bramkaandorp

joined 1 year ago
[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

But, but...

There was a firefight!

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

So, protestant?

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Yup! People will have no job because of this. The least they can do is be honest and unambiguous.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Fun is, depth isn't.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It tends to lead to hyperactive minds...

Citation need, I think.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

But that's what happened here. The x-axis has been unevenly distributed.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

A mention is not the same as an appearance, so the discrepancy for some characters could be even greater if you take that into account.

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How else can you make it look like a linear grouping?

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I would even consider watching it of they covered it!

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I'm more surprised by them referring to it as the fourth instalment at all.

This movie is supposedly a reboot, so not part of the same storyline as the previous three.

Yet, that is what those words seem to communicate.

Marketing? Sloppy writing?

[–] bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Pre-Madonna, I think.

 

I love Kim Stanley Robinson’s books, and am reading (in some case re-reading) his books in order. At some point, I’m going to get to Green Earth, but since it’s a reworking of the Science in the Capitol trilogy, I wanted to find out just how much it adds/leaves out/changes.

Is the difference significant enough to merit a “re-read”? I'm particularly interested in characterization, but I'm also curious if the science itself has been significantly changed, with resulting plot changes.

Thanks!

view more: next ›