| the Tertiary Phase [message #23842] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 11:26 |
|
Am I the only one who thought the Tertiary Phase wasn't half as good as
the old radio plays?
--
gr,
Martin Koolhoven
|
|
|
| Re: the Tertiary Phase [message #26807 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 15:35 |
|
> Am I the only one who thought the Tertiary Phase wasn't half as good as
> the old radio plays?
Upon first listen I would agree with you and still would, but upon a
subsequent
listen I did enjoy it more
|
|
|
| Re: the Tertiary Phase [message #26850 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 22:12 |
|
"Fuzzy Wuzzy" <f [at] f.com> wrote in message
news:42762c8b$0$12817$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>> Am I the only one who thought the Tertiary Phase wasn't half as good as
>> the old radio plays?
>
>
> Upon first listen I would agree with you and still would, but upon a
> subsequent
> listen I did enjoy it more
>
>
Nothing can really make lightening strike twice. First time round for
anything pretty special has that extra something because it's new and
original - no matter how good a sequel, it will always lack originality by
default.
I really enjoyed Tertiary Phase. Considering it's not the best book/source
material, it had new/unfamiliar actors & all the above reasons - I think
it's pretty damn impressive.
|
|
|
| Re: the Tertiary Phase [message #26860 ] |
Mo, 02 Mai 2005 23:12 |
|
Martin koolhoven wrote:
> Am I the only one who thought the Tertiary Phase wasn't half as good as
> the old radio plays?
Half as good? Oh, yes, more than that. Nine tenths I'd say...
Best
Kåre
|
|
|
