<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_03_210228</id>
	<title>Dune Remake Could Mean 3D Sandworms</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265190840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bowman9991 writes <i>"The new <em>Dune</em> remake is becoming as epic as Frank Herbert's <em>Dune</em> series itself. Now that director Peter Berg has been ousted, new director Pierre Morel has decided to throw out Peter Berg's script entirely, <a href="http://sffmedia.com/films/science-fiction-films/471-dune-remake-starting-again-giant-sandworms-in-3d.html">starting afresh with his own ideas and vision</a>. 'We're starting from scratch,' said Morel. 'Peter had an approach which was not mine at all, and we're starting over again.' Morel also reveals that 'It's the kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D.' He's also keen on sticking to the original material and recognizes that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of <em>Dune</em> from the public's consciousness."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bowman9991 writes " The new Dune remake is becoming as epic as Frank Herbert 's Dune series itself .
Now that director Peter Berg has been ousted , new director Pierre Morel has decided to throw out Peter Berg 's script entirely , starting afresh with his own ideas and vision .
'We 're starting from scratch, ' said Morel .
'Peter had an approach which was not mine at all , and we 're starting over again .
' Morel also reveals that 'It 's the kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D .
' He 's also keen on sticking to the original material and recognizes that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch 's 1984 version of Dune from the public 's consciousness .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bowman9991 writes "The new Dune remake is becoming as epic as Frank Herbert's Dune series itself.
Now that director Peter Berg has been ousted, new director Pierre Morel has decided to throw out Peter Berg's script entirely, starting afresh with his own ideas and vision.
'We're starting from scratch,' said Morel.
'Peter had an approach which was not mine at all, and we're starting over again.
' Morel also reveals that 'It's the kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D.
' He's also keen on sticking to the original material and recognizes that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017678</id>
	<title>lets get the blue-on-blue eyes right this time</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1264947420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could be rather creepy if you see a race of people without white eyeballs.  This is the main distinction humans have from other animals- ours are one of the rare white eyes.  Ours probably evolved for cohesion: eye contact during conversation and sex; And to see what the rest of people are looking at when they are in a group.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could be rather creepy if you see a race of people without white eyeballs .
This is the main distinction humans have from other animals- ours are one of the rare white eyes .
Ours probably evolved for cohesion : eye contact during conversation and sex ; And to see what the rest of people are looking at when they are in a group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could be rather creepy if you see a race of people without white eyeballs.
This is the main distinction humans have from other animals- ours are one of the rare white eyes.
Ours probably evolved for cohesion: eye contact during conversation and sex; And to see what the rest of people are looking at when they are in a group.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016722</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>Albinoman</author>
	<datestamp>1264941240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seems to me that the Lynch film was a closer representation than the SyFy version</p></div><p>Wierding modules? The stillsuits in Lynch's didn't even cover their head. The "plot within a plot within a plot", as Herbert put it, is totally missing from 1984 version.</p><p>Herbert seemed to make everything a plot. Neither movie really mentions that their religion is a centuries old plot by the Bene Gesserit to allow the Quisatz Hadderach to gain power when they are successful with their breeding program, which backfired on them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that the Lynch film was a closer representation than the SyFy versionWierding modules ?
The stillsuits in Lynch 's did n't even cover their head .
The " plot within a plot within a plot " , as Herbert put it , is totally missing from 1984 version.Herbert seemed to make everything a plot .
Neither movie really mentions that their religion is a centuries old plot by the Bene Gesserit to allow the Quisatz Hadderach to gain power when they are successful with their breeding program , which backfired on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that the Lynch film was a closer representation than the SyFy versionWierding modules?
The stillsuits in Lynch's didn't even cover their head.
The "plot within a plot within a plot", as Herbert put it, is totally missing from 1984 version.Herbert seemed to make everything a plot.
Neither movie really mentions that their religion is a centuries old plot by the Bene Gesserit to allow the Quisatz Hadderach to gain power when they are successful with their breeding program, which backfired on them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017454</id>
	<title>Why not do something original?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1264945740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's plenty of good sci-fi books out there that would make excellent movies.  So why do a remake?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's plenty of good sci-fi books out there that would make excellent movies .
So why do a remake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's plenty of good sci-fi books out there that would make excellent movies.
So why do a remake?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015784</id>
	<title>maybe i'm in a minority, but...</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1264936680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I liked the 1984 version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked the 1984 version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked the 1984 version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019250</id>
	<title>"Dune" is militarily obsolete</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1264963680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The basic problem with "Dune" today is that it predates the Gulf War.  We know what "desert power" looks like now - M1A2 Abrams tanks and A10 Warthogs.  There were worries back in 1991 that mechanized armies couldn't operate in the desert.
Wrong.  You go through more air filters.  Some spare parts get used up.  The tanks keep rolling.
Remember those Iraqi solders in the first Gulf War who were all dug in, armed, and ready to fight?  THe US sent in a line of tanks equipped with bulldozer blades, rolled over them, and buried them alive in sand.  Being out in the open desert against a modern army is death.  I don't care how good your knife fighters are.
</p><p>
And a giant sandworm with a big open mouth looks like a good RPG target.
</p><p>
There are insurgency tactics that work, but they depend on having a friendly population to hide in.  They also require an opposition that doesn't consider extermination of the entire population in the area an option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic problem with " Dune " today is that it predates the Gulf War .
We know what " desert power " looks like now - M1A2 Abrams tanks and A10 Warthogs .
There were worries back in 1991 that mechanized armies could n't operate in the desert .
Wrong. You go through more air filters .
Some spare parts get used up .
The tanks keep rolling .
Remember those Iraqi solders in the first Gulf War who were all dug in , armed , and ready to fight ?
THe US sent in a line of tanks equipped with bulldozer blades , rolled over them , and buried them alive in sand .
Being out in the open desert against a modern army is death .
I do n't care how good your knife fighters are .
And a giant sandworm with a big open mouth looks like a good RPG target .
There are insurgency tactics that work , but they depend on having a friendly population to hide in .
They also require an opposition that does n't consider extermination of the entire population in the area an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The basic problem with "Dune" today is that it predates the Gulf War.
We know what "desert power" looks like now - M1A2 Abrams tanks and A10 Warthogs.
There were worries back in 1991 that mechanized armies couldn't operate in the desert.
Wrong.  You go through more air filters.
Some spare parts get used up.
The tanks keep rolling.
Remember those Iraqi solders in the first Gulf War who were all dug in, armed, and ready to fight?
THe US sent in a line of tanks equipped with bulldozer blades, rolled over them, and buried them alive in sand.
Being out in the open desert against a modern army is death.
I don't care how good your knife fighters are.
And a giant sandworm with a big open mouth looks like a good RPG target.
There are insurgency tactics that work, but they depend on having a friendly population to hide in.
They also require an opposition that doesn't consider extermination of the entire population in the area an option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017266</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I vote for Ringworld.  In fact do all of them.  This could even run longer then Star Trek or Star Wars series.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I vote for Ringworld .
In fact do all of them .
This could even run longer then Star Trek or Star Wars series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vote for Ringworld.
In fact do all of them.
This could even run longer then Star Trek or Star Wars series.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31027994</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1265283060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The two attempts thus far have been failures to my mind.  Lynch's movie had the "feel" of Dune, but as far as the script goes, it sucked really bad (which is strange, considering Herbert had substantial influence over the final product).  The miniseries stuck more closely to the story, but the acting was bloody wooden.  If you could have mixed Lynch's visuals and actors with the miniseries script, I think you would have had Dune down pat.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The two attempts thus far have been failures to my mind .
Lynch 's movie had the " feel " of Dune , but as far as the script goes , it sucked really bad ( which is strange , considering Herbert had substantial influence over the final product ) .
The miniseries stuck more closely to the story , but the acting was bloody wooden .
