scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:FAsEI.14098$%o3.8536@fx04.iad:

> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:9q31egtu6nkvatfo77dnuni335k5grfknl@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 09:05:54 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> One of the reasons I stopped watching broadcast TV was that it
>>> was apparent that the commercials had more effort and more
>>> money put into them (on a per-minute basis) than the filler --
>>> er, the actual shows.
>>
>>About 90% of what I watch is reruns from the 70s (and even
>>earlier). Some shows hold up surprisingly well.
>
> _Laugh In_ on IMDB tv has been enjoyable. Old carson shows
> on YouTube. Hogan's Hero's is a guilty pleasure.
>
Laugh In had its charms. I was amused by about one episode of
Hogan's Heros before I remembered I'm not a child any more and it
wasn't all that funny as an adult.

What's surprising is how many various detective/cop shows hold up
even today. You will occasionally notice the absence of cell
phones (usually when someone ha to stop to use a pay phone) an the
lack of DNA evidence (which, in real life, isn't as useful as
modern television shows make it look), but mostly, detective work
is detective work.

(There was even an episode of Rockford Files where the bad guy was
a company building a giant data center to store all the electronic
surveillance data on all Americans, and how evil that whole idea
was. About the only thing they got wrong was there was only *one*
such company.)

--
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:8036e603-098b-44a5-a14b-62bc0a3dcd1fn@googlegroups.com:

> Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 06:04:53 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
>> <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >(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?)
>> You know Wells himself oversaw the movie's production, right?
>
> That's the trick I'm talking about! When Star Wars began making
> so much money, other studios began trying for some by creating
> characters, backgrounds, and events as much like Star Wars as
> possible. They also began looking at existing properties and
> seeing if those characters, backgrounds, and events could be
> twisted to be as much like Star Wars as possible. Buck
> Rogers, Star Trek, and Flash Gordon got revivals more or less
> influenced by Star Wars, _Moonraker_ and "Enemy Mine" got
> adaptations, as did the legend of Perseus and Medusa, which
> threw in Hephaestus making a clockwork robotic Owl-2 D-2. My
> theory is that as existing properties, they stove off lawsuits
> from 20th Century Fox. In these days of sequels, remakes, and
> reboots, I theorize that additionally as properties whose
> ownership is settled, they help stave off efforts by the writers
> who make them interesting and directors who make them exciting
> to get a bigger cut of the pie.
>
Movies are a business, and business people (who run the studios)
don't like risk. Anything that makes money once will get redone
again and again until it doesn't. There's no reason to *risk* a
movie not making money when you have a proven money make already.

--
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.

On 04/07/2021 19.43, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:9q31egtu6nkvatfo77dnuni335k5grfknl@4ax.com:

>>> One of the reasons I stopped watching broadcast TV was that it
>>> was apparent that the commercials had more effort and more money
>>> put into them (on a per-minute basis) than the filler -- er, the
>>> actual shows.
>>
>> About 90% of what I watch is reruns from the 70s (and even
>> earlier). Some shows hold up surprisingly well.
>
> _Laugh In_ on IMDB tv has been enjoyable.

I'm surprised at that. I loved it when it was on TV, but I would
have thought that most of the references would have been way too
dated to be amusing over half a century later (oh, my lord).

--
Michael F. Stemper
No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 5:01:45 PM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 04/07/2021 19.43, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> >> news:9q31egtu6nkvatfo7...@4ax.com:
> >>> One of the reasons I stopped watching broadcast TV was that it
> >>> was apparent that the commercials had more effort and more money
> >>> put into them (on a per-minute basis) than the filler -- er, the
> >>> actual shows.
> >>
> >> About 90% of what I watch is reruns from the 70s (and even
> >> earlier). Some shows hold up surprisingly well.
> >
> > _Laugh In_ on IMDB tv has been enjoyable.
> I'm surprised at that. I loved it when it was on TV, but I would
> have thought that most of the references would have been way too
> dated to be amusing over half a century later (oh, my lord).
>
>
> --

I watched Laugh-In in 1st run. I would have been 11 years-old when it
debuted. Besides the fun of seeing Goldie Hawn, Chelsea Brown and
Judy Carne go-go dancing in bikinis, which only got more interesting
as I got older - the rapid fire, if-you-didn't-like-that-one-here's-another
style of delivering jokes worked for me. Contemporary articles in
the papers explained that ....

