Subject: Re: My big fat verdict on Sci-fi Network's "Riverworld," who cares

From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,rec.arts.sf.fandom

>HellPopeHuey <hellpopehuey@subgenius.com> wrote:

> Philip Jose Farmer wrote a superior and absorbing series of
> "Riverworld" books, but if someone took from this lil' movie the tone
> or quality of the fine spectacle they offer, they'd be a DUMBASS.
> Another good reason for books to stay books, movies to stay movies and
> never the twain should meet. There are a few exceptions to any rule,
> of course, but this one proves that rule. I hadda rub camphor on my
> forebrain to get the mental steenk out. It was P.U., so says me. Same
> to you.

I thought the parts where they just drove across the desert for hours
was BORRRRR-ing, but the action scenes where they were machine-gunning
into flaming buildings and racing inside and fishing out guys that were
on fire, those were cool. I like the night-vision special effects when
they're pointing down at guys running around in streets but when
they're showing the sky on fire they should just stick to regular
filming. Also, they ran the little subtitles at the bottom a little too
fast.

But at least there were NO ADS, not for the first few days anyway.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: My big fat verdict on Sci-fi Network's "Riverworld," who cares
From: "Geo" <geovoice@earthlink.net>

"HellPopeHuey" <hellpopehuey@subgenius.com> wrote in message
news:8cc8cffc.0303232214.72b863f6@posting.google.com...
> In a word, tuna. In 2 words, spoiled tuna.

I agree, it sucked more ass than a HongKong liposuction clinic...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: My big fat verdict on Sci-fi Network's "Riverworld," who cares
From: "Geo" <geovoice@earthlink.net>

"Rev. Ivan Stang"wrote:

> But at least there were NO ADS, not for the first few days anyway.

This brings up a point; I think we should have a Subgenius ticker
newsfeed...

Running nothing but Bobco fonts, porn thumbnails and the results of random
dice rolls, 24/7.

At least THAT would be uplifting...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: My big fat verdict on Sci-fi Network's "Riverworld," who cares
From: El Queso <""the_cheese_23\"@(nospam)yahoo.com>

nenslo wrote:
> HellPopeHuey wrote:
>
>>In a word, tuna. In 2 words, spoiled tuna.
> >
> You mean they didn't have thousands of naked hairless people waking up
> next to giant stone mushrooms?

No dreamgum either. No Richard Burton tripping balls and killing himself
hundreds of times. I love PJF's books, and I hated this movie even more
than I thought I would.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: My big fat verdict on Sci-fi Network's "Riverworld," who cares
From: hellpopehuey@subgenius.com (HellPopeHuey)

nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com> wrote in message news:<3E7EC2A7.9F561E68@yahooX.com>...
> HellPopeHuey wrote:
> >
> > In a word, tuna. In 2 words, spoiled tuna.
>
> You mean they didn't have thousands of naked hairless people waking up
> next to giant stone mushrooms?

No, that's Brushwood, except with more hair.

"Bush would look at Reagan
the way your dog looks at your answering machine
when you're not home and your voice comes out of it."
- Darrell Hammond

"All that's left now is to find a comfortable chair and pick a liquor."
- "Roseanne"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: My big fat verdict on Sci-fi Network's "Riverworld," who cares
From: hellpopehuey@subgenius.com (HellPopeHuey)

"Rev. Ivan Stang" wrote:

> > But at least there were NO ADS, not for the first few days anyway.

That wasn't "Riverworld," that was the inexplicably-popular soap
opera, "As the World's Stomach Turns." That Old Man Stang, he just
keeps trollin' alooonnng.

Up one level
Back to document index

Original file name: Re- My big fat verdict on Sci-f - converted on Monday, 21 July 2003, 13:39