Toonbots message board: JURASSIC PARK III!!! Ten stars! (spoilers)

Pooga Fri Aug 17 13:24:15 2001 Are you sure about that? > I went to see JP III tonight, figuring the effects would be worth the > money (and besides, with a cinematic addiction like mine, I can't be > proud) and I have just one thing to say: THEY HAVE FINALLY GOT JURASSIC > PARK RIGHT. CRAP! CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP!! No, not the movie. I haven't seen it yet. I wasn't planning on seeing it, but now I'm not so sure. I'm conflicted because my other two main sources of movie reviews more or less said this one is the worst of the lot (See http://www.brunching.com/selfmade/jurassicpark3.html and http://www.misinformer.com/movies/jurassicpark3.html). Now Michael comes along and says it's the best ever. This bears thought. It is not, however, the reason for the string of CRAP I started this with. That is because (yet again) a rather lengthy and thoughtful reply of mine was lost in the void because I forgot to fill in the top fields, and when I went back to correct this my *#&$@%! message had disappeared! :( One of the main reasons so many of my few posts here are short and pointless is that most of my thoughtful messages have disappeared down the same void. Isn't there a way to configure WebBBS to retain the fields and simply prompt for missing values, rather than displaying a "Go Back" screen.

Michael Fri Aug 17 20:16:13 2001 Re: Are you sure about that? > http://www.misinformer.com/movies/jurassicpark3.html). Now Michael comes > along and says it's the best ever. This bears thought. Sorry, maybe that guy does movies, but I like science fiction. I found this one a lot more believable as a story than the previous crap. And I don't have a chip on my shoulder to prove I'm a curmudgeon; my readership already knows it. On the "quality" of the forum ... sorry. Eventually I'm going to replace it with something that works, based on my content-management code. Until then, I guess you're stuck, but I share your pain.

Pooga Sat Aug 18 00:21:04 2001 Re: Are you sure about that? > On the "quality" of the forum ... sorry. Eventually I'm going to > replace it with something that works, based on my content-management code. > Until then, I guess you're stuck, but I share your pain. Sorry about leaving such a bitchy post. I was going to revise that message before I posted it, but one of the network "administrators" came by at that point to reconfigure my system so I can have privilege of using Outlook 2000 for work email now. The fact that I have had it installed on my system for 2 years and chosen to use Outlook Express is irrelevent. The new company policy is that everyone is supposed to use that shining example of MS Bloatware. Anyway, moronic company policies aside, as with any other MS installation I've had inflicted on me, I needed to close down everything I had open to allow this to take place, so I added a period (which should have been a question mark) and hit 'Post Message'. I just didn't have the desire to rewrite it a third time, so I let it go with what I had. If I'd had a bit more time to think about it, I probably would have pasted what I'd written in a text file and come back later. In any case, I DO understand that the WebBBS isn't your ideal solution to the message board situation, and it was mostly frustration talking at that point. I apologize. To make up for my lack of nonsensical content in this post, I shall now submit for opinions the following link: http://www.threebrain.com/weeeeee.html Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Tirdun Mon Aug 20 07:23:51 2001 Going back to post... I've always used the back button on yee-olde-browser and it's refilled the post in for me. I always ignored the "GO BACK" link. I know it works in Opera and probably IE. I don't use netscape. I know there are people who do, though. Not that there's anything WRONG with that.