If you could have mixed Lynch 's visuals and actors with the miniseries script , I think you would have had Dune down pat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two attempts thus far have been failures to my mind.
Lynch's movie had the "feel" of Dune, but as far as the script goes, it sucked really bad (which is strange, considering Herbert had substantial influence over the final product).
The miniseries stuck more closely to the story, but the acting was bloody wooden.
If you could have mixed Lynch's visuals and actors with the miniseries script, I think you would have had Dune down pat.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023812</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265306220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Add Snow Crash to that list.</p><p>Though possibility, it could be re-worked as a graphic novel, and then as an animated movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add Snow Crash to that list.Though possibility , it could be re-worked as a graphic novel , and then as an animated movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add Snow Crash to that list.Though possibility, it could be re-worked as a graphic novel, and then as an animated movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017828</id>
	<title>Arakis, Dune, Desert Planet</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1264948680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lynch's Dune is one of my favorite movies. The re-make (I don't care if Herbert's kid had something to do with it) was largely a travesty borne of lame acting, and an over-reliance on digital effects. My only real complaints with the original were the miscasting of Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck, a few blocking fuck-ups, and the "weirding weapons".  I can only imagine that further attempts to remake Dune would only manage to dissuade future generations from actually reading the fucking book.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lynch 's Dune is one of my favorite movies .
The re-make ( I do n't care if Herbert 's kid had something to do with it ) was largely a travesty borne of lame acting , and an over-reliance on digital effects .
My only real complaints with the original were the miscasting of Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck , a few blocking fuck-ups , and the " weirding weapons " .
I can only imagine that further attempts to remake Dune would only manage to dissuade future generations from actually reading the fucking book .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lynch's Dune is one of my favorite movies.
The re-make (I don't care if Herbert's kid had something to do with it) was largely a travesty borne of lame acting, and an over-reliance on digital effects.
My only real complaints with the original were the miscasting of Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck, a few blocking fuck-ups, and the "weirding weapons".
I can only imagine that further attempts to remake Dune would only manage to dissuade future generations from actually reading the fucking book.
-Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018682</id>
	<title>3d</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264956780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather have a 3d sandwich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have a 3d sandwich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have a 3d sandwich.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017850</id>
	<title>I loved the original</title>
	<author>djdevon3</author>
	<datestamp>1264948860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had no idea there were so many haters out there of the original movie.  I thought and still think it's one of the most epic movies ever created.  When someone asks me "What is an epic movie?" The first thought that enters my head is "Dune".  You people are crazy.  Original Dune movie was the s**t!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had no idea there were so many haters out there of the original movie .
I thought and still think it 's one of the most epic movies ever created .
When someone asks me " What is an epic movie ?
" The first thought that enters my head is " Dune " .
You people are crazy .
Original Dune movie was the s * * t ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had no idea there were so many haters out there of the original movie.
I thought and still think it's one of the most epic movies ever created.
When someone asks me "What is an epic movie?
" The first thought that enters my head is "Dune".
You people are crazy.
Original Dune movie was the s**t!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015728</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You haven't read much science fiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't read much science fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't read much science fiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018736</id>
	<title>Re:Is anyone else sick to the back teeth...</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1264957320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think they should remake The Passion of Christ with lots of 3D camera sweeps and huge explosions specifically to prove your point. Also because I really like bad movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they should remake The Passion of Christ with lots of 3D camera sweeps and huge explosions specifically to prove your point .
Also because I really like bad movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they should remake The Passion of Christ with lots of 3D camera sweeps and huge explosions specifically to prove your point.
Also because I really like bad movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016138</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1264938240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ringworld wouldn't be that hard to film.  You could even do it with 1960s film techniques.  Yes, it is against a really, really big backdrop, but that is what they do with matte paintings.  The only hard part with 1960s film technology would be getting someone into a Puppeteer suit.  Nah, it would be animitronic.</p><p>Today you could do the whole thing with CGI.  Ringworld has a big backdrop, but it is actualy about the characters not the place.  Characters are easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ringworld would n't be that hard to film .
You could even do it with 1960s film techniques .
Yes , it is against a really , really big backdrop , but that is what they do with matte paintings .
The only hard part with 1960s film technology would be getting someone into a Puppeteer suit .
Nah , it would be animitronic.Today you could do the whole thing with CGI .
Ringworld has a big backdrop , but it is actualy about the characters not the place .
Characters are easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ringworld wouldn't be that hard to film.
You could even do it with 1960s film techniques.
Yes, it is against a really, really big backdrop, but that is what they do with matte paintings.
The only hard part with 1960s film technology would be getting someone into a Puppeteer suit.
Nah, it would be animitronic.Today you could do the whole thing with CGI.
Ringworld has a big backdrop, but it is actualy about the characters not the place.
Characters are easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016764</id>
	<title>Umm...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1264941420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't the same said about Lord of the Rings?*</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>*Loved the books, hated the movies. Proles adored it, though. I'm guessing that 90\% or more slashdotters also loved it.</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't the same said about Lord of the Rings ?
* * Loved the books , hated the movies .
Proles adored it , though .
I 'm guessing that 90 \ % or more slashdotters also loved it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't the same said about Lord of the Rings?
* *Loved the books, hated the movies.
Proles adored it, though.
I'm guessing that 90\% or more slashdotters also loved it. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017546</id>
	<title>Do Not Want</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1264946400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why go to all the trouble to render in 3D a creature that has essentially only one dimension?  Also, do we really need another overly long 3D extravaganza about whitey going native?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why go to all the trouble to render in 3D a creature that has essentially only one dimension ?
Also , do we really need another overly long 3D extravaganza about whitey going native ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why go to all the trouble to render in 3D a creature that has essentially only one dimension?
Also, do we really need another overly long 3D extravaganza about whitey going native?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015704</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1264936380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to think that about the Lord of the Rings though, and somehow that managed to become one of the most successful set of movies ever.  It's not that I don't agree with you, just that I for one have been proven wrong before.  The sheer weight of the massive backstory and unusual technology, combined with the basis in Arabic and other non-western cultures make it hard to make a mainstream version of Dune that is at all true to the books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think that about the Lord of the Rings though , and somehow that managed to become one of the most successful set of movies ever .
It 's not that I do n't agree with you , just that I for one have been proven wrong before .
The sheer weight of the massive backstory and unusual technology , combined with the basis in Arabic and other non-western cultures make it hard to make a mainstream version of Dune that is at all true to the books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think that about the Lord of the Rings though, and somehow that managed to become one of the most successful set of movies ever.
It's not that I don't agree with you, just that I for one have been proven wrong before.
The sheer weight of the massive backstory and unusual technology, combined with the basis in Arabic and other non-western cultures make it hard to make a mainstream version of Dune that is at all true to the books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016268</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1264938660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people worry about the description of hair color being right? Or Peter Parker being bitten by a genetically engineered spider instead of a radioactive one? Or that the Prince of Persia is wearing the Warrior Within outfit during the Sands of Time setting? Or a thousand other details that mean smeg all to the overall outline of the setting and plot of any adaptation of anything?</p><p>Also, why do I spend so much of my time complaining about people complaining on the Internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people worry about the description of hair color being right ?
Or Peter Parker being bitten by a genetically engineered spider instead of a radioactive one ?
Or that the Prince of Persia is wearing the Warrior Within outfit during the Sands of Time setting ?
Or a thousand other details that mean smeg all to the overall outline of the setting and plot of any adaptation of anything ? Also , why do I spend so much of my time complaining about people complaining on the Internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people worry about the description of hair color being right?
Or Peter Parker being bitten by a genetically engineered spider instead of a radioactive one?
Or that the Prince of Persia is wearing the Warrior Within outfit during the Sands of Time setting?
