds of it ever showing up on DVD.
> >
> >Well, then, I'm saving some money by not buying it.
> >
> >>While I'm well aware money doesn't grow on trees, you might also be
> >>interested in Apple+' _For All Mankind_, whose opening scenes take place
> >>on June 26, 1969, as the world watches Alexei Leonov take the first
> >>steps on the Moon...
> >
> >No, thanks.
> Actually it wasn't bad at all. On their _second_ lunar mission the
> Soviets send a woman, so the US has to hurriedly put the Mercury 13 on
> official status.

Did you see that Jeff Bezos has invited one of the women who was on Mercury 13 to accompany him into space? She's 82.

-Moriarty

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 10:04:56 PM UTC-4, Moriarty wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:06:04 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 15:44:05 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> > wrote:
> > >In article <m2tulem...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> > >Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
> > >>begin fnord
> > >>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> > >>
> > >>> It's on Apple+, isn't it? I don't think my daughter subscribes
> > >>> to that. I'll have to wait for reviews after it launches, to see
> > >>> if I want to save my nickels and dimes and get the DVDs.
> > >>
> > >>I wouldn't give good odds of it ever showing up on DVD.
> > >
> > >Well, then, I'm saving some money by not buying it.
> > >
> > >>While I'm well aware money doesn't grow on trees, you might also be
> > >>interested in Apple+' _For All Mankind_, whose opening scenes take place
> > >>on June 26, 1969, as the world watches Alexei Leonov take the first
> > >>steps on the Moon...
> > >
> > >No, thanks.
> > Actually it wasn't bad at all. On their _second_ lunar mission the
> > Soviets send a woman, so the US has to hurriedly put the Mercury 13 on
> > official status.
> Did you see that Jeff Bezos has invited one of the women who was on Mercury 13 to accompany him into space? She's 82.

Sadly, it's just a suborbital hop, land ping right where it took off. Space Is Hard.

Pt

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:qvLA8C.sDs@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsAD5A9D9C0FE8Ftaustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:8frrdgho4jvopdg7hchjbtbtv7qnqib3tf@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Note: I didn't see the remake because of the reviews.
>>
>>I didn't see the remake because I don't boether with remakes.
>>
>>(Though the presence of Melissan McCarthy would have done it, too.
>>Like Will Ferrell, she's very good at what she does, and what she
>>does is annoying as shit to me.)
>>
> Well, the only thing I've seen her in was the _Ghostbusters_
> remake, which I liked a lot. Suum cuique.
>
I can absolutely guarantee you that you and I have different tastes
in humor. And could have before today.

(Mind you, again like Will Ferrel, I'm sure Ms. McCarthy has done
some work that's not her usual stuff. Possibly even stuff I'd like.
But I've never seen it, and am unlikely to because when she steps out
of her typecast role, it's not the sort of movie that gets
advertised.)

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
news:sblqnr$8hf$2@dont-email.me:

> On 7/1/2021 11:31 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>
>>>> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters
>>>> 2016[ed.]_, with a mostly female cast, with the
>>>> dumb-blonde-secretary slot filled by the cute, blond, and
>>>> definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>>>>
>>> I suspect that, where the fans are concerned, it's not so much
>>> "but gurls has cooties" as it is "it's different than the
>>> original that is the mostest bested classic movie ever made so
>>> it has to suck." You'd see the same sort of reaction from
>>> mostly the same people if you remade a class that originally
>>> starred women with men in the same roles. If such things ever
>>> happened.
>>>
>>> How about recasting Wonder Woman as a man? Prince Dane of the
>>> all male island of something-mumble, and so on. You *really*
>>> think there wouldn't be the same (only more so) reaction to a
>>> Wonder Man movie?
>>
>> I'm not sure I get the attraction of "Wonder Woman" (aside from
>> the eye-candy). The 30 minutes of "Wonder Woman 1984" I
>> caught on TV last week was _bad_. Bad acting, bad writing.
>> Almost down to the level of Batman vs. Superman bad.
>>
> The first Gal Gadot Wonder Woman movie was very good.