Jenn Mon Aug 20 08:42:51 2001 Jurassic Back Buttons (more spoilers) I use Netscape, though it hangs often. Anyways, when it's working, the BACK button does the same thing for me as Tirdun said. When Netscape isn't working (I blame Windows NT cause it doesn't do this at home. But then again, you could fill a thimble with my expansive knowledge of computers, so I probably ought to just shut up now), I use IE, which also fills the post back in if I use the BACK button. As to the whole Jurassic Park issue... *much cringing at the thought of possibly disagreeing with Michael* We go to all the Jurassic movies because our very first date was the first Jurassic movie. (AWWWWWW!!!!!) Now, bear in mind that I didn't like the first one, though it did give me the chance to scream, "GOAT BITS!" in the theater, and we really can't discount that plus. My husband liked it a /lot/. (But he doesn't care about plot, he cares about computers) I will say that the computer stuff they did is amazing. However, I don't really go to a movie to see what cool stuff they can do with computers now. I go for the plot. And frankly, this movie had the same plot as the other three. A scientist (yeah, the mathematician was annoying, I'll agree. I don't find this archeologist guy any less annoying, however) is way too smart to go to the island. He refuses to go. However, there's a beautiful woman involved and for some reason or another, the scientist goes along. (It was /somewhat/ refreshing not to have the chickiepoo fall for the scientist in this one, I will say) Once there, the hired guns do something incredibly moronic involving shooting at or otherwise getting the attention of something huge, toothy and impressively computer generated. General running and hiding ensues, during which the incredible intelligence of the raptors is shoved in our face in increasingly unbelievable ways. Eventually, they make it to safety, having proven themselves and giving the audience a general feeling of closure and achievement. My issues with the movie? Humans are such a tasty snack that everything under the sun is chasing them, yet the body of the boyfriend didn't get snatched up and was still dangling there so they didn't have to go looking for him and the ex wife can now fall back in love with her husband without regrets? If the raptors are capable of using language...umm...why weren't they doing that in the first two movies? Does it seem likely that the sound of a man blowing through a wooden replica emulates their speech through a living structure enough that it's understandable? And, on the first try, he gets the 'calling for help' call down pat? The raptors are capable of planning far enough ahead to set a trap, and yet later in the movie, the raptor is dumb enough to get caught in that little door thingie? The raptors seem to be portrayed as just wanting their eggs back. Which I have problems with cause there weren't any eggs in the previous two movies. The big dinosaur can rip through the airplane and apparently smelled them in it (I'm guessing, he can't have seen them in there), yet he can't tear through the boy's truck hideout? (Yeah, yeah...Rex pheremones...a Rex can't tear through metal yet that other dinosaur can?) I've also always thought that us fat, shortlegged humans really ought to be an easy snack for dinosaurs, and was rooting for instant death of all humans and then maybe some insight into herd behavior or other theories, but that's beside the point. But see...my major point here is that this isn't the kind of movie you go to hoping for a scientific theory. This is a monster movie. You go to jump when the big dinosaur leaps out of the woods. So go, cause it's a fun little movie, and expect no more than to be entertained, and you'll be fine. Btw, the husband told me to shut up about half way through the walk home from the theater, so I'm thinking he agrees with Michael, for what it's worth. I've just reread what I wrote and here's what I'm thinking: as a stand alone movie, it wasn't bad. Then my issues with the raptors are resolved.

Michael Mon Aug 20 09:36:12 2001 Re: Jurassic Back Buttons (more spoilers) > As to the whole Jurassic Park issue... *much cringing at the thought of > possibly disagreeing with Michael* My wife says the same thing. Actually, my wife says she can't believe I liked it, given my usual nitpickiness about scientific plausibility. I have suspension-of-disbelief tools for some of your problems. For one, it's been a few years since the previous movies, allowing the raptors to form a culture; the original raptors couldn't talk because they'd been decanted shortly before -- but now they've had time to develop a new language. (This was hinted at in the books, by the way -- I don't generally recommend Crichton books, but the Jurassic Park books are a good read and better than the movies.) Also, Dr. Alan Cox is a classic movie genius -- of course he can note and reproduce the help call. Geez. I did have a problem with the fact that the machine was essentially a lathe, thus couldn't have produced anything hollow, and as the doohickey was a cast, they really should have made a cast of the cast to get a replica of the resonance chamber. I might also add that making a duplicate of a human resonance chamber and blowing through it would be a poor way to communicate with humans.... But I can ignore all that as Hollywood. I don't know *why* I can ignore it, mind you, just that I find it possible. I guess it's just the beauty (if not the making sense) of the ending. I loved that ending. I *do* regard JP3 as a standalone movie. As I said, it's what the original movie should have been -- and I simply loved the idea that normal, if somewhat desperate, people have been thrown into this situation. I guess I just believe the archetypes of this movie more than the ones in the original. And I just hate Jeff Goldblum. I mean, I kind of like him, but when he plays a "scientist" his characters are completely full of it. I did like him in the Big Chill, where he was just an ordinary arrogant guy. Go figure. What can I say? I have odd taste in movies. I liked this one and I'm probably the only person on Earth that did. I was alone in loving Hudson Hawk, too. Oh well. The metacartoonist's burden is an essential solitude.

