HIGHLA-L Digest - 10 Jan 2007 to 11 Jan 2007 (#2007-5)

      HIGHLA-L automatic digest system (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
      Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:00:04 -0500

      • Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
      • Next message: HIGHLA-L automatic digest system: "HIGHLA-L Digest - 11 Jan 2007 to 12 Jan 2007 (#2007-6)"
      • Previous message: HIGHLA-L automatic digest system: "HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Jan 2007 to 10 Jan 2007 (#2007-4)"

      --------
      There is 1 message totalling 60 lines in this issue.
      
      Topics of the day:
      
        1. "Source "trailer" (possible spoilers) ( was  "HIGHLA-L Digest")
      
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      
      Date:    Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:06:53 -0500
      From:    Wendy <immortals_incorporated@cox.net>
      Subject: Re: "Source "trailer" (possible spoilers) ( was  "HIGHLA-L Digest")
      
      Nina says:
      > Well, that was odd. 
      
      Well, as John pointed out, it's not a real trailer. It's a marketing
      tool. I leave it to someone else to decide if that "trailer" would
      induce anyone to pay  money for  the rights for the actual film. 
      
      > Did I really see Sean Connery at the very start & hear Chris Lambert
      at the very end? 
      
      I wasn't looking that closely and refuse to subject myself to it
      again<eg>
      
      > AP even looked bad; that's just wrong.
      
      He's mortal and heir to all the ills that flesh is prone to - balding,
      sagging, ballooning <eg> Now, you know someone who looks better now than
      he did 5 years ago? David Boreanaz.  Granted, he's 10 years younger than
      AP but by the end of  "Angel", he had started to look bad. Now he looks
      hot again. I like that in a man <eg> . I suppose settling down and
      stopping drinking heavily helped. Having a hit TV show probably helps
      too. Maybe AP should ditch the failed movie career and aim for a hit TV
      show instead? 
      
      > It was also vastly confusing & excruciatingly long.  I 
      > suspect the film itself will be just as confusing,
      
      I believe it will be crystal clear. Apocalypse  => post-Apocalypse =>
      sword fights => lost love => car chase => old friends found =>horseback
      chase through woods => sex scene => sword fight => death => sword fight
      => bright light => happily-ever-after => set-up for sequel
      
      > but if we're lucky it'll be chopped down to 69 minutes or so.
      
      I'm taking bets, I say 87 minutes.
      
      >  If we're really lucky, a "tragic" fire  will destroy all footage
      prior to release.
      
      No, because that would lead to endless discussions of how great it was
      if only we'd been able to see it.
      
      > (surely someone in this eclectic group knows a fire guy)
      
      I used to work with a State arson squad. I'm just saying.....
      
      Wendy ( Fire bad.)
      
      Immortals Incorporated Ltd
      "Weasels for Eternity"
      
      ------------------------------
      
      End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 10 Jan 2007 to 11 Jan 2007 (#2007-5)
      *************************************************************
      
      --------

      • Next message: HIGHLA-L automatic digest system: "HIGHLA-L Digest - 11 Jan 2007 to 12 Jan 2007 (#2007-6)"
      • Previous message: HIGHLA-L automatic digest system: "HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Jan 2007 to 10 Jan 2007 (#2007-4)"