[quote]

.....Laugh-In had its roots in the humor of vaudeville and burlesque, but
its most direct influences were Olsen and Johnson's comedies (such
as the free-form Broadway revue "Hellzapoppin'"), the innovative television
works of Ernie Kovacs, and the topical satire of "That Was The Week That
Was." The show was characterized by a rapid-fire series of gags and sketches,
many of which conveyed sexual innuendo or were politically charged.

[/quote] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_%26_Martin%27s_Laugh-In

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_gag

As a member of Future Policy Wonks of America, I enjoyed the topical
humor. It ran the gamut between slap stick and cerebral humor. Wm
F Buckley Jr was even a guest. It really stood out compared to other
TV variety shows I grew up watching: - Red Skelton, Jackie Gleason, etc. -
which I also loved.

I expect that if I rewatched the first couple of seasons of R&AMLI
there'd be some gags that flew over my head the first time.

--
Kevin R

On 7/1/2021 10:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 19:17:03 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article <qvJ3u6.qLy@kithrup.com>,
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> In article <m2tulfgq15.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>> Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>> begin fnord
>>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <m2tulfs5z7.fsf@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>>>>> Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
>>>>>> things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.)
>>>>
>>>> I'm not saying I understand it.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> Bah.
>>>
>>> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2016_, with
>>> a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot filled
>>> by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
>>
>> (Addendum: apparently _Ghostbusters 2_ was a different film, with
>> the same cast of frat-boys as the first one.
>
> Yes, /Ghostbusters 2/ was a sequel.
>
> In which the "dumb blond" is revealed to be not "dumb" at all, albeit
> a bit strange.
>

I checked all the first-level replies to make sure this hadn't been
mentioned, but how is it that this entire NG can't recall that Janine
Melnitz may have been a lot of things, but "blonde" was not one of them?

In the original film, she's brunette. I THINK that in the animated
series, she has an 80s colour-dye (pink?) job, though that *could* just
be for the same reasons as technicolor anime hair.

I think *Dana Barrett* was closer to blonde, and, being played by
Sigourney Weaver, SHE was a light brunette herself.

>
> But I thought the main complaint was that the remake was an R-rated
> raunch fest instead of a PG-rated comedy. But perhaps the reviews I
> read were a bit ... biased.
>
> Note: I didn't see the remake because of the reviews. /Scary Movie/
> was enough of an R-rated raunch fest for me.
>
>>>
>>> _____
>>> *From men, of course.
>>>
>> Oh, yes: remember the film version of _The Andromeda Strain_,
>> with Kate Reid playing the scientist with attitude and epilepsy?
>> In the book, all the scientists were men. I don't know who made
>> the decision to cast Reid instead of yet more male person, but
>> Reid and David Wayne saved that movie.
>
> Somehow, I think the movie would have worked with an all-male cast. No
> need for it to be "saved". The selling point (as it were) was the
> frantic internal tower climb at the end.
>
> As the trailer said, "Rated G, but may be too /intense/ for younger
> children". This while show a direct laser hit to the cheek, IIRC.
>
> That said, Kate Reid certainly did add value to the story.
>

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

"Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> writes:
>On 04/07/2021 19.43, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:9q31egtu6nkvatfo77dnuni335k5grfknl@4ax.com:
>
>>>> One of the reasons I stopped watching broadcast TV was that it
>>>> was apparent that the commercials had more effort and more money
>>>> put into them (on a per-minute basis) than the filler -- er, the
>>>> actual shows.
>>>
>>> About 90% of what I watch is reruns from the 70s (and even
>>> earlier). Some shows hold up surprisingly well.
>>
>> _Laugh In_ on IMDB tv has been enjoyable.
>
>I'm surprised at that. I loved it when it was on TV, but I would
>have thought that most of the references would have been way too
>dated to be amusing over half a century later (oh, my lord).

Perhaps to someone who wasn't around during the first run - although
it is suprising how _liberal_ the show was for the day. And when I
saw them first run, I was too young to catch most of the references
to sex and drugs.