Jenn Mon Aug 20 13:06:36 2001 Re: Jurassic Back Buttons (more spoilers) > What can I say? I have odd taste in movies. I liked this one and I'm > probably the only person on Earth that did. I was alone in loving Hudson > Hawk, too. Oh well. The metacartoonist's burden is an essential solitude. That's okay. I was the only person in the universe who was riveted to all three hours of the original Dune movie while in the theater, apparently. My family unanimously fell asleep. My husband looked at me odd when I told him. Suspending disbelief, as a side note, is one heck of a useful tool. It's the only way I manage to get through a work day lots of the time. Well, that and the forum. Doncha know.

Michael Mon Aug 20 15:16:17 2001 Re: Jurassic Back Buttons (more spoilers) > That's okay. I was the only person in the universe who was riveted to all > three hours of the original Dune movie while in the theater, apparently. > My family unanimously fell asleep. My husband looked at me odd when I told > him. My God. Even I hated that piece of tripe. Had you read the book? You must not have.

Jenn Tue Aug 21 07:37:18 2001 Dune: The Hating > My God. Even I hated that piece of tripe. Had you read the book? You must > not have. I did read it, but only /after/ I saw the movie...which I think made all the difference.

Michael Tue Aug 21 08:51:35 2001 Re: Dune: The Hating > I did read it, but only /after/ I saw the movie...which I think made all > the difference. Suffice it to say that I went to the theater expecting to see a movie rendition of a story I loved and found that it had been completely eviscerated, with everything that made it unique and strong having been removed or completely misunderstood. The Baron Vladimir Harkonnen is a powerful, intelligent, and deeply self-motivated man, a worthy opponent -- yet he was a silly, stupid psychopath in the movie. The ornithopters didn't flap. The Weirding Way, which is a mental discipline, was made into a technology based on machines, which is completely counter to the spirit of the book (thus showing that the book was misunderstood by the screenwriters and producer -- or discounted as unimportant because "we can do it better." Ugh.) The shield effect was neat, though. Possibly the film's sole saving grace.

Jenn Wed Aug 22 11:09:33 2001 Re: Dune: The Hating Okay, yeah...and I'll give you that had I read the book I would probably have spat dislike everywhere and left the theater in the first half hour, as my parents wanted to do. But...I did like the still suits (probably spelled that wrong, for some reason my office doesn't have the encyclopedia of Dune. The injustice of it all...). And I thought the worms were cool looking. And heck...Sting naked to the waist when you're..what...13? I blame David Lynch for my preoccupation with lithe, thin, tall guys. Anyways, that was probably way too much information for a bunch of men (and Napolean but she never agrees with me anyways. Heh). Sorry.

Michael Wed Aug 22 13:50:23 2001 Re: Dune: The Hating > Okay, yeah...and I'll give you that had I read the book I would probably > have spat dislike everywhere and left the theater in the first half hour, > as my parents wanted to do. I sat through the whole thing, devoutly hoping it would get better. It didn't, and remains one of the profoundest disappointments of my life. They could have done that so much better (they could also have done it so much worse -- I heard rumors about some of the *truly* ridiculous screenplay ideas that were luckily rejected.) My biggest problem is simply that, faced with an incredibly well-worked-out world, these Hollywood nitwits decided that their task was to "improve" it, producing some horrible mutant cross between a "based on" story and a rendition. It just plain sucked. > But...I did like the still suits (probably spelled that wrong, for some > reason my office doesn't have the encyclopedia of Dune. The injustice of > it all...). The stillsuits would have been cool if they'd had anything to do with the description in the book; the book's stillsuits were clearly something that would protect you from the desert's dryness and those in the movie were ... not. Not a single Fremen covered his face, for instance. Stupid. > And I thought the worms were cool looking. I'll give you that. > And heck...Sting naked to the > waist when you're..what...13? Oh, I'll give you that, too. Sting was an absolutely *fantastic* Feyd-Rautha. One of the few saving graces of the movie. > Anyways, that was probably way too much > information for a bunch of men (and Napolean but she never agrees with me > anyways. Heh). Sorry. I think we can handle it. Right, guys? Guys? Where'd they go?