In a very old school way. Reminded me in some ways very much of the
Christopher Reeve Superman.
>
> The second (WW84) was not very good.
>
I have not seen it. I also have not seen much to incline me to do
so, even when it's on a basic cable channel. Though I probably will
anyway just for the eye candy.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
news:sblqte$8hf$3@dont-email.me:

> On 7/1/2021 1:17 PM, Magewolf wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:29:24 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:18:01 -0700, William Hyde wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
>>>>> Heydt wrote:
>>>>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>>>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> begin fnord -dsr- <dsr-u...@randomstring.org> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, Amazon says the first three episodes
>>>>>>>> of FOUNDATION will be available on September 24th this
>>>>>>>> year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An odd thing for them to do, considering they have fuck
>>>>>>> all to do with the project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Already people are complaining because the trailers show
>>>>>>> women doing things other than fetching coffee, and nobody
>>>>>>> is smoking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Asimov would probably be happy with that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whaaat? The stories were *written* in the 1940s, but they
>>>>>> take place in a future so distant that the origin of the
>>>>>> human species is a matter of fruitless debate. (Just ask
>>>>>> Lord Dorwin.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And let's not forget Bayta Darrell, and her daughter
>>>>>> Arkady.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the category of women in the series who do a lot behind
>>>>> the scenes but don't show up much in the text, there's the
>>>>> second foundation agent on Kalgan who poses as a ditzy
>>>>> courtesan but is anything but, and Preem Palver's wife
>>>>> (enough in the background that I can't recall her name) who
>>>>> is also second foundation. Both could have expanded roles
>>>>> in a movie.
>>>>>
>>>>> William Hyde
>>>>
>>>> That would require thought and some desire to stay true to
>>>> the story. Much easier to gender and race swap characters at
>>>> random until you have the perfect mix for twitter of the
>>>> current five minutes. And "improve"(piss on) the story to
>>>> bring it up to current day standards(when the people
>>>> improving it are talentless hacks who will never produce
>>>> anything that anyone will remember 10 years from now not
>>>> to mention 70+).
>>>
>>> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_
>>> et alia?
>>>
>>> The people funding the series hope for a much larger audience.
>>> Much, much larger, or they're just throwing their money away;
>>> if they piss off a few hard-core science fiction fans in the
>>> process of making loads of money, they'll cry all the way to
>>> the bank.
>>>
>>> Sad, but true.
>>
>> No offense intended but I have heard that argument a lot and it
>> never made any sense to me. You pay money(often a lot of
>> money) for the rights to something and then act like it is a
>> set of chains you have to destroy. It seems to me if you are
>> so much better than the property you are working on then you
>> would be better off making your own story and putting the
>> rights money into the budget for your own personal story.
>>
> Movie/TV Rights to books are not bought with the intention of
> being faithful to the book. The Rights are bought so they can
> use the well know title to draw people in to seeing their piece
> of crap personal story with some names slapped on it.
>
Which occasionally, very rarely, turn out to be better than the
book. (I believe we've had that discussion more than once here.)

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
> > into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
> > "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
> > tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>
> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that offends
> a significant part of the potential audience, you won't get to make
> any more movies.

Making money is a secondary consideration to promoting an agenda
and those in Hollywood are True Believers at the forefront of the
propaganda campaign.

> Movies (like science fiction) reflect the society they're made for,
> not the other way around. And right now, you're in a minority. How
> small a minority is hard to say, but definition a minority of the
> movie going public, at least.

Then why for instance, base the new Star Wars movies around female
characters (as well as the new Star Trek tv show and Doctor Who, etc.)
when the fanbase is overwhelmingly male and gals aren’t particularly
interested in sci-fi?

> > The result is they only further the belief that women and
> > minorities can't create their own art and have to steal it from
> > White men.
>
> Shiny side in, or out? A tough question. Shiny side out reflects
> the orbital tracking satellites, but shiny side in absorbs the mind
> control lasers.

And yet we see this happening again and again while at the same
time, the occasional production with a White actor replacing the
original non-White character (such as Scarlett Johansson in “Ghost
in the Shell”) are vilified as “cultural appropriation!”.

Meanwhile, the Brits just released a _historical_ tv drama series
about Anne Boleyn with a Black actress in the staring role and when
many pointed out how utterly ridiculous this is, they were told it
doesn’t matter who the actor is and it's racist to complain about it.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article23534869.ece/alternates/s615/3_Anne_Boleyn_played_by_Jodie_Turner-Smith_5995_jpg_m14736ed.jpg

I wonder what the reaction would be if the shoe was on the other foot?

https://ibb.co/gD75bVT

Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_ et alia?