Or a thousand other details that mean smeg all to the overall outline of the setting and plot of any adaptation of anything?Also, why do I spend so much of my time complaining about people complaining on the Internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016590</id>
	<title>Why not choose a propper director?</title>
	<author>hoelk</author>
	<datestamp>1264940580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im sorry to hijack this threat for something a bit offtopic; Why the hell did they choose Joseph Kahn ("Torque") to do Neuromancer?
And am I the only person who considers this MUCH more shocking than yet-another-crappy-classic-movie-remake?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im sorry to hijack this threat for something a bit offtopic ; Why the hell did they choose Joseph Kahn ( " Torque " ) to do Neuromancer ?
And am I the only person who considers this MUCH more shocking than yet-another-crappy-classic-movie-remake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im sorry to hijack this threat for something a bit offtopic; Why the hell did they choose Joseph Kahn ("Torque") to do Neuromancer?
And am I the only person who considers this MUCH more shocking than yet-another-crappy-classic-movie-remake?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015540</id>
	<title>How many remakes have their been?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264935660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm too lazy to google it- but I do remember watching one for nine hours over three dvds without getting up! Can I have trophy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm too lazy to google it- but I do remember watching one for nine hours over three dvds without getting up !
Can I have trophy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm too lazy to google it- but I do remember watching one for nine hours over three dvds without getting up!
Can I have trophy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015934</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...not to mention Patrick Stewart...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...not to mention Patrick Stewart.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...not to mention Patrick Stewart...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015780</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1264936680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the advances in CGI plus the example of the LOTR trilogy makes such assertions kind of dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the advances in CGI plus the example of the LOTR trilogy makes such assertions kind of dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the advances in CGI plus the example of the LOTR trilogy makes such assertions kind of dangerous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018866</id>
	<title>Read it as...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parsed it as "Duke 3D Remake Could Mean Sandworms"</p><p>TFOAE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parsed it as " Duke 3D Remake Could Mean Sandworms " TFOAE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parsed it as "Duke 3D Remake Could Mean Sandworms"TFOAE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019282</id>
	<title>There are so many other stories to be told!</title>
	<author>bearinboots</author>
	<datestamp>1264964040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love Dune the novel, and much as I'd love to see it "done right", I'm not sure that's possible for many of the reasons already outlined.</p><p>But, why isn't anybody tackling some of the other great Science Fiction stories just waiting to be filmed?</p><p>
Off the top of my head:</p><ul>
<li>The Mote in God's Eye</li><li>Hellstrom's Hive</li><li>The Humanoids</li><li>Childhood's End</li><li>Dragonriders of Pern</li><li>Downward to the Earth</li><li>The Two Faces of Tomorrrow</li><li>To Say Nothing of the Dog</li></ul><p>
and so on...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love Dune the novel , and much as I 'd love to see it " done right " , I 'm not sure that 's possible for many of the reasons already outlined.But , why is n't anybody tackling some of the other great Science Fiction stories just waiting to be filmed ?
Off the top of my head : The Mote in God 's EyeHellstrom 's HiveThe HumanoidsChildhood 's EndDragonriders of PernDownward to the EarthThe Two Faces of TomorrrowTo Say Nothing of the Dog and so on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love Dune the novel, and much as I'd love to see it "done right", I'm not sure that's possible for many of the reasons already outlined.But, why isn't anybody tackling some of the other great Science Fiction stories just waiting to be filmed?
Off the top of my head:
The Mote in God's EyeHellstrom's HiveThe HumanoidsChildhood's EndDragonriders of PernDownward to the EarthThe Two Faces of TomorrrowTo Say Nothing of the Dog
and so on...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015910</id>
	<title>Old Crazy Guy Review....</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1264937160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cannot wait, not for the release of the film, but for the funny as heck review by the old crazy guy on you tube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not wait , not for the release of the film , but for the funny as heck review by the old crazy guy on you tube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot wait, not for the release of the film, but for the funny as heck review by the old crazy guy on you tube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016902</id>
	<title>Re:Do we need another</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1264942260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>William Hurt was boring in Dune, and The Village too, but check out his earlier movie "The Doctor".  He's excellent in that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>William Hurt was boring in Dune , and The Village too , but check out his earlier movie " The Doctor " .
He 's excellent in that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>William Hurt was boring in Dune, and The Village too, but check out his earlier movie "The Doctor".
He's excellent in that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020210</id>
	<title>Re:How many remakes have their been?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265280540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016706</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Snap!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Snap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Snap!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016146</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264938300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Movie scripts run to, maybe 30 or 40 pages. Novelizations usually have to add stuff. Movies are often based on short stories for this reason.</p><p>Neuromancer is a dense novel. Every character has a back story. Probably every character could have their own movie.</p><p>You could cut it down and make a movie called Neuromancer but it wouldn't be the same. Also bits have been cut out for different stories. All the cyberpunk stuff in The Matrix for example. The story has been around so long that the movie would look derivative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Movie scripts run to , maybe 30 or 40 pages .
Novelizations usually have to add stuff .
Movies are often based on short stories for this reason.Neuromancer is a dense novel .
Every character has a back story .
Probably every character could have their own movie.You could cut it down and make a movie called Neuromancer but it would n't be the same .
Also bits have been cut out for different stories .
All the cyberpunk stuff in The Matrix for example .
The story has been around so long that the movie would look derivative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Movie scripts run to, maybe 30 or 40 pages.
Novelizations usually have to add stuff.
Movies are often based on short stories for this reason.Neuromancer is a dense novel.
Every character has a back story.
Probably every character could have their own movie.You could cut it down and make a movie called Neuromancer but it wouldn't be the same.
Also bits have been cut out for different stories.
All the cyberpunk stuff in The Matrix for example.
The story has been around so long that the movie would look derivative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31034974</id>
	<title>Re:Do we need another</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My God, I loved the film and the book, but thought the Mini-series was shite. I hated what they did with Pauls character - I could not watch the Whiny SOB....</p><p>I would like the to try again, the source material can handle it. You dont have to watch it you know...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My God , I loved the film and the book , but thought the Mini-series was shite .
I hated what they did with Pauls character - I could not watch the Whiny SOB....I would like the to try again , the source material can handle it .
You dont have to watch it you know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My God, I loved the film and the book, but thought the Mini-series was shite.
I hated what they did with Pauls character - I could not watch the Whiny SOB....I would like the to try again, the source material can handle it.
You dont have to watch it you know...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017058</id>
	<title>Harah is Fauchelevent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264943220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem I have with both Lynch's Dune and the miniseries is their treatment--neglect, rather--of the minor characters.  Harah is not Tom Bombadil; she and her sons are the lingering aftermath of Paul's duel with Jamis, and her evolving reaction to Paul serves a larger narrative purpose in explaining his transition from outsider to messiah. From "THIS bested my Jamis?" to serving as nanny to Alia and later the twins, she is transformed form hardened skeptic to follower.</p><p>I agree that one movie is probably not enough to cover all of Dune.  Like Les Misearables, the tragedy of filming such an epic work is that there's so much good material that it's seemingly impossible to do so without excising critically important pieces. Les Mis, however, did get a 6 hour treatment... (The Dayan Depardieu/Malkovich 2000 adaptation) but not in English.  Would that Dune would get such an expansive treatment!</p><p>Oh, and if they can bring back Max Von Sydow as Liet-Kynes, I'd be perfectly happy with that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem I have with both Lynch 's Dune and the miniseries is their treatment--neglect , rather--of the minor characters .
Harah is not Tom Bombadil ; she and her sons are the lingering aftermath of Paul 's duel with Jamis , and her evolving reaction to Paul serves a larger narrative purpose in explaining his transition from outsider to messiah .
From " THIS bested my Jamis ?
" to serving as nanny to Alia and later the twins , she is transformed form hardened skeptic to follower.I agree that one movie is probably not enough to cover all of Dune .
Like Les Misearables , the tragedy of filming such an epic work is that there 's so much good material that it 's seemingly impossible to do so without excising critically important pieces .