Jenn Thu Aug 23 12:03:47 2001 Yeah, but black latex.... > I sat through the whole thing, devoutly hoping it would get better. It > didn't, and remains one of the profoundest disappointments of my life. You know...a whole bunch of people have said that to me. I think there might be a support group. Anyways, many of these people expressed a feeling of 'almost resolution' after the Dune movie on the SciFi channel. So of course I wondered if people had opinions on that, cause I hated it. A lot. And you know why? For the silliest reason...I was ticked that the mom's stillsuit had freaking platform heels for that stylish woman seeking to escape the Harkonnen empire in a desperate flight to the desert. > these Hollywood > nitwits decided that their task was to "improve" it, producing > some horrible mutant cross between a "based on" story and a > rendition. It just plain sucked. Well yeah. But of course, I have yet to see anything that I thought was true to any book, any time. Did you see, as a total side note, that they're doing the Three Musketeers? And that it says right on the commercial that they're not going to bother with the book at all, they just took the same names. I think I had a seizure in response. > The stillsuits would have been cool if they'd had anything to do with the > description in the book; the book's stillsuits were clearly something that > would protect you from the desert's dryness and those in the movie were > ... not. Not a single Fremen covered his face, for instance. Stupid. But! But! They were made of black latex and skin tight! How can you argue with that? Did I mention that the guy who played Paul was also lithe and thin? Oh, sure...it's not /content/ or /true to the book/, but...oh, okay. > I think we can handle it. Right, guys? Guys? > Where'd they go? Monster truck rally? Camping? Bowling?

Michael Thu Aug 23 13:01:17 2001 Re: Yeah, but black latex.... > So of course I wondered if people had opinions on that, cause I hated it. > A lot. And you know why? For the silliest reason...I was ticked that the > mom's stillsuit had freaking platform heels for that stylish woman seeking > to escape the Harkonnen empire in a desperate flight to the desert. Sorry. No cable. A friend of mine said he taped it and mailed it to me, but I never got it. I'm fated never to see that movie. Unless you happen to have taped it, in which case you're my new best friend. > Well yeah. But of course, I have yet to see anything that I thought was > true to any book, any time. Princess Bride did a good job. An amazingly good job, actually. (And it has the Dread Pirate Roberts in it!) > Did you see, as a total side note, that > they're doing the Three Musketeers? And that it says right on the > commercial that they're not going to bother with the book at all, they > just took the same names. I think I had a seizure in response. Yeah, but in this case, it LOOKS so good even I won't care much. At least, the trailer really impressed me.

pv Thu Aug 23 15:38:45 2001 Re: Yeah, but black latex.... > Sorry. No cable. A friend of mine said he taped it and mailed it to me, > but I never got it. I'm fated never to see that movie. Unless you happen > to have taped it, in which case you're my new best friend. It's out on DVD, and rentable at the big-name video stores. I hadn't read the books in 20 years (I gave up on the series after god emperor, btw), but so much of the first night rang true with my memory that I went back and read the book before watching the second two nights. Overall, Harrison did a great job with the script. The biggest flaws were putting things in Paul's mouth originally said by other characters (most notably, Thufir), and some snicker-producing costuming and sets. If you don't laugh out loud when Irulan shows up at the ball, you're not human. Given how cheap the whole thing was (20 mil for six hours of content), I was willing to cut lots of slack. They even did the sandworms *exactly* right. The other thing I discovered on re-reading: 90% of the book goes over your head when you read it as a 15 year-old. You really need to be a jaded adult to appreciate all the subtext. > Princess Bride did a good job. An amazingly good job, actually. (And it > has the Dread Pirate Roberts in it!) Probably the best fantasy movie of all time. Did William Goldman's book actually come first? They're so close to each other that I'm not sure they weren't produced at the same time. Especially since Goldman also wrote the script for the movie. [concerning the three musketeers] > Yeah, but in this case, it LOOKS so good even I won't care much. At least, > the trailer really impressed me. Feh. Provided the characters are at least consistent with Dumas, I would have no problems with it. But just taking the title and making the rest up Just Plain Sucks. PV