Enough people, cumulatively over its first thirty-some years to put the fourth book on the best-seller list when it came out.

I don't know if this had knock-on effects for the later books in the series, or even "best-selling author Isaac Asimov's" other works like _Robots of Dawn_, they weren't written like best-sellers. (None of their first paperback editions proclaim it on their covers.)

> The people funding the series hope for a much larger audience. Much, much
> larger, or they're just throwing their money away;

True, there is some rule of thumb about the relative popularity of TV, the movies, and books, in which disappointing numbers in one industry would be spectacular success in the next. I think I saw it illustrated with actual figures once.
--
-Jack

Magewolf wrote:

> No offense intended but I have heard that argument a lot and it never
> made any sense to me. You pay money(often a lot of money) for the rights
> to something and then act like it is a set of chains you have to
> destroy. It seems to me if you are so much better than the property you
> are working on then you would be better off making your own story and
> putting the rights money into the budget for your own personal story.

In movies and TV it's not a single person making a personal story. It's a hydra satisfying a variety of demands. (Some may be able to wrest enough control to be satisfied that the final product tells a personal tale, pays respect to a friend, or says hi to the kids.)

In copyright-happy times, the project may have started out as a personal story, or at least thought to be original, found not to be so, and rights to a pre-existing work bought to prevent lawsuit -- either from that work, or as cover protecting from a third work.

(Of course, they could also have been intended ripoff, and still seeking cover. My first step into cynicism was seeing Glen Larsen and Universal rip of Star Wars with "Battlestar Galactica," get sued for ripping it off, then make "Buck Rogers" into a ripoff of Star Wars, and not get sued.)

(Actually, there's an answer to the false dichotomy of "if it pisses off a few fans, but makes money, who cares?" Look at "The Shape of Things to Come" (which may actually have the official title of "H. G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come"). Could it have actually made less money if it had tried to at least be as intelligent as Wells?)

--
-Jack

"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f2dd9006-e490-4ac7-b8a2-3ffa6c4ea93en@googlegroups.com:

>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>> > Ed Stasiak
>> >
>> > It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
>> > into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
>> > "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
>> > tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>>
>> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that
>> offends a significant part of the potential audience, you won't
>> get to make any more movies.
>
> Making money is a secondary consideration to promoting an agenda
> and those in Hollywood are True Believers at the forefront of
> the propaganda campaign.

You are an idiot. Not that this hasn't been obvious for some time.

Again: shiny side in or out?

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6e848b33-3137-4873-ba47-f43fc0d192c3n@googlegroups.com:

> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_ et
>> alia?
>
> Enough people, cumulatively over its first thirty-some years to
> put the fourth book on the best-seller list when it came out.

Aside from the inherent flaws in the concept of best seller lists
[1], a book that sells 100,000 copies is a smashing success. A
movie that only sells 100,000 tickets is an epic failure.
>
> I don't know if this had knock-on effects for the later books in
> the series, or even "best-selling author Isaac Asimov's" other
> works like _Robots of Dawn_, they weren't written like
> best-sellers. (None of their first paperback editions proclaim
> it on their covers.)

A new book on a bestseller list really only means that the
publisher is pushing it, so the book stores are pre-ordering enough
copies. Hell, bestseller lists don't even reflect the consumer
buying it, only the bookstores.
>
>> The people funding the series hope for a much larger audience.
>> Much, much
>
>> larger, or they're just throwing their money away;
>
> True, there is some rule of thumb about the relative popularity
> of TV, the movies, and books, in which disappointing numbers in
> one industry would be spectacular success in the next. I think
> I saw it illustrated with actual figures once.

[1]According to this:

https://scribemedia.com/get-best-seller-list/

bestseller lists are based on a very small number of retail
channels, and are - by the admission of those who publish them -
not a reflection of sales, they are an "editorial product."

And you only need 5,000-10,000 copies pre-ordered to get on even
the most prestigious lists.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>=20
>> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_ et alia?=20
>
>Enough people, cumulatively over its first thirty-some years to put the fou=
>rth book on the best-seller list when it came out.