In article <sbvrvl$u2k$1@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 04/07/2021 19.43, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:9q31egtu6nkvatfo77dnuni335k5grfknl@4ax.com:
>
>>>> One of the reasons I stopped watching broadcast TV was that it
>>>> was apparent that the commercials had more effort and more money
>>>> put into them (on a per-minute basis) than the filler -- er, the
>>>> actual shows.
>>>
>>> About 90% of what I watch is reruns from the 70s (and even
>>> earlier). Some shows hold up surprisingly well.
>>
>> _Laugh In_ on IMDB tv has been enjoyable.
>
>I'm surprised at that. I loved it when it was on TV, but I would
>have thought that most of the references would have been way too
>dated to be amusing over half a century later (oh, my lord).
>

You bet your sweet bippy!
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 06/07/2021 13:33, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <sbvrvl$u2k$1@dont-email.me>,
> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/07/2021 19.43, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:9q31egtu6nkvatfo77dnuni335k5grfknl@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>> One of the reasons I stopped watching broadcast TV was that it
>>>>> was apparent that the commercials had more effort and more money
>>>>> put into them (on a per-minute basis) than the filler -- er, the
>>>>> actual shows.
>>>>
>>>> About 90% of what I watch is reruns from the 70s (and even
>>>> earlier). Some shows hold up surprisingly well.
>>>
>>> _Laugh In_ on IMDB tv has been enjoyable.
>>
>> I'm surprised at that. I loved it when it was on TV, but I would
>> have thought that most of the references would have been way too
>> dated to be amusing over half a century later (oh, my lord).
>>
>
> You bet your sweet bippy!
>
As long as it's not another chicken joke!

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
Waiting for a new signature to suggest itself...

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-4, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 7/1/2021 10:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 19:17:03 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> > Heydt) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <qvJ3u...@kithrup.com>,
> >> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <m2tulfg...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> >>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
> >>>> begin fnord
> >>>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
> >>>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
> >>>>>> things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not saying I understand it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>> Bah.
> >>>
> >>> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2016_, with
> >>> a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot filled
> >>> by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.
> >>
> >> (Addendum: apparently _Ghostbusters 2_ was a different film, with
> >> the same cast of frat-boys as the first one.
> >
> > Yes, /Ghostbusters 2/ was a sequel.
> >
> > In which the "dumb blond" is revealed to be not "dumb" at all, albeit
> > a bit strange.
> >
> I checked all the first-level replies to make sure this hadn't been
> mentioned, but how is it that this entire NG can't recall that Janine
> Melnitz may have been a lot of things, but "blonde" was not one of them?
>

Janine had a typical New Yorker's canniness. She seemed to
have set her cap for Egon, but when that went nowhere latched
onto the boys' accountant/lawyer, Louis Tully. It isn't canon
that they married, but who thinks Louis could do better? That
was Annie _freakin'_ Potts in that costume! Vanessa from "Corvette
Summer!"

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001633/

> In the original film, she's brunette. I THINK that in the animated
> series, she has an 80s colour-dye (pink?) job, though that *could* just
> be for the same reasons as technicolor anime hair.
>

Janine was a redhead in the second film. Heroes want
redheads.

> I think *Dana Barrett* was closer to blonde, and, being played by
> Sigourney Weaver, SHE was a light brunette herself.

In the first "Ghostbusters," Jennifer Runyon was "the blonde."
I don't know as if I'd call her "dumb." Naive, maybe.

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0001690/mediaviewer/rm187835648

Dr. Venkman had designs on her before getting thrown off campus.

--
Kevin R

On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 00:45:58 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:32:53 PM UTC-4, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>> On 7/1/2021 10:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 19:17:03 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>> > Heydt) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <qvJ3u...@kithrup.com>,
>> >> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> >>> In article <m2tulfg...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>> >>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>> >>>> begin fnord
>> >>>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> In article <m2tulfs...@kelutral.omcl.org>,
>> >>>>> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Already people are complaining because the trailers show women doing
>> >>>>>> things other than fetching coffee, and nobody is smoking.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 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.)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm not saying I understand it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Bah.
>> >>>
>> >>> But it's in keeping with the outcry* about _Ghostbusters 2016_, with
>> >>> a mostly female cast, with the dumb-blonde-secretary slot filled
>> >>> by the cute, blond, and definitely male Chris Hemsworth.