Les Mis , however , did get a 6 hour treatment... ( The Dayan Depardieu/Malkovich 2000 adaptation ) but not in English .
Would that Dune would get such an expansive treatment ! Oh , and if they can bring back Max Von Sydow as Liet-Kynes , I 'd be perfectly happy with that .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem I have with both Lynch's Dune and the miniseries is their treatment--neglect, rather--of the minor characters.
Harah is not Tom Bombadil; she and her sons are the lingering aftermath of Paul's duel with Jamis, and her evolving reaction to Paul serves a larger narrative purpose in explaining his transition from outsider to messiah.
From "THIS bested my Jamis?
" to serving as nanny to Alia and later the twins, she is transformed form hardened skeptic to follower.I agree that one movie is probably not enough to cover all of Dune.
Like Les Misearables, the tragedy of filming such an epic work is that there's so much good material that it's seemingly impossible to do so without excising critically important pieces.
Les Mis, however, did get a 6 hour treatment... (The Dayan Depardieu/Malkovich 2000 adaptation) but not in English.
Would that Dune would get such an expansive treatment!Oh, and if they can bring back Max Von Sydow as Liet-Kynes, I'd be perfectly happy with that.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016452</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because when Hollywood adapts William Gibson, they create Johnny Mneumonic.  Need I say more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because when Hollywood adapts William Gibson , they create Johnny Mneumonic .
Need I say more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because when Hollywood adapts William Gibson, they create Johnny Mneumonic.
Need I say more?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016542</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is by will alone that i set my mind in motion...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is by will alone that i set my mind in motion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is by will alone that i set my mind in motion...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020752</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>laejoh</author>
	<datestamp>1265287920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should have seen the Barley Townswomen's Guild re-enactment!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should have seen the Barley Townswomen 's Guild re-enactment !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should have seen the Barley Townswomen's Guild re-enactment!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31027180</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Agripa</author>
	<datestamp>1265278740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fuck Integral Trees! If you want to make a Niven novel into a movie, do Protector in the style of Kubrick's 2001.</p></div></blockquote><p>I would rather see Footfall or Lucifer's Hammer.  With the later, the challenge will be how many special interests can be enraged over a movie about a bunch of farmers trying to save the last nuclear power plant (in California no less) from a cannibal army made up of army deserters, religious fanatics, and environmentalists by using weapons of mass destruction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Integral Trees !
If you want to make a Niven novel into a movie , do Protector in the style of Kubrick 's 2001.I would rather see Footfall or Lucifer 's Hammer .
With the later , the challenge will be how many special interests can be enraged over a movie about a bunch of farmers trying to save the last nuclear power plant ( in California no less ) from a cannibal army made up of army deserters , religious fanatics , and environmentalists by using weapons of mass destruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Integral Trees!
If you want to make a Niven novel into a movie, do Protector in the style of Kubrick's 2001.I would rather see Footfall or Lucifer's Hammer.
With the later, the challenge will be how many special interests can be enraged over a movie about a bunch of farmers trying to save the last nuclear power plant (in California no less) from a cannibal army made up of army deserters, religious fanatics, and environmentalists by using weapons of mass destruction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021474</id>
	<title>Why is the U.S. still in Iraq then?</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1265294760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a mechanized army does so well in the desert, why is the U.S. STILL fighting insurgents there or in Afghanistan?  It's because for all the firepower an A10 has or an M1, they're pretty useless when you have to go house to house in order to find your enemy.  Reread Dune again.  Look at the tactics the fremen use.  They're classic insurgency tactics, strike and fade, avoid a full blown line-in-the-sand type battle at all costs.  Wear the enemy down slowly and sap their will to fight.  The fremen also hid in the populace to make it more difficult to find them, the same as the U.S. faced or is facing in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.  They'd be labeled terrorists if they were fighting the U.S.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a mechanized army does so well in the desert , why is the U.S. STILL fighting insurgents there or in Afghanistan ?
It 's because for all the firepower an A10 has or an M1 , they 're pretty useless when you have to go house to house in order to find your enemy .
Reread Dune again .
Look at the tactics the fremen use .
They 're classic insurgency tactics , strike and fade , avoid a full blown line-in-the-sand type battle at all costs .
Wear the enemy down slowly and sap their will to fight .
The fremen also hid in the populace to make it more difficult to find them , the same as the U.S. faced or is facing in Iraq , Afghanistan and Vietnam .
They 'd be labeled terrorists if they were fighting the U.S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a mechanized army does so well in the desert, why is the U.S. STILL fighting insurgents there or in Afghanistan?
It's because for all the firepower an A10 has or an M1, they're pretty useless when you have to go house to house in order to find your enemy.
Reread Dune again.
Look at the tactics the fremen use.
They're classic insurgency tactics, strike and fade, avoid a full blown line-in-the-sand type battle at all costs.
Wear the enemy down slowly and sap their will to fight.
The fremen also hid in the populace to make it more difficult to find them, the same as the U.S. faced or is facing in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam.
They'd be labeled terrorists if they were fighting the U.S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016564</id>
	<title>How many redos do you need on this story?</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1264940460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many remakes are needed of this story?  Wasn't the movie done in the 80s, and a tv mini-series done in the 90s or so?  I mean whats so interesting about this "blue eyed cataract" anyways?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many remakes are needed of this story ?
Was n't the movie done in the 80s , and a tv mini-series done in the 90s or so ?
I mean whats so interesting about this " blue eyed cataract " anyways ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many remakes are needed of this story?
Wasn't the movie done in the 80s, and a tv mini-series done in the 90s or so?
I mean whats so interesting about this "blue eyed cataract" anyways?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017498</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1264946100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or <i>Childhood's End</i>.  LOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or Childhood 's End .
LOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or Childhood's End.
LOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016378</id>
	<title>You can't do dune</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1264939380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as it is in the books. way too much internal dialog, and politics.<br>You can tell the story, just not like it is in the book.</p><p>Now that 3d is a mainstream tool in the movie makers tool belt being in 3d is certainly possible to add to the visuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as it is in the books .
way too much internal dialog , and politics.You can tell the story , just not like it is in the book.Now that 3d is a mainstream tool in the movie makers tool belt being in 3d is certainly possible to add to the visuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as it is in the books.
way too much internal dialog, and politics.You can tell the story, just not like it is in the book.Now that 3d is a mainstream tool in the movie makers tool belt being in 3d is certainly possible to add to the visuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018840</id>
	<title>Keep 3D in DisneyLand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264958580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been saying it ever since the 3D craze started hitting big time in the theaters, and I haven't changed my mind after seeing the best example 3D movies have to offer (Avatar, which is also the only 3D movie I've made myself suffer): keep it in DisneyLand where it belongs. 3D is a gimmick and should stay where gimmicks are acceptable, which is not 99\% of all movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been saying it ever since the 3D craze started hitting big time in the theaters , and I have n't changed my mind after seeing the best example 3D movies have to offer ( Avatar , which is also the only 3D movie I 've made myself suffer ) : keep it in DisneyLand where it belongs .
3D is a gimmick and should stay where gimmicks are acceptable , which is not 99 \ % of all movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been saying it ever since the 3D craze started hitting big time in the theaters, and I haven't changed my mind after seeing the best example 3D movies have to offer (Avatar, which is also the only 3D movie I've made myself suffer): keep it in DisneyLand where it belongs.
3D is a gimmick and should stay where gimmicks are acceptable, which is not 99\% of all movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016056</id>
	<title>hmmm</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1264937820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness.</i> <br>
<br>
The "images" were actually quite well-done.  Lynch's Dune suffered from several problems, but the visual effects and costumes weren't one of them.  And the Brian Eno score was really good (I even liked the end Toto instrumental).</htmltext>
<tokenext>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch 's 1984 version of Dune from the public 's consciousness .
The " images " were actually quite well-done .
