Didn't realise he site was down. Been busy!! Ps. Both kids have one independent reader each I think... The rest of the people we have to stop and read the stories to them...
I watched Saving Mr Banks, a cracking, feel good film. For those who haven't seen it, here's a quick review. It stars Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks, both giving excellent performances. And they are backed up by a very able supporting cast which includes Paul Giamatti and Colin Farrell. Although this is an enjoyable film, there is sadness in it too, which gives the story depth. Thompson plays the author P.L.Travers, who wrote the novel Mary Poppins in 1934. Several years later, while in New York, Walt Disney made the first of his requests to buy the film rights of the book. It took him another 20 years before Travers considered he might have them. That is essentially the story, but there are several key moments which build to make the film compelling to watch and finally leave one fulfilled. Those who do like traditional Disney films will like it. Those who don't like traditional Disney films will probably like even it more. Make sure you see it right to the end of the credits too. Recommended.
The sooner the better for rags like the Express and Star. Others may become weekly productions over the next decade as figures continue their downward spiral. There was a discussion about this on the BBC World Service and the "expert" reckons that most U35s do not buy a paper.
Thanks for the recommendation, I've been wondering about that film. I might just try and watch it now! By the way, thanks to the slick marketing of the BBC, I received my Blu-Ray box set of "War and Peace" the day after the final episode aired. That is definitely one for posterity, even if they took one or two liberties with the story!
My prediction, for what it's worth. In ten years you will think this was an excellent coincidence at it led you to the terrific job in which you now find yourself. Vin
I will miss papers if they disappear as I like perusing them....relaxing with a nice cup of tea. They also mean that you read articles that you may not have voluntarily sought out on line. Going on line allows you to access many papers (while they are available) and to look at things in depth, but I prefer printed texts for recreation. Just as I prefer a book and would never want an e-book. Research has shown that we take in the printed word better than we do on a screen....no idea why...perhaps it is the way we read from a screen. As I said in another context, things change....people in the future will have nothing to compare on-line material to, so they won't know what they are missing and would probably laugh if told. There may be some out there missing silent movies.
Interesting point you make there re, printed text v screen. Yeah, I can understand that evidence would suggest that we take in the print better than the screen font. But does it allow for the different people who would access such media, or are the surveyors teasing the evidence only from people who access both? As for silent films. About 25 years ago, when my old Dad was still alive, I was visiting one day and he ushered me in with the news that Robin Hood was on BBC2 starring Douglas Fairbanks Sr. He was excited because he told me that this one was the best of the adaptations. So we settled down to watch. After about 20 minutes of watching extremely stagy acting and stunts he turned to me in disappointment and said, "This isn't as good as I remember."
It was suggested that one of the things to be put in Room 101 should be things being not as good as we remember.
There is a saying which goes something like "nostalgia fills in the potholes on memory lane" It's certainly true for me, and I just shrug and accept it now when I read or watch something that I had fond memories of that then disappoints on a later viewing.
Yeah, I'd go along with that. Mind you, memories are the responsibility of the holder, so perhaps we should be putting ourselves in there. I've had several experiences where things weren't what they used to be, but one example was when All Creatures Great & Small was repeated on Yesterday [or some such channel]. Half interestedly, I intended to watch 5 minutes of an episode and carried on until the end. And I loved it. So there was one memory that lived up to expectation.
I loved Adam Adamant as a child....saw it again. Bad mistake. A good plot though....a Victorian detective coping with modern life.
Saudi Arabia sending troops to Syria. Hezbollah said they will stop Saudi forces coming through Iraq, so the whole place is ****ed. Russian, Syrian, Syrian Rebels, Kurds, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Russian and now Saudi forces on the floor (and more). Then Western and other countries dropping bombs. Won't be long to until something goes on and a World War or a large middle eastern war happens
I watched it live (what else could you do 27 years ago?) and laughed so hard I thought I would hurt myself. Sadly, it's been show too many times and has lost its appeal for me somewhat. Whereas Trigger calling Rodney "Dave" just seemed to improve every time I heard it. Vin
I love the bit when Del's baby is born, and trigger announces that he thinks that it will be called Rodney, after Dave