Note: this is where the secretary as "dumb blonde" entered the
conversation.

>> >>
>> >> (Addendum: apparently _Ghostbusters 2_ was a different film, with
>> >> the same cast of frat-boys as the first one.
>> >
>> > Yes, /Ghostbusters 2/ was a sequel.
>> >
>> > In which the "dumb blond" is revealed to be not "dumb" at all, albeit
>> > a bit strange.
>> >
>> I checked all the first-level replies to make sure this hadn't been
>> mentioned, but how is it that this entire NG can't recall that Janine
>> Melnitz may have been a lot of things, but "blonde" was not one of them?
>>
>
>Janine had a typical New Yorker's canniness. She seemed to
>have set her cap for Egon, but when that went nowhere latched
>onto the boys' accountant/lawyer, Louis Tully. It isn't canon
>that they married, but who thinks Louis could do better? That
>was Annie _freakin'_ Potts in that costume! Vanessa from "Corvette
>Summer!"
>
>https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001633/
>
>> In the original film, she's brunette. I THINK that in the animated
>> series, she has an 80s colour-dye (pink?) job, though that *could* just
>> be for the same reasons as technicolor anime hair.
>>
>
>Janine was a redhead in the second film. Heroes want
>redheads.
>
>> I think *Dana Barrett* was closer to blonde, and, being played by
>> Sigourney Weaver, SHE was a light brunette herself.
>
>In the first "Ghostbusters," Jennifer Runyon was "the blonde."
>I don't know as if I'd call her "dumb." Naive, maybe.
>
>https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0001690/mediaviewer/rm187835648
>
>Dr. Venkman had designs on her before getting thrown off campus.

OK, I can see Jennifer as the "dumb blonde", although she seemed more
like a very agreeable student, hoping for a passing grade, to me.

Dr Venkman might have attributed his success to her being "dumb"
rather than merely canny, however.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:34:30 -0600, Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org>
wrote:

>
>> 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.

Well at least we will be spared that extra creepy scene of the lord of
Kalgan saying he had thought about founding a dynasty with Arkady -
extra creepy as Arkady was 14 or so at the time.

In 2021 that would be considered uber politically incorrect. I was
about 14 when I first read Second Foundation and even then found it
creepy. Which I'm completely sure was Asimov's intent since villains
are supposed to say and do terrible things.

On 7/3/2021 11:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 21:55:47 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
>> In article <sbqd3a$74b$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2021 18.41, Kevrob wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:08:34 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>> Sometimes a "gender-flip" adds something. My favorite is
>>>> Roz Russell as Hildy Johnson, turning "The Front Page" into
>>>> "His Girl Friday."
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Girl_Friday
>>>
>>> John Varley went one better in _Steel Beach_ by having Hildy start
>>> out (in the novel) as male and then switch to female. Now I need to
>>> reread it to see if some character is a Cary Grant analog.
>>
>> Well, let us know. Now, if you'd generalized it as a
>> gender-switching story of any kind with a Cary Grant analog, I'd
>> recommend "Some Like It Hot," in which Tony Curtis's character,
>> when not hiding from the mob in female clothing, adopts a Cary
>> Grant accent to woo Marilyn Monroe's character. He came by the
>> accent almost honestly; he was in the US Navy during WWII and
>> stationed someplace where there was a projector but only a few
>> films, one of which starred Grant. The guys got to the point
>> where they knew every line of dialog, so they'd turn the sound
>> off and recite the dialog themselves. Curtis got to voice
>> Grant.
>
> It's not really gender-switching, but Cary Grant spends about half of
> "Bringing Up Baby" wearing Katherine Hepburn's bathrobe.

My wife freaking loves that movie. I must admit that it is hilarious,
especially when the guy starts to make the big cat cry and the big cat
beats him to it.

Lynn

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>A society of men with no women is seen in various
>religious communities, with the question of how
>laundry is done addressed by not having any.
>However, Captain America's original situation
>was an American army camp which I suppose
>probably was all guys, I don't know. It really is
>not quite the same.