Michael Thu Aug 23 21:16:21 2001 Re: Yeah, but black latex.... > It's out on DVD, and rentable at the big-name video stores. DVD is the technology of Satan, of course. I don't own a DVD player -- and won't. But, of course, I could *rent* a DVD player.... Just for Dune.... > I hadn't read the books in 20 years (I gave up on the series after god > emperor, btw), I read them all, many times, and actually have a collection of the first book in various translations. I've read it in Spanish, French, and of course German, and eventually I'll get to it in Hungarian, now that my Hungarian is nearly equal to the task. > The other thing I discovered on re-reading: 90% of the book goes over your > head when you read it as a 15 year-old. You really need to be a jaded > adult to appreciate all the subtext. 90% of *everything* goes over your head when you're a 15-year-old. But reading it anyway makes you a wise 16-year-old. My philosophy is in great part based on Robert Heinlein (i.e. stay out my way and I won't have to shoot you, except instead of shooting people I usually just leave the country. Hey! Lazarus Long would do the same! The paperwork involved in shooting people nowadays is a scandal!) > Probably the best fantasy movie of all time. Did William Goldman's book > actually come first? By a long shot. I'd read the book *years* before the movie appeared. That's why I was so astounded. "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Now prepare to die." That's classic, that is. > Feh. Provided the characters are at least consistent with Dumas, I would > have no problems with it. But just taking the title and making the rest up > Just Plain Sucks. PV Well, the basic historical setting is the same, from the trailer. But as I've never actually *read* the Three Musketeers (although I'm a great fan of the Count of Monte Cristo) I can't say much.... I think I'm going to have to read the Three Musketeers. I love Dumas and all that French Romantic stuff. It just can't be beat.

Jenn Fri Aug 24 08:04:54 2001 The Three Jihadeers They keep replaying Dune on the SciFi channel, Michael. I'll try to remember to tape it for you next time it comes on. Cause I'm just that nice. > DVD is the technology of Satan, of course. See...I wouldn't have said that. I would have said Satan would be into 8 track tapes, though I'm not really sure why I think that. > I think I'm going to have to read the Three Musketeers. I love Dumas and > all that French Romantic stuff. It just can't be beat. I just read 'Castle Epstein', which is just one of his hundreds of classic romantic novels. It was not any more 'romantic' than say...Dune, for anyone out there who is concerned about the word romantic having to do with little books with pictures of women in torn dresses and heaving breasts pressed up against a pirate on the front of them. I actually read the little historical blurb in the book and found out a couple things I didn't know. He was the father of the French Romantic movement. His grandmother was black, and he never really got over the stigma attached to that. He apparently used to ride around on the back of his carriage so that people would say, 'Look, Mr. Dumas has a black servant!' And he was quite the drinker and lady's man. Heh. Personally, I'm going to skip Three Musketeers. I have a little bit of an issue with movies that disregard costuming and social norms of the time. And I have a bad, bad feeling that the movie would make me grind my teeth down to nubs. On the other hand, as the husband says, "Think of Dracula. Could it be worse than Dracula?" (opens the flood gates for fireballs from people who liked that movie...)

Michael Fri Aug 24 13:40:47 2001 Re: The Three Jihadeers > They keep replaying Dune on the SciFi channel, Michael. I'll try to > remember to tape it for you next time it comes on. Cause I'm just that > nice. I love having a Jihad. > See...I wouldn't have said that. I would have said Satan would be into 8 > track tapes, though I'm not really sure why I think that. Well, Satan *himself* listens to 8-tracks, of course, but he's foisted DVDs on the public at large. > I just read 'Castle Epstein', which is just one of his hundreds of classic > romantic novels. It was not any more 'romantic' than say...Dune, for > anyone out there who is concerned about the word romantic having to do > with little books with pictures of women in torn dresses and heaving > breasts pressed up against a pirate on the front of them. That's *romance*, not *Romance*. Philistine! Most (all?) science fiction is romantic in the literary sense; as I understand it, romantic literature is characterized by the whole hero thing. Anybody here know from lit? All I have is the "Reader's Companion to World Literature", copyright 1956. Strangely, no Asian, Near Eastern, African, or South American literature is included. I'm pretty sure they mean the "Reader's Companion to Euroamerican Literature." > Personally, I'm going to skip Three Musketeers. I won't. I'm a sucker for Hong Kong martial arts flicks.