Lynch 's Dune suffered from several problems , but the visual effects and costumes were n't one of them .
And the Brian Eno score was really good ( I even liked the end Toto instrumental ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness.
The "images" were actually quite well-done.
Lynch's Dune suffered from several problems, but the visual effects and costumes weren't one of them.
And the Brian Eno score was really good (I even liked the end Toto instrumental).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016368</id>
	<title>This means no Dune</title>
	<author>alvieboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264939260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness "</p><p>This means no Dune, at least for me. And I actually don't want to forget Lynch's version - it is one of the best movies I ever saw (first time when I was 12 or 13 years old).</p><p>IMHO some remakes are not meant to exist. This might be just one of those [ Another one would be a Cronenberg's Existenz remake ].</p><p>What will happen ? Probably some high-speed movie with state-of-the-art photography and visual effects, a typical Hollywoodesque movie made for profit. Not a real movie, from my perspective, a movie that I'd go and watch.</p><p>Anyway, just my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch 's 1984 version of Dune from the public 's consciousness " This means no Dune , at least for me .
And I actually do n't want to forget Lynch 's version - it is one of the best movies I ever saw ( first time when I was 12 or 13 years old ) .IMHO some remakes are not meant to exist .
This might be just one of those [ Another one would be a Cronenberg 's Existenz remake ] .What will happen ?
Probably some high-speed movie with state-of-the-art photography and visual effects , a typical Hollywoodesque movie made for profit .
Not a real movie , from my perspective , a movie that I 'd go and watch.Anyway , just my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness "This means no Dune, at least for me.
And I actually don't want to forget Lynch's version - it is one of the best movies I ever saw (first time when I was 12 or 13 years old).IMHO some remakes are not meant to exist.
This might be just one of those [ Another one would be a Cronenberg's Existenz remake ].What will happen ?
Probably some high-speed movie with state-of-the-art photography and visual effects, a typical Hollywoodesque movie made for profit.
Not a real movie, from my perspective, a movie that I'd go and watch.Anyway, just my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514</id>
	<title>Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>mujadaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1264935540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness."</p></div></blockquote><p>Some of us LIKE that movie.  Frankly, no Dune movie can succeed without Brad Dourif.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch 's 1984 version of Dune from the public 's consciousness .
" Some of us LIKE that movie .
Frankly , no Dune movie can succeed without Brad Dourif .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness.
"Some of us LIKE that movie.
Frankly, no Dune movie can succeed without Brad Dourif.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017350</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1264945080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What, they said Watchmen was unfilmable?  But but but how can a comic be unfilmable?  A series of images used to tell a story... I've always considered the comic book form to be the literary form most like film.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What , they said Watchmen was unfilmable ?
But but but how can a comic be unfilmable ?
A series of images used to tell a story... I 've always considered the comic book form to be the literary form most like film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, they said Watchmen was unfilmable?
But but but how can a comic be unfilmable?
A series of images used to tell a story... I've always considered the comic book form to be the literary form most like film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017300</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264944720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.foxscreenings.com/media/pdf/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf" title="foxscreenings.com">Avatar's screenplay (pdf format)</a> [foxscreenings.com] is 147 pages long. Perhaps you prefer a smaller typeface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar 's screenplay ( pdf format ) [ foxscreenings.com ] is 147 pages long .
Perhaps you prefer a smaller typeface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar's screenplay (pdf format) [foxscreenings.com] is 147 pages long.
Perhaps you prefer a smaller typeface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016704</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1264941120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I partly stated in another post here, I don't think this is completely true.  I think any book is "filmable", now that we have the advanced CGI technology seen in Avatar.</p><p>The problem is time.  To make a movie truly faithful to a full-length novel, you need to make the movie 20 hours long (or at least 10).  Hollywood doesn't want to do that; look how much they wanted to cut LOTR short (but the extended-length versions did quite well).</p><p>With 10-20 hours of time, you could certainly show everything described in the book, I think.  But it'd be expensive, and it'd have to be broken up into installments, and probably shown as a mini-series.</p><p>Now, fitting a long novel into 2 hours (or even 2.5)?  Forget it.  It's just impossible to squeeze it all in, so something has to be left out, sped through too quickly, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I partly stated in another post here , I do n't think this is completely true .
I think any book is " filmable " , now that we have the advanced CGI technology seen in Avatar.The problem is time .
To make a movie truly faithful to a full-length novel , you need to make the movie 20 hours long ( or at least 10 ) .
Hollywood does n't want to do that ; look how much they wanted to cut LOTR short ( but the extended-length versions did quite well ) .With 10-20 hours of time , you could certainly show everything described in the book , I think .
But it 'd be expensive , and it 'd have to be broken up into installments , and probably shown as a mini-series.Now , fitting a long novel into 2 hours ( or even 2.5 ) ?
Forget it .
It 's just impossible to squeeze it all in , so something has to be left out , sped through too quickly , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I partly stated in another post here, I don't think this is completely true.
I think any book is "filmable", now that we have the advanced CGI technology seen in Avatar.The problem is time.
To make a movie truly faithful to a full-length novel, you need to make the movie 20 hours long (or at least 10).
Hollywood doesn't want to do that; look how much they wanted to cut LOTR short (but the extended-length versions did quite well).With 10-20 hours of time, you could certainly show everything described in the book, I think.
But it'd be expensive, and it'd have to be broken up into installments, and probably shown as a mini-series.Now, fitting a long novel into 2 hours (or even 2.5)?
Forget it.
It's just impossible to squeeze it all in, so something has to be left out, sped through too quickly, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018310</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>PakProtector</author>
	<datestamp>1264952760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fuck Ring World. Want to make a Niven novel into a visual feast for the senses, go for the Integral Trees!</p></div></blockquote><p>Fuck Integral Trees!  If you want to make a Niven novel into a movie, do Protector in the style of Kubrick's 2001.</p><p>Also, it's Ringworld, not Ring World.</p><p>Sincerely,<br>The Brennan-monster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Ring World .
Want to make a Niven novel into a visual feast for the senses , go for the Integral Trees ! Fuck Integral Trees !
If you want to make a Niven novel into a movie , do Protector in the style of Kubrick 's 2001.Also , it 's Ringworld , not Ring World.Sincerely,The Brennan-monster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Ring World.
Want to make a Niven novel into a visual feast for the senses, go for the Integral Trees!Fuck Integral Trees!
If you want to make a Niven novel into a movie, do Protector in the style of Kubrick's 2001.Also, it's Ringworld, not Ring World.Sincerely,The Brennan-monster.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31022360</id>
	<title>Re:Is anyone else sick to the back teeth...</title>
	<author>DigitalSorceress</author>
	<datestamp>1265299380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that it's a gimmick, but I think you missed out on one aspect. It seems to me that one of the big driving forces behind "NOW IN THREE DEE" is that Hollywood sees it as a way to get people into the cinema.</p><p>After all, DVDs (and Blu-Ray I suppose) aren't going to bring you 3D without you having the stuff to view 3D at home. I keep hearing about all this 3D stuff coming out for Television, but I think we're a while off yet. Hell, there's a not-insignificant subset of the population that still has 4:3 standard def analog TVs out there even though the US has switched to Digital/HD.</p><p>I'm going to predict that this 3D stuff will continue to be hyped all to hell for some time to come.</p><p>On the point of the subject of the article, it strikes me that I'm much more interested in the political intrigue and complex storyline of the Dune universe than in "SAND WORMS NOW IN THREE DEE", or "NOW WITH MORE 'SPLOSIONS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... IN THREE DEE" anyway.</p><p>So, yes, I'm with you... No plans here to see any 3D movie any time soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that it 's a gimmick , but I think you missed out on one aspect .
It seems to me that one of the big driving forces behind " NOW IN THREE DEE " is that Hollywood sees it as a way to get people into the cinema.After all , DVDs ( and Blu-Ray I suppose ) are n't going to bring you 3D without you having the stuff to view 3D at home .
