|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: May 15, 2008 07:10
It's sad, but let's just say it: This time out, the kids are about as
interesting as Chekov in a "Star Trek" sequel. Susan (Anna Popplewell)
is sullen and unpleasant, and Peter (William Moseley), the eldest, is
pompous. Edmund (Skandar Keynes) was shady last time, but he's learned
his lesson, so now he's boring. And Lucy (Georgie Henley) is no longer
a little girl with a cute character face, but a pretty young lady on
the brink of puberty. As such, she no longer effortlessly embodies
spiritually gifted innocence.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/14/DDIS10M921.DTL
|
| |
|
| | 14 Comments |
|
|
Author: Benjamin PavsnerBenjamin Pavsner Date: May 16, 2008 14:02
Interesting thesis. BTW: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU YAPPING ABOUT! Have a nice
day.
wrote in message
news:fugo24dak6go1hft35b7jb8kted2sme16v@4ax.com...> It's sad, but let's just say it: This time out, the kids are about as
> interesting as Chekov in a "Star Trek" sequel. Susan (Anna Popplewell)
> is sullen and unpleasant, and Peter (William Moseley), the eldest, is
> pompous. Edmund (Skandar Keynes) was shady last time, but he's learned
> his lesson, so now he's boring. And Lucy (Georgie Henley) is no longer
> a little girl with a cute character face, but a pretty young lady on
> the brink of puberty. As such, she no longer effortlessly embodies
> spiritually gifted innocence.
>
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/14/DDIS10M921.DTL
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Date: May 17, 2008 00:25
Have your mommy show you how to click on a link so you won't look so
ignorant next time. Or do you usually bray on about something that
you don't understand? Sheesh...
On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:02:05 -0400, "Benjamin Pavsner"
bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Interesting thesis. BTW: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU YAPPING ABOUT! Have a nice
>day.
> wrote in message
>news:fugo24dak6go1hft35b7jb8kted2sme16v@4ax.com...>> It's sad, but let's just...
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: xx Date: May 18, 2008 08:30
On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:02:05 -0400, "Benjamin Pavsner"
bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Interesting thesis. BTW: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU YAPPING ABOUT! Have a nice
>day.
> wrote in message
>news:fugo24dak6go1hft35b7jb8kted2sme16v@4ax.com...>> It's sad, but let's just...
|
| Show full article (1.24Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DanielDaniel Date: May 18, 2008 20:56
user99`@nospam.nul wrote:
> Have your mommy show you how to click on a link so you won't look so
> ignorant next time. Or do you usually bray on about something that
> you don't understand? Sheesh...
>
Sheesh is right!!
You're posting about a new "Narnia" film to a group of news groups that
are all connected with "Star Trek" of one variety or another, so you
include the word "Chekov" just to make it "on topic"
Sheesh!! Yah, right, perhaps you should have your mummy check your stuff
before you post it!!
Dolt!!
Daniel
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: rikprikp Date: May 19, 2008 10:12
> It's sad, but let's just say it: This time out, the kids are about as
> interesting as Chekov in a "Star Trek" sequel. Susan (Anna Popplewell)
That critic obviously forgot about the "nuclear wessels" thing, and
Chekov discovering Khan and getting the worm in his ear. I would call
those incidents "interesting."
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: May 19, 2008 10:48
On Mon, 19 May 2008 13:56:47 +1000, Daniel albury.nospam.net.au>
wrote:
|
| Show full article (0.77Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: GeneKGeneK Date: May 19, 2008 11:19
"Daniel" albury.nospam.net.au> wrote> You're posting about a new "Narnia" film to a group of news groups
> that are all connected with "Star Trek" of one variety or another, so
> you include the word "Chekov" just to make it "on topic"
The Chekov reference was in the review of the film.
I think the point of the post was not to say anything
about the film being reviewed, but to note the use
of the Chekov reference and the fact that Star Trek
characters have become so well known in our culture
that saying something is "as interesting as Chekov
in the sequels" is a reasonably usable substitute for
comparing it to watching grass grow.
GeneK
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Anim8rFSKAnim8rFSK Date: May 19, 2008 12:59
>> It's sad, but let's just say it: This time out, the kids are about as
>> interesting as Chekov in a "Star Trek" sequel. Susan (Anna Popplewell)
>
> That critic obviously forgot about the "nuclear wessels" thing, and
> Chekov discovering Khan and getting the worm in his ear. I would call
> those incidents "interesting."
Only because he almost died both times, and the audience was cheering.
--
Star Trek 09:
No Shat, No Show.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: AndrewAndrew Date: May 20, 2008 14:54
On 2008-05-19 18:12:57 +0100, rikp@ aol.com said:
>
>> It's sad, but let's just say it: This time out, the kids are about as
>> interesting as Chekov in a "Star Trek" sequel. Susan (Anna Popplewell)
>
> That critic obviously forgot about the "nuclear wessels" thing, and
> Chekov discovering Khan and getting the worm in his ear. I would call
> those incidents "interesting."
Trouble is, Chekov with a bug in his ear controlling his speech and
mannerisms was indistinguishable from, well, Chekov
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