mouse Fri Aug 24 17:55:58 2001 Re: The Three Jihadeers > Most (all?) science fiction is romantic in the literary sense; as I > understand it, romantic literature is characterized by the whole hero > thing. Anybody here know from lit? All I have is the "Reader's > Companion to World Literature", copyright 1956. Strangely, no Asian, > Near Eastern, African, or South American literature is included. I'm > pretty sure they mean the "Reader's Companion to Euroamerican > Literature." via www.dictionary.com: ro·man·tic (r-mntk) adj. 6.often Romantic Of or characteristic of romanticism in the arts. ro·man·ti·cism (r-mnt-szm) n. 1.often Romanticism An artistic and intellectual movement originating in Europe in the late 18th century and characterized by a heightened interest in nature, emphasis on the individual's expression of emotion and imagination, departure from the attitudes and forms of classicism, and rebellion against established social rules and conventions. ....which says to me, more emotionalism than heroism (which would be more classic). when you said 'romantic literature' i sorta jumped (after the bodice-rippers) to medieval knight stuff (is that what you were thinking?) - but of course in those can include fair ladies as well --- altho i think that is a later addition (tennyson's idylls of the king and the like) - if you read the original medieval stuff (like parzival or even mallory's morte d'arthur) there is more emphasis on the heroic quest motif, and females become pretty incidental. i myself wouldn't characterize science fiction as 'romantic', altho i guess it does fit the final clause in above def....but science fiction is a pretty broad area...depends on who your're reading (not that i actually know from lit) btw - i read the three musketeers many years ago, and it is a pretty good adventure -- but there is way way more going on in it than can fit in even sets of movies (altho it seemed to me lester's 3 & 4 musketeers covered most of the ground). i think it is generally the case that movies can (at best) just hit the high points of a book -- because movies are ultimately a visual art, which must function in a restricted time period, while books are meant to live in the mind, and can take pretty much as much time as they want to explore (i mean, just look at how thick 'dune' is).

Jenn Mon Aug 27 07:51:34 2001 Re: The Three Jihadeers Kay, ummmm...the blurb in the back of Castle Epstein said something about romantic literature having 'Ladies in White', which I take to mean a faultless and pure female character, cause that's what the lady in white in the story was like. And that there's like a definable bad guy and a hero. Or two. And that the story deals with honor and valor and yah know, knightly virtues stuff. Course that's not as impressive as a dictionary definition. Have I killed this topic to death yet? You know what it kind of made me think of? Fantasy novels, at least, some of them. Seems like there's a lot of valor in fantasy novels.

Michael Mon Aug 27 10:20:55 2001 Re: The Three Jihadeers > And that there's like a definable bad guy and a > hero. Or two. And that the story deals with honor and valor and yah know, > knightly virtues stuff. And penguins.

pv Mon Aug 27 12:24:54 2001 Re: romance, DVD > Most (all?) science fiction is romantic in the literary sense; as I > understand it, romantic literature is characterized by the whole hero > thing. Anybody here know from lit? All I have is the "Reader's > Companion to World Literature", copyright 1956. Strangely, no Asian, > Near Eastern, African, or South American literature is included. I'm > pretty sure they mean the "Reader's Companion to Euroamerican > Literature." You're thinking of this definition of romance ("Romance", capitalized, refers to a class of languages): Romance: (n) a prose narrative treating imaginary characters involved in events remote in time or place and usually heroic, adventurous, or mysterious. Indeed, SF is almost always a romance, by definition (definition courtesy of m-w.com). As for DVD as the devil's tool: I know where you're coming from (the whole content protection crapola), but it's not a big factor, yet. Buy a region-free player and enjoy. It really is the best way yet to store movies, and the extra goodies (many titles have an option to turn on a running director's commentary, and they can be fascinating if you're a film geek like me) are often really wonderful. If you do decide to buy a region-free player, find one that lets you change the region at will, NOT one that tries to fake out the region detection code. Players that have been hacked to do the latter will very likely fail the (lame-ass) verifications that future titles perform, and you'll have to pay for a new mod-chip. The hacks which remove the limit on how many times you can change region have not failed yet, and probably won't. Even simpler, use a PC DVD/ROM drive. You get a nice backup medium in the bargain, and almost all of the players can change their region an unlimited number of times. NOTE: Some of this is second hand info. I don't have a region-free player right now (though I did buy a cheaply hackable model), because I haven't had the need to watch any non-region 1 content. As soon as it becomes a problem, POP goes the case. PV

Michael Mon Aug 27 16:31:32 2001 Re: romance, DVD > You're thinking of this definition of romance ("Romance", > capitalized, refers to a class of languages) Not always. The Romantic Period ... ah, but that's "Romantic", not "Romance." Point ceded. > Indeed, SF is almost always a romance, by definition (definition courtesy > of m-w.com). That's what I thought. > As for DVD as the devil's tool: I know where you're coming from (the whole > content protection crapola), but it's not a big factor, yet. I obsess. What can I say? That's just who I am.