I keep hearing about all this 3D stuff coming out for Television , but I think we 're a while off yet .
Hell , there 's a not-insignificant subset of the population that still has 4 : 3 standard def analog TVs out there even though the US has switched to Digital/HD.I 'm going to predict that this 3D stuff will continue to be hyped all to hell for some time to come.On the point of the subject of the article , it strikes me that I 'm much more interested in the political intrigue and complex storyline of the Dune universe than in " SAND WORMS NOW IN THREE DEE " , or " NOW WITH MORE 'SPLOSIONS ... IN THREE DEE " anyway.So , yes , I 'm with you... No plans here to see any 3D movie any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that it's a gimmick, but I think you missed out on one aspect.
It seems to me that one of the big driving forces behind "NOW IN THREE DEE" is that Hollywood sees it as a way to get people into the cinema.After all, DVDs (and Blu-Ray I suppose) aren't going to bring you 3D without you having the stuff to view 3D at home.
I keep hearing about all this 3D stuff coming out for Television, but I think we're a while off yet.
Hell, there's a not-insignificant subset of the population that still has 4:3 standard def analog TVs out there even though the US has switched to Digital/HD.I'm going to predict that this 3D stuff will continue to be hyped all to hell for some time to come.On the point of the subject of the article, it strikes me that I'm much more interested in the political intrigue and complex storyline of the Dune universe than in "SAND WORMS NOW IN THREE DEE", or "NOW WITH MORE 'SPLOSIONS ... IN THREE DEE" anyway.So, yes, I'm with you... No plans here to see any 3D movie any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264936200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel.  It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.</p></div><p>Yes I think they should at least try to film a different unfilmable novel. How about Neuromancer or Ringworld?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dune " is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel .
It is , for better or worse , unfilmable.Yes I think they should at least try to film a different unfilmable novel .
How about Neuromancer or Ringworld ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel.
It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.Yes I think they should at least try to film a different unfilmable novel.
How about Neuromancer or Ringworld?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31026544</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265276100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't say about todays films, but the rule of thumb I was taught about 15 years ago for a movie script is a page a minute.  So a 2 hour movie would be roughly 120 pages using their formatting guide.  I fully admit that if you cut down on the formatting and white space you would probably loose half the pages.</p><p>The major problem is that a movie is visual while a book is not, making many books very hard to translate to the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't say about todays films , but the rule of thumb I was taught about 15 years ago for a movie script is a page a minute .
So a 2 hour movie would be roughly 120 pages using their formatting guide .
I fully admit that if you cut down on the formatting and white space you would probably loose half the pages.The major problem is that a movie is visual while a book is not , making many books very hard to translate to the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't say about todays films, but the rule of thumb I was taught about 15 years ago for a movie script is a page a minute.
So a 2 hour movie would be roughly 120 pages using their formatting guide.
I fully admit that if you cut down on the formatting and white space you would probably loose half the pages.The major problem is that a movie is visual while a book is not, making many books very hard to translate to the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015888</id>
	<title>Animate it!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I don't mean "animate as in <i>Avatar</i>" or "animate as in <i>UP</i>" I mean "animate as in <i>Akira</i>, <i>Paprika</i>, <i>Metropolis</i>, etc. etc. (Pity I can't think of any comparable American productions. <i>The Lion King</i>?) A twelve-hour series would do <i>Dune</i> justice, but I'd settle for a three-hour film.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do n't mean " animate as in Avatar " or " animate as in UP " I mean " animate as in Akira , Paprika , Metropolis , etc .
etc. ( Pity I ca n't think of any comparable American productions .
The Lion King ?
) A twelve-hour series would do Dune justice , but I 'd settle for a three-hour film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I don't mean "animate as in Avatar" or "animate as in UP" I mean "animate as in Akira, Paprika, Metropolis, etc.
etc. (Pity I can't think of any comparable American productions.
The Lion King?
) A twelve-hour series would do Dune justice, but I'd settle for a three-hour film.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017178</id>
	<title>Is anyone else sick to the back teeth...</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1264943940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone else sick to the back teeth of "IN 3D"!!!!!1!!!!!?</p><p>It seems to be that they think no one will go see any film unless it has <b>IN 3D</b> writ large at the end of the trailer and on every poster, and they the film makers think that some 3D element will somehow make their film great whether it is or not without being <b>IN 3D</b>.</p><p>I know such singleton action is meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but I for one will make an effort to get through 2010 without seeing any film that shouts the IN 3D gimick in its pitch.</p><p>Please tell me I'm not the only one. Please tell me the average cinema goer isn't a Bay fan wanting nothing more than EXPLOSIONS IN 3D who is going to be suckered into thinking this new gimmick is what makes films great...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else sick to the back teeth of " IN 3D " ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! ! ! ! !
? It seems to be that they think no one will go see any film unless it has IN 3D writ large at the end of the trailer and on every poster , and they the film makers think that some 3D element will somehow make their film great whether it is or not without being IN 3D.I know such singleton action is meaningless in the grand scheme of things , but I for one will make an effort to get through 2010 without seeing any film that shouts the IN 3D gimick in its pitch.Please tell me I 'm not the only one .
Please tell me the average cinema goer is n't a Bay fan wanting nothing more than EXPLOSIONS IN 3D who is going to be suckered into thinking this new gimmick is what makes films great.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else sick to the back teeth of "IN 3D"!!!!!1!!!!!
?It seems to be that they think no one will go see any film unless it has IN 3D writ large at the end of the trailer and on every poster, and they the film makers think that some 3D element will somehow make their film great whether it is or not without being IN 3D.I know such singleton action is meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but I for one will make an effort to get through 2010 without seeing any film that shouts the IN 3D gimick in its pitch.Please tell me I'm not the only one.
Please tell me the average cinema goer isn't a Bay fan wanting nothing more than EXPLOSIONS IN 3D who is going to be suckered into thinking this new gimmick is what makes films great...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017838</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264948680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Johnny Mnemonic was a short story by William Gibson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Johnny Mnemonic was a short story by William Gibson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Johnny Mnemonic was a short story by William Gibson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016374</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>in\_fla</author>
	<datestamp>1264939260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and CGI in Kenneth McMillan as the Baron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and CGI in Kenneth McMillan as the Baron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and CGI in Kenneth McMillan as the Baron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018280</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1264952520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As Neuromancer is hard to play straight, why not Snow Crash? The Metaverse is much more sensible than old-school cyberspace (hey, it's essentially the blueprint for Second Life), even non-geeks would love CosaNostra Pizza and I'll be damned if any shot of Reason in action won't look awesome.<br>
<br>
Granted, nobody would understand what it's all about because the compressed version of the whole Sumeran/Enki/Asherah thing will probably end up incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't read the book. Thus the "unfilmable" problem comes full circle...</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Neuromancer is hard to play straight , why not Snow Crash ?
The Metaverse is much more sensible than old-school cyberspace ( hey , it 's essentially the blueprint for Second Life ) , even non-geeks would love CosaNostra Pizza and I 'll be damned if any shot of Reason in action wo n't look awesome .
Granted , nobody would understand what it 's all about because the compressed version of the whole Sumeran/Enki/Asherah thing will probably end up incomprehensible to anyone who has n't read the book .
Thus the " unfilmable " problem comes full circle.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Neuromancer is hard to play straight, why not Snow Crash?
The Metaverse is much more sensible than old-school cyberspace (hey, it's essentially the blueprint for Second Life), even non-geeks would love CosaNostra Pizza and I'll be damned if any shot of Reason in action won't look awesome.
Granted, nobody would understand what it's all about because the compressed version of the whole Sumeran/Enki/Asherah thing will probably end up incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't read the book.
