Prime is making a prequel series of Legally Blonde, which I just
rewatched recently.
https://www.imdb.com/imdbpicks/summer-watch-guide/?ref_=pe_3369030_1390235860_trnd_eml_hero_img_cta
It will feature Elle in high school. This *could* be good -- frankly,
the world could use a solid series about a girl who's smart and pretty
and still manages to be nice. One of the fun things about the first
movie was that it cheerfully ignored stereotypes like pretty = mean and
rich = heartless.
I'd probably try it if I had Prime, but I wish they'd do something
original. Everything else on this list is also based on an existing
world.
I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better
past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the >timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
Prime is making a prequel series of Legally Blonde, which I just
rewatched recently.
https://www.imdb.com/imdbpicks/summer-watch-guide/?ref_=pe_3369030_ 1390235860_trnd_eml_hero_img_cta
It will feature Elle in high school. This *could* be good -- frankly,
the world could use a solid series about a girl who's smart and pretty
and still manages to be nice. One of the fun things about the first
movie was that it cheerfully ignored stereotypes like pretty = mean and
rich = heartless.
I'd probably try it if I had Prime, but I wish they'd do something
original. Everything else on this list is also based on an existing
world.
I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better
past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the
timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
On 5/7/2026 10:54 AM, The True Melissa wrote:[snip]
I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better
past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
Now that you mention it, "mining the better past" is what AI's about...
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Prime is making a prequel series of Legally Blonde, which I just
rewatched recently.
I once tried to watch Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde (2003) but
it was vile and I turned it off after 10 minutes.
Reese Witherspoon should have had a better script. She carried every
scene and that's why the movie was entertaining.
Back to the tv series. If she's a child, it might work. We got the
impression from the movie that she'd grown up a lot in college. Don't
just make her Superboy in which Superman is in a high school setting
with little difference in maturity,
So she probably should be mean and unsympathetic at times till she
learns a lesson.
I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better
past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the >timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
We're skipping over the Age of Enlightenment?
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Prime is making a prequel series of Legally Blonde, which I just
rewatched recently.
I once tried to watch Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde (2003) but
it was vile and I turned it off after 10 minutes.
https://www.imdb.com/imdbpicks/summer-watch-guide/?ref_=pe_3369030_1390235860_trnd_eml_hero_img_cta
It will feature Elle in high school. This *could* be good -- frankly,
the world could use a solid series about a girl who's smart and pretty
and still manages to be nice. One of the fun things about the first
movie was that it cheerfully ignored stereotypes like pretty = mean and
rich = heartless.
I agree. But then we got other stereotypes and shallow supporting
characters played by Victor Garber and Holland Taylor. The pivotal
character played by Luke Wilson was especially weak. I liked Selma
Blair, who gave a straight performance, and Linda Cardelinni as the
murderous daughter.
Reese Witherspoon should have had a better script. She carried every
scene and that's why the movie was entertaining.
Back to the tv series. If she's a child, it might work. We got the
impression from the movie that she'd grown up a lot in college. Don't
just make her Superboy in which Superman is in a high school setting
with little difference in maturity,
So she probably should be mean and unsympathetic at times till she
learns a lesson.
I'd probably try it if I had Prime, but I wish they'd do something
original. Everything else on this list is also based on an existing
world.
I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better
past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the
timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
We're skipping over the Age of Enlightenment?
On 2026-05-07 11:55 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:[snip]
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better
past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the
timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
We're skipping over the Age of Enlightenment?
That comes *after* the Dark Ages. As I recall, the Dark Ages lasted
roughly a millenium. Here's hoping it's a bit shorter this time around....
Verily, in article <10titeu$29lnq$1@dont-email.me>, did no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
[snip]
On 2026-05-07 11:55 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better
past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the
timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
We're skipping over the Age of Enlightenment?
That comes *after* the Dark Ages. As I recall, the Dark Ages lasted
roughly a millenium. Here's hoping it's a bit shorter this time around....
What if it isn't? What if our descendants five hundred years from now
are still using James Kirk and Sherlock Holmes and Luke Skywalker and Eloi/Morlocks as cultural reference points, because no one's creating
new ones good enough to replace them?
On May 7, 2026 at 2:39:09 PM PDT, "The True Melissa" <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <10titeu$29lnq$1@dont-email.me>, did no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
[snip]
On 2026-05-07 11:55 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better
past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the
timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
We're skipping over the Age of Enlightenment?
That comes *after* the Dark Ages. As I recall, the Dark Ages lasted
roughly a millenium. Here's hoping it's a bit shorter this time around....
What if it isn't? What if our descendants five hundred years from now
are still using James Kirk and Sherlock Holmes and Luke Skywalker and Eloi/Morlocks as cultural reference points, because no one's creating
new ones good enough to replace them?
Have you seen the documentary IDIOCRACY? That's where we're headed.
did atropos@mac.com deliver unto us this message:
May 7, 2026 at 2:39:09 PM PDT, The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com>: >>>did no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
On 2026-05-07 11:55 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better >>>>>>past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the >>>>>>timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
We're skipping over the Age of Enlightenment?