In fairness the most common "society of men without women" are either
military stories or stories of ships at sea.

You simply can't perform Moby Dick or Saving Private Ryan with a 50%
female cast.

On 7/3/2021 11:57 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:9q31egtu6nkvatfo77dnuni335k5grfknl@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 09:05:54 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> One of the reasons I stopped watching broadcast TV was that it
>> was apparent that the commercials had more effort and more money
>> put into them (on a per-minute basis) than the filler -- er, the
>> actual shows.
>
> About 90% of what I watch is reruns from the 70s (and even
> earlier). Some shows hold up surprisingly well.

"Under The Dome" reminded me of a 70's produced show. Very cheesy but
held my interest long enough to finish it.

Lynn

On 7/3/2021 11:57 AM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:9q31egtu6nkvatfo77dnuni335k5grfknl@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 09:05:54 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> One of the reasons I stopped watching broadcast TV was that it
>> was apparent that the commercials had more effort and more money
>> put into them (on a per-minute basis) than the filler -- er, the
>> actual shows.
>
> About 90% of what I watch is reruns from the 70s (and even
> earlier). Some shows hold up surprisingly well.

Please not "Starlost". That is total crap.

Lynn

On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 18:20:09 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>A society of men with no women is seen in various
>>religious communities, with the question of how
>>laundry is done addressed by not having any.
>>However, Captain America's original situation
>>was an American army camp which I suppose
>>probably was all guys, I don't know. It really is
>>not quite the same.
>
>In fairness the most common "society of men without women" are either
>military stories or stories of ships at sea.
>
>You simply can't perform Moby Dick or Saving Private Ryan with a 50%
>female cast.

Of course you can--these days they'd cast a Chinese woman in a
wheelchair as Ahab.

In article <5r3gjg9i46695f5382lu8lqblve1k9i3qv@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>A society of men with no women is seen in various
>>religious communities, with the question of how
>>laundry is done addressed by not having any.
>>However, Captain America's original situation
>>was an American army camp which I suppose
>>probably was all guys, I don't know. It really is
>>not quite the same.
>
>In fairness the most common "society of men without women" are either
>military stories or stories of ships at sea.
>
>You simply can't perform Moby Dick or Saving Private Ryan with a 50%
>female cast.

Not in the mid-nineteenth or -twentieth century in which those
books/films are set. In a more egalitarian future, however....

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

In article <sh92te$tsu$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 7/3/2021 11:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 21:55:47 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <sbqd3a$74b$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2021 18.41, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:08:34 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes a "gender-flip" adds something. My favorite is
>>>>> Roz Russell as Hildy Johnson, turning "The Front Page" into
>>>>> "His Girl Friday."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Girl_Friday
>>>>
>>>> John Varley went one better in _Steel Beach_ by having Hildy start
>>>> out (in the novel) as male and then switch to female. Now I need to
>>>> reread it to see if some character is a Cary Grant analog.
>>>
>>> Well, let us know. Now, if you'd generalized it as a
>>> gender-switching story of any kind with a Cary Grant analog, I'd
>>> recommend "Some Like It Hot," in which Tony Curtis's character,
>>> when not hiding from the mob in female clothing, adopts a Cary
>>> Grant accent to woo Marilyn Monroe's character. He came by the
>>> accent almost honestly; he was in the US Navy during WWII and
>>> stationed someplace where there was a projector but only a few
>>> films, one of which starred Grant. The guys got to the point
>>> where they knew every line of dialog, so they'd turn the sound
>>> off and recite the dialog themselves. Curtis got to voice
>>> Grant.
>>
>> It's not really gender-switching, but Cary Grant spends about half of
>> "Bringing Up Baby" wearing Katherine Hepburn's bathrobe.
>
>My wife freaking loves that movie. I must admit that it is hilarious,
>especially when the guy starts to make the big cat cry and the big cat
>beats him to it.
>
Heh. I have never seen that one, but your description of that
scene make me want to. If ever I discover that some site that my
daughter subscribes to is streaming it, I'll watch it. Cats rule.