Thus the "unfilmable" problem comes full circle...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017646</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1264947180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...make it hard to make a mainstream version of Dune that is at all true to the books.</p></div><p>Why do people insist on movies being "true to the book?"</p><p>Books are books and movies are movies. These are different media, so of course there are going to be differences.</p><p>As long as the movie gets across the central concept and emotional impact of the original story, then that's "true" enough for me.</p><p>Comparing books to their movie offspring is comparing apples and oranges. I mean, look at The Hitch Hiker's Guide. That started as a radio play, then it was a book, then a TV series, then a movie. Initially I found the radio show (it came on two vinyl LPs) better than the book, but then the more I read the book the more I came to appreciate the extra little touches that only that medium could allow.</p><p>Look at the original British version of The Office. Look at the subtle little glances at the camera, how are you supposed to get that across in prose? You can't. So if it were a written story then some other joke would have to go in there in its place, or else it would have to be left out completely.</p><p>Look at Lord of the Rings. I tried to watch the movies (never having read the books) and all the fan boys loved it because it was "true to the books." No! Those movies sucked! They were too long and full of too much detail all because somebody was worshiping at the altar of being "true to the book."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...make it hard to make a mainstream version of Dune that is at all true to the books.Why do people insist on movies being " true to the book ?
" Books are books and movies are movies .
These are different media , so of course there are going to be differences.As long as the movie gets across the central concept and emotional impact of the original story , then that 's " true " enough for me.Comparing books to their movie offspring is comparing apples and oranges .
I mean , look at The Hitch Hiker 's Guide .
That started as a radio play , then it was a book , then a TV series , then a movie .
Initially I found the radio show ( it came on two vinyl LPs ) better than the book , but then the more I read the book the more I came to appreciate the extra little touches that only that medium could allow.Look at the original British version of The Office .
Look at the subtle little glances at the camera , how are you supposed to get that across in prose ?
You ca n't .
So if it were a written story then some other joke would have to go in there in its place , or else it would have to be left out completely.Look at Lord of the Rings .
I tried to watch the movies ( never having read the books ) and all the fan boys loved it because it was " true to the books .
" No !
Those movies sucked !
They were too long and full of too much detail all because somebody was worshiping at the altar of being " true to the book .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...make it hard to make a mainstream version of Dune that is at all true to the books.Why do people insist on movies being "true to the book?
"Books are books and movies are movies.
These are different media, so of course there are going to be differences.As long as the movie gets across the central concept and emotional impact of the original story, then that's "true" enough for me.Comparing books to their movie offspring is comparing apples and oranges.
I mean, look at The Hitch Hiker's Guide.
That started as a radio play, then it was a book, then a TV series, then a movie.
Initially I found the radio show (it came on two vinyl LPs) better than the book, but then the more I read the book the more I came to appreciate the extra little touches that only that medium could allow.Look at the original British version of The Office.
Look at the subtle little glances at the camera, how are you supposed to get that across in prose?
You can't.
So if it were a written story then some other joke would have to go in there in its place, or else it would have to be left out completely.Look at Lord of the Rings.
I tried to watch the movies (never having read the books) and all the fan boys loved it because it was "true to the books.
" No!
Those movies sucked!
They were too long and full of too much detail all because somebody was worshiping at the altar of being "true to the book.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023204</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>stirz</author>
	<datestamp>1265303280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recall "The Lord of the Rings" being called "unfilmable". Nevertheless, Peter Jackson was able to prove those skeptics wrong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall " The Lord of the Rings " being called " unfilmable " .
Nevertheless , Peter Jackson was able to prove those skeptics wrong : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall "The Lord of the Rings" being called "unfilmable".
Nevertheless, Peter Jackson was able to prove those skeptics wrong :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021172</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>john83</author>
	<datestamp>1265292600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would agree that a literal interpretation is unfilmable. There's just too much internal monologue and too much exposition to convert easily. I think it needs a Blade Runner style adaptation - find the ideas and images you want to use, and write a movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree that a literal interpretation is unfilmable .
There 's just too much internal monologue and too much exposition to convert easily .
I think it needs a Blade Runner style adaptation - find the ideas and images you want to use , and write a movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree that a literal interpretation is unfilmable.
There's just too much internal monologue and too much exposition to convert easily.
I think it needs a Blade Runner style adaptation - find the ideas and images you want to use, and write a movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015878</id>
	<title>Re:How many remakes have their been?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, but you can get atrophy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , but you can get atrophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, but you can get atrophy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017232</id>
	<title>Give me something new!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not another remake. This weekend I saw a movie in the theater, and EVERY trailer was a remake. Clash of the Titans, Death at a Funeral, and even the A-Team for crying out loud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not another remake .
This weekend I saw a movie in the theater , and EVERY trailer was a remake .
Clash of the Titans , Death at a Funeral , and even the A-Team for crying out loud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not another remake.
This weekend I saw a movie in the theater, and EVERY trailer was a remake.
Clash of the Titans, Death at a Funeral, and even the A-Team for crying out loud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016000</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>HonIsCool</author>
	<datestamp>1264937580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, in what sense would Neuromancer be unfilmable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , in what sense would Neuromancer be unfilmable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, in what sense would Neuromancer be unfilmable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015528</id>
	<title>Slam Lynch's version all you want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264935600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all those 'Lynchian' crazy choices he made, but decades later, it is still the version(besides the book itself) that every future effort will be compared to. It takes unforgivable liberties, but it has a look and sets a mood and still gets people to read the damn books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all those 'Lynchian ' crazy choices he made , but decades later , it is still the version ( besides the book itself ) that every future effort will be compared to .
It takes unforgivable liberties , but it has a look and sets a mood and still gets people to read the damn books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all those 'Lynchian' crazy choices he made, but decades later, it is still the version(besides the book itself) that every future effort will be compared to.
It takes unforgivable liberties, but it has a look and sets a mood and still gets people to read the damn books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015854</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And some of us don't. It can only get better, since you start watching the Lynch film with the feeling that there is a great story to be told, and when it's run it's course, you feel like after watching any other film he bears the responsibility for - cheated by a film putting "being weird" above the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And some of us do n't .
It can only get better , since you start watching the Lynch film with the feeling that there is a great story to be told , and when it 's run it 's course , you feel like after watching any other film he bears the responsibility for - cheated by a film putting " being weird " above the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And some of us don't.
It can only get better, since you start watching the Lynch film with the feeling that there is a great story to be told, and when it's run it's course, you feel like after watching any other film he bears the responsibility for - cheated by a film putting "being weird" above the story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</id>
	<title>Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264935600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel.  It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dune " is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel .
It is , for better or worse , unfilmable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel.
It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015944</id>
	<title>Do we need another</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we <em>really</em> need <em>another</em> attempt to re-make 'Dune'? Yes, David Lynch's 1984 film version was really, really bad. Unwatchable, even. But I thought the healing process was complete with SciFi's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/" title="imdb.com">Dune</a> [imdb.com] (2000) miniseries.</p><p>I watched the miniseries (but not the followup, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287839/" title="imdb.com">Children of Dune</a> [imdb.com] (2003)) and thought it was great. They did an amazing job with the story. With a 3-part miniseries, you can take your time with the story, so it doesn't feel so rushed. Sure, it had William Hurt in it (I find him boring) but was good nonetheless!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>I'm not convinced we need another re-make of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need another attempt to re-make 'Dune ' ?
Yes , David Lynch 's 1984 film version was really , really bad .
Unwatchable , even .
But I thought the healing process was complete with SciFi 's Dune [ imdb.com ] ( 2000 ) miniseries.I watched the miniseries ( but not the followup , Children of Dune [ imdb.com ] ( 2003 ) ) and thought it was great .
They did an amazing job with the story .
With a 3-part miniseries , you can take your time with the story , so it does n't feel so rushed .
Sure , it had William Hurt in it ( I find him boring ) but was good nonetheless !