Today it takes selling 5000 copies a week to be a best seller. Not sure what
it was back in the 1970s.

On the scale of a potential global television audience, that's still in the noise.

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:7EGDI.17513$Vj7.12139@fx46.iad:

> Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>=20
>>> How many people in the world have actually read _Foundation_
>>> et alia?=20
>>
>>Enough people, cumulatively over its first thirty-some years to
>>put the fou= rth book on the best-seller list when it came out.
>
> Today it takes selling 5000 copies a week to be a best seller.
> Not sure what it was back in the 1970s.
>
> On the scale of a potential global television audience, that's
> still in the noise.
>
There are commercials that get better ratings than that.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2021-07-02 5:08 a.m., edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> It's a valid complaint, as these remakes that change the cast
>>> into women or minorities are presented as being somehow
>>> "empowering" when they’re actually all about attacking and
>>> tearing down White men and Western civilization.
>>
>> What it' about is making money. If you make a movie that offends
>> a significant part of the potential audience, you won't get to make
>> any more movies.
>
> Making money is a secondary consideration to promoting an agenda
> and those in Hollywood are True Believers at the forefront of the
> propaganda campaign.

LOL! Good one!

Oh, wait... ....you were serious?

LOLLOLLOLOLLOLOLOLLLOLOLLLOLOLOL

>
>> Movies (like science fiction) reflect the society they're made for,
>> not the other way around. And right now, you're in a minority. How
>> small a minority is hard to say, but definition a minority of the
>> movie going public, at least.
>
> Then why for instance, base the new Star Wars movies around female
> characters (as well as the new Star Trek tv show and Doctor Who, etc.)
> when the fanbase is overwhelmingly male and gals aren’t particularly
> interested in sci-fi?
>
>>> The result is they only further the belief that women and
>>> minorities can't create their own art and have to steal it from
>>> White men.
>>
>> Shiny side in, or out? A tough question. Shiny side out reflects
>> the orbital tracking satellites, but shiny side in absorbs the mind
>> control lasers.
>
> And yet we see this happening again and again while at the same
> time, the occasional production with a White actor replacing the
> original non-White character (such as Scarlett Johansson in “Ghost
> in the Shell”) are vilified as “cultural appropriation!”.
>
> Meanwhile, the Brits just released a _historical_ tv drama series
> about Anne Boleyn with a Black actress in the staring role and when
> many pointed out how utterly ridiculous this is, they were told it
> doesn’t matter who the actor is and it's racist to complain about it.
>
> https://www.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article23534869.ece/alternates/s615/3_Anne_Boleyn_played_by_Jodie_Turner-Smith_5995_jpg_m14736ed.jpg
>
> I wonder what the reaction would be if the shoe was on the other foot?
>
> https://ibb.co/gD75bVT
>

On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 18:31:13 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>
>>> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2016[ed.]_,
>>> with a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot
>>> filled by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>>>
>>I suspect that, where the fans are concerned, it's not so much "but
>>gurls has cooties" as it is "it's different than the original that
>>is the mostest bested classic movie ever made so it has to suck."
>>You'd see the same sort of reaction from mostly the same people if
>>you remade a class that originally starred women with men in the
>>same roles. If such things ever happened.
>>
>>How about recasting Wonder Woman as a man? Prince Dane of the all
>>male island of something-mumble, and so on. You *really* think
>>there wouldn't be the same (only more so) reaction to a Wonder Man
>>movie?
>
>I'm not sure I get the attraction of "Wonder Woman" (aside from the
>eye-candy). The 30 minutes of "Wonder Woman 1984" I caught on TV
>last week was _bad_. Bad acting, bad writing. Almost down to the
>level of Batman vs. Superman bad.

For the most part, neither Marvel's Avengers nor DC's Justice League
(and precursor films) (those starting with /Man of Steel/, at least)
live-action films seem to me to be particularly great. Some were
definite snooze-fests when I watched them.

I rent them all and watch them, but, except for the /Suicide Squad/ of
a couple years ago, none have impressed me in a positive sense. Not
necessarily bad, but certainly not good.

DC's Animated films, OTOH, while often pedestrian, often rise to
providing real value for the time needed to watch them.

IMHO, of course.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."