That comes *after* the Dark Ages. As I recall, the Dark Ages lasted >>>>roughly a millenium. Here's hoping it's a bit shorter this time around....
What if it isn't? What if our descendants five hundred years from now >>>are still using James Kirk and Sherlock Holmes and Luke Skywalker and >>>Eloi/Morlocks as cultural reference points, because no one's creating >>>new ones good enough to replace them?
Have you seen the documentary IDIOCRACY? That's where we're headed.
Yeah, I've seen it. It's depressing. We've continued following that path
in the years since it was made.
Wanna hear something *really* depressing? Many people who've watched >Idiocracy don't understand it. I've heard people claim it's an
indictment of capitalism and that it's satire of stupid Americans. The
movie literally *shows* the problem and how it happens, and there are
people who don't get it.
I think they don't want to get it. The idea that some people breed--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
better stock than others is unsettling to many.
Verily, in article <10tjijq$2iutg$1@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.com deliver unto us this message:
On May 7, 2026 at 2:39:09 PM PDT, "The True Melissa"
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <10titeu$29lnq$1@dont-email.me>, did
no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
[snip]
On 2026-05-07 11:55 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better >> >> >> past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the >> >> >> timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
We're skipping over the Age of Enlightenment?
That comes *after* the Dark Ages. As I recall, the Dark Ages lasted
roughly a millenium. Here's hoping it's a bit shorter this time around....
What if it isn't? What if our descendants five hundred years from now
are still using James Kirk and Sherlock Holmes and Luke Skywalker and
Eloi/Morlocks as cultural reference points, because no one's creating
new ones good enough to replace them?
Have you seen the documentary IDIOCRACY? That's where we're headed.
Yeah, I've seen it. It's depressing. We've continued following that path
in the years since it was made.
Wanna hear something *really* depressing? Many people who've watched Idiocracy don't understand it. I've heard people claim it's an
indictment of capitalism and that it's satire of stupid Americans. The
movie literally *shows* the problem and how it happens, and there are
people who don't get it.
I think they don't want to get it. The idea that some people breed
better stock than others is unsettling to many.
On May 8, 2026 at 4:27:21 AM PDT, "The True Melissa" <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <10tjijq$2iutg$1@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.com
deliver unto us this message:
On May 7, 2026 at 2:39:09 PM PDT, "The True Melissa"
<thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Verily, in article <10titeu$29lnq$1@dont-email.me>, did
> no_offline_contact@example.com deliver unto us this message:
>>
>> On 2026-05-07 11:55 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> > The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> >
>> >> I've heard it said that we're in a new Dark Ages, mining the better
>> >> past, and that we're due for a new Renaissance around 2060. If the >>> >> >> timeline's right, I guess I won't see it.
>> >
>> > We're skipping over the Age of Enlightenment?
>>
>> That comes *after* the Dark Ages. As I recall, the Dark Ages lasted >>> >> roughly a millenium. Here's hoping it's a bit shorter this time around....
>
> What if it isn't? What if our descendants five hundred years from now >>> > are still using James Kirk and Sherlock Holmes and Luke Skywalker and >>> > Eloi/Morlocks as cultural reference points, because no one's creating >>> > new ones good enough to replace them?
Have you seen the documentary IDIOCRACY? That's where we're headed.
Yeah, I've seen it. It's depressing. We've continued following that path
in the years since it was made.
Wanna hear something *really* depressing? Many people who've watched
Idiocracy don't understand it. I've heard people claim it's an
indictment of capitalism and that it's satire of stupid Americans. The
movie literally *shows* the problem and how it happens, and there are
people who don't get it.
I think they don't want to get it. The idea that some people breed
better stock than others is unsettling to many.
I've often asked how it is a scientific fact that selective breeding-- what is
typically called eugenics-- demonstrably results in hardier, more resilient crops and livestock, but when it comes to people, it's an evil, vile concept that must be rejected at all costs.
On May 8, 2026 at 4:27:21 AM PDT, "The True Melissa" <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <10tjijq$2iutg$1@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.com deliver unto us this message:
I think they don't want to get it. The idea that some people breed
better stock than others is unsettling to many.
I've often asked how it is a scientific fact that selective breeding-- what is
typically called eugenics-- demonstrably results in hardier, more resilient crops and livestock, but when it comes to people, it's an evil, vile concept that must be rejected at all costs.
On 5/8/2026 2:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On May 8, 2026 at 4:27:21 AM PDT, "The True Melissa" <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <10tjijq$2iutg$1@dont-email.me>, did atropos@mac.comI've often asked how it is a scientific fact that selective breeding-- what is
deliver unto us this message:
typically called eugenics-- demonstrably results in hardier, more resilient crops and livestock, but when it comes to people, it's an evil, vile concept
that must be rejected at all costs.
"Evil, vile" is not the antithesis of "scientifically factual".
Meanwhile, note the same dissonance regarding, e.g., euthanasia.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 08:19:28 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (6,679K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,942 |