: - ) I 'm not convinced we need another re-make of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need another attempt to re-make 'Dune'?
Yes, David Lynch's 1984 film version was really, really bad.
Unwatchable, even.
But I thought the healing process was complete with SciFi's Dune [imdb.com] (2000) miniseries.I watched the miniseries (but not the followup, Children of Dune [imdb.com] (2003)) and thought it was great.
They did an amazing job with the story.
With a 3-part miniseries, you can take your time with the story, so it doesn't feel so rushed.
Sure, it had William Hurt in it (I find him boring) but was good nonetheless!
:-)I'm not convinced we need another re-make of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016140</id>
	<title>Why do we need another one?</title>
	<author>jzarling</author>
	<datestamp>1264938240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read the original 3 Dune books before I saw the David Lynch movie, and I didn't think it was half bad.<br>
But why not adapt some other stories? <br>
A Canticle for Liebowitz, or some other ACC novels, like The Light of Other Days, or even Imperial Earth has come miniseries potential.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the original 3 Dune books before I saw the David Lynch movie , and I did n't think it was half bad .
But why not adapt some other stories ?
A Canticle for Liebowitz , or some other ACC novels , like The Light of Other Days , or even Imperial Earth has come miniseries potential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the original 3 Dune books before I saw the David Lynch movie, and I didn't think it was half bad.
But why not adapt some other stories?
A Canticle for Liebowitz, or some other ACC novels, like The Light of Other Days, or even Imperial Earth has come miniseries potential.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016634</id>
	<title>Re:Need a full series, not another movie</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1264940820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ug, don't mention Brian Herbert's crap.  As much as the last two Dune novels were lacklustre to say the least, they're still miles more interesting and better written than the pure shit that Herbert and his partner and crime are putting out.  I read the first couple, and they made your average Star Wars novel seem like high literature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ug , do n't mention Brian Herbert 's crap .
As much as the last two Dune novels were lacklustre to say the least , they 're still miles more interesting and better written than the pure shit that Herbert and his partner and crime are putting out .
I read the first couple , and they made your average Star Wars novel seem like high literature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ug, don't mention Brian Herbert's crap.
As much as the last two Dune novels were lacklustre to say the least, they're still miles more interesting and better written than the pure shit that Herbert and his partner and crime are putting out.
I read the first couple, and they made your average Star Wars novel seem like high literature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015830</id>
	<title>Dune 3D</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264936860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't sell beverages on movie theater and put the old version. You will have a 2D movie + thirst, a whole new dimension to it (and you won't need spice to know how everyone will feel at the end)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't sell beverages on movie theater and put the old version .
You will have a 2D movie + thirst , a whole new dimension to it ( and you wo n't need spice to know how everyone will feel at the end )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't sell beverages on movie theater and put the old version.
You will have a 2D movie + thirst, a whole new dimension to it (and you won't need spice to know how everyone will feel at the end)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019136</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>CODiNE</author>
	<datestamp>1264962060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish he was 20 years younger like in Cuckoo's Nest and played Cletus Cassidy.  Perfect role for him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish he was 20 years younger like in Cuckoo 's Nest and played Cletus Cassidy .
Perfect role for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish he was 20 years younger like in Cuckoo's Nest and played Cletus Cassidy.
Perfect role for him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016912</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264942380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Battlefield Earth proved that films of pulp schlock are plup schlock.<br>I would have rather accepted that on faith than had the auto de fe that was that movie..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Battlefield Earth proved that films of pulp schlock are plup schlock.I would have rather accepted that on faith than had the auto de fe that was that movie. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battlefield Earth proved that films of pulp schlock are plup schlock.I would have rather accepted that on faith than had the auto de fe that was that movie..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31029198</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265289900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell, the Practice Effect would make for a fun popcorn movie!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , the Practice Effect would make for a fun popcorn movie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, the Practice Effect would make for a fun popcorn movie!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016610</id>
	<title>Re:delete the images???</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1264940700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WHAT? that is a horrible movie, with lame effects and a complete butchery of the material...and I'm not even a huge Dune fan.</p><p>By scope he is referring to the type of shots that would be made and how they are viewed in a theater. There is more to filming then just point the camera and shoot.</p><p>You can do a beautifully rendered movie and have a good story. Avatar as a story wasn't original, but then no story is.</p><p>"Anyway, it seems we just should rest this "movie" thing for a few decades, since it seems they either just make movies that are crap or they think creating new ideas is uncool and just keep remaking worse and worse versions of previous movies."<br>that drive me up a wall.<br>First off, most movie for the entire history of movies have been crap, just like an other area of art.</p><p>Second. Just because a story has been done doesn't mean it shouldn't be done again. You don't go around saying there should never be another play about Cinderella because one was don 50 years ago, do you? New actors, new filming, new effects are a  perfectly reasonable reason to make another movie about a story that has been done before.</p><p>third - 2009 had UP, Star Trek, Moon, Carolin, just to name a few good movie. Also a bunch of movies that aren't 'good', but I generally liked. While I recognize transformers wasn't a good movie, I still like giant robots fighting it out. Since that was pretty much all I expected, I wasn't disappointed. Anyone who expected more isn't really familiar with Megan Fox's work.</p><p>" and if it doesn't deliver what was promised take it back and demand the money"<br>where the fuck did that come from? how is it relate to the discussion?</p><p>People like you just like to complain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WHAT ?
that is a horrible movie , with lame effects and a complete butchery of the material...and I 'm not even a huge Dune fan.By scope he is referring to the type of shots that would be made and how they are viewed in a theater .
There is more to filming then just point the camera and shoot.You can do a beautifully rendered movie and have a good story .
Avatar as a story was n't original , but then no story is .
" Anyway , it seems we just should rest this " movie " thing for a few decades , since it seems they either just make movies that are crap or they think creating new ideas is uncool and just keep remaking worse and worse versions of previous movies .
" that drive me up a wall.First off , most movie for the entire history of movies have been crap , just like an other area of art.Second .
Just because a story has been done does n't mean it should n't be done again .
You do n't go around saying there should never be another play about Cinderella because one was don 50 years ago , do you ?
New actors , new filming , new effects are a perfectly reasonable reason to make another movie about a story that has been done before.third - 2009 had UP , Star Trek , Moon , Carolin , just to name a few good movie .
Also a bunch of movies that are n't 'good ' , but I generally liked .
While I recognize transformers was n't a good movie , I still like giant robots fighting it out .
Since that was pretty much all I expected , I was n't disappointed .
Anyone who expected more is n't really familiar with Megan Fox 's work .
" and if it does n't deliver what was promised take it back and demand the money " where the fuck did that come from ?
how is it relate to the discussion ? People like you just like to complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHAT?
that is a horrible movie, with lame effects and a complete butchery of the material...and I'm not even a huge Dune fan.By scope he is referring to the type of shots that would be made and how they are viewed in a theater.
There is more to filming then just point the camera and shoot.You can do a beautifully rendered movie and have a good story.
Avatar as a story wasn't original, but then no story is.
"Anyway, it seems we just should rest this "movie" thing for a few decades, since it seems they either just make movies that are crap or they think creating new ideas is uncool and just keep remaking worse and worse versions of previous movies.
"that drive me up a wall.First off, most movie for the entire history of movies have been crap, just like an other area of art.Second.
Just because a story has been done doesn't mean it shouldn't be done again.
You don't go around saying there should never be another play about Cinderella because one was don 50 years ago, do you?
New actors, new filming, new effects are a  perfectly reasonable reason to make another movie about a story that has been done before.third - 2009 had UP, Star Trek, Moon, Carolin, just to name a few good movie.
Also a bunch of movies that aren't 'good', but I generally liked.
While I recognize transformers wasn't a good movie, I still like giant robots fighting it out.
Since that was pretty much all I expected, I wasn't disappointed.
Anyone who expected more isn't really familiar with Megan Fox's