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

In article <q73gjg5qhddk9ebobua0a9524asa9iq0dm@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:34:30 -0600, Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>Well at least we will be spared that extra creepy scene of the lord of
>Kalgan saying he had thought about founding a dynasty with Arkady -
>extra creepy as Arkady was 14 or so at the time.
>
>In 2021 that would be considered uber politically incorrect. I was
>about 14 when I first read Second Foundation and even then found it
>creepy. Which I'm completely sure was Asimov's intent since villains
>are supposed to say and do terrible things.

Nitpick: the Mule's consideration of finding a suitable consort
was directed at Bayta, Arkady's mother (in her early twenties,
married, not yet a mother), in _Foundation and Empire._ We find
out in _Second Foundation_ why he dismisses the idea.

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

In article <617gjgppdd63utriovj8rtnkhu9gaq0eu9@4ax.com>,
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 18:20:09 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>A society of men with no women is seen in various
>>>religious communities, with the question of how
>>>laundry is done addressed by not having any.
>>>However, Captain America's original situation
>>>was an American army camp which I suppose
>>>probably was all guys, I don't know. It really is
>>>not quite the same.
>>
>>In fairness the most common "society of men without women" are either
>>military stories or stories of ships at sea.
>>
>>You simply can't perform Moby Dick or Saving Private Ryan with a 50%
>>female cast.
>
>Of course you can--these days they'd cast a Chinese woman in a
>wheelchair as Ahab.

Hmmm. You could steal the plot, as _The Wrath of Khan_ did,
substituting the Chinese woman in a wheelchair for a white male
American with a wooden leg, and a spacecraft or time machine or
inter-universe portal for the Pequod. The root of the story is a
person who has been maimed by a force of nature and is determined
to have revenge on it. Which is impossible.

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

In article <qz3FtB.21MG@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <5r3gjg9i46695f5382lu8lqblve1k9i3qv@4ax.com>,
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>>A society of men with no women is seen in various
>>>religious communities, with the question of how
>>>laundry is done addressed by not having any.
>>>However, Captain America's original situation
>>>was an American army camp which I suppose
>>>probably was all guys, I don't know. It really is
>>>not quite the same.
>>
>>In fairness the most common "society of men without women" are either
>>military stories or stories of ships at sea.
>>
>>You simply can't perform Moby Dick or Saving Private Ryan with a 50%
>>female cast.
>
>Not in the mid-nineteenth or -twentieth century in which those
>books/films are set. In a more egalitarian future, however....
>

The past is already being re-written for kids movies to show kids what
they expect to see.

This was notably true in the mediocre "The House with a Clock in Its Walls"
where 1955 Michigan has notably modern ethnic balance and mixing in its
public shcools.

The excellent "Merry Poppins Returns" was the same. Now, since the
UK never had formal Jim Crow, I'm sure there could have been a few
black lawyers in a city the size of London in the 1930s, but they
certainly would have been remarkable individuals. And it's hard
to imagine a prestigious bank president's public facing secretary
having been black.

That's not a complaint though -- it *is* what the kids expect, and
it didn't make the mediocre movie mediocre or keep the excellent movie
from being excellent.

Moving to more on-topic here things, fantasy has the advantage that
since it didn't happen at all, you can't say it didn't happen that
way, but in both the recent "Powder Mage" and "10,000 Names" series,
we have French Revolution analogs where women are common on the
pseudo-Napoleonic battlefields, something I think is pretty unlikely,
but is now what *we* expect..
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

In article <qz3GoC.22Hz@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <617gjgppdd63utriovj8rtnkhu9gaq0eu9@4ax.com>,
>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 07 Sep 2021 18:20:09 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>A society of men with no women is seen in various
>>>>religious communities, with the question of how
>>>>laundry is done addressed by not having any.
>>>>However, Captain America's original situation
>>>>was an American army camp which I suppose
>>>>probably was all guys, I don't know. It really is
>>>>not quite the same.
>>>
>>>In fairness the most common "society of men without women" are either
>>>military stories or stories of ships at sea.
>>>
>>>You simply can't perform Moby Dick or Saving Private Ryan with a 50%
>>>female cast.
>>
>>Of course you can--these days they'd cast a Chinese woman in a
>>wheelchair as Ahab.
>
>Hmmm. You could steal the plot, as _The Wrath of Khan_ did,
>substituting the Chinese woman in a wheelchair for a white male
>American with a wooden leg, and a spacecraft or time machine or
>inter-universe portal for the Pequod. The root of the story is a
>person who has been maimed by a force of nature and is determined
>to have revenge on it. Which is impossible.
>

Jim Kirk is a force of nature? Hmm, ...yep works for me.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Tue, 7 Sep 2021 20:16:29 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/3/2021 11:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 21:55:47 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <sbqd3a$74b$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2021 18.41, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:08:34 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes a "gender-flip" adds something. My favorite is
>>>>> Roz Russell as Hildy Johnson, turning "The Front Page" into
>>>>> "His Girl Friday."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Girl_Friday
>>>>
>>>> John Varley went one better in _Steel Beach_ by having Hildy start
>>>> out (in the novel) as male and then switch to female. Now I need to
>>>> reread it to see if some character is a Cary Grant analog.
>>>
>>> Well, let us know. Now, if you'd generalized it as a
>>> gender-switching story of any kind with a Cary Grant analog, I'd
>>> recommend "Some Like It Hot," in which Tony Curtis's character,
>>> when not hiding from the mob in female clothing, adopts a Cary
>>> Grant accent to woo Marilyn Monroe's character. He came by the
>>> accent almost honestly; he was in the US Navy during WWII and
>>> stationed someplace where there was a projector but only a few
>>> films, one of which starred Grant. The guys got to the point
>>> where they knew every line of dialog, so they'd turn the sound
>>> off and recite the dialog themselves. Curtis got to voice
>>> Grant.
>>
>> It's not really gender-switching, but Cary Grant spends about half of
>> "Bringing Up Baby" wearing Katherine Hepburn's bathrobe.
>
>My wife freaking loves that movie. I must admit that it is hilarious,
>especially when the guy starts to make the big cat cry and the big cat
>beats him to it.

I like Kate's character shift in the jail cell. No change in props,
camera angle, lighting, costuming, or anything, and she's all of a
sudden a different person.

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:08:34 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> You *really* think
> there wouldn't be the same (only more so) reaction to a Wonder Man
> movie?

We'll never know, because it would violate a Marvel trademark.

John Savard

On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 02:18:13 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:

>In article <sh92te$tsu$1@dont-email.me>,
>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 7/3/2021 11:05 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 21:55:47 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <sbqd3a$74b$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/06/2021 18.41, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 4:08:34 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>> Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes a "gender-flip" adds something. My favorite is
>>>>>> Roz Russell as Hildy Johnson, turning "The Front Page" into
>>>>>> "His Girl Friday."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Girl_Friday
>>>>>
>>>>> John Varley went one better in _Steel Beach_ by having Hildy start
>>>>> out (in the novel) as male and then switch to female. Now I need to
>>>>> reread it to see if some character is a Cary Grant analog.
>>>>
>>>> Well, let us know. Now, if you'd generalized it as a
>>>> gender-switching story of any kind with a Cary Grant analog, I'd
>>>> recommend "Some Like It Hot," in which Tony Curtis's character,
>>>> when not hiding from the mob in female clothing, adopts a Cary
>>>> Grant accent to woo Marilyn Monroe's character. He came by the
>>>> accent almost honestly; he was in the US Navy during WWII and
>>>> stationed someplace where there was a projector but only a few
>>>> films, one of which starred Grant. The guys got to the point
>>>> where they knew every line of dialog, so they'd turn the sound
>>>> off and recite the dialog themselves. Curtis got to voice
>>>> Grant.
>>>
>>> It's not really gender-switching, but Cary Grant spends about half of
>>> "Bringing Up Baby" wearing Katherine Hepburn's bathrobe.
>>
>>My wife freaking loves that movie. I must admit that it is hilarious,
>>especially when the guy starts to make the big cat cry and the big cat
>>beats him to it.
>>
>Heh. I have never seen that one, but your description of that
>scene make me want to. If ever I discover that some site that my
>daughter subscribes to is streaming it, I'll watch it. Cats rule.

It's on Amazon Prime or iTunes for 3 bucks rental or 12.99 to buy.

It's not on Hulu, Netflix, Showtime, HBO Max, Disney+, Paramount+, or
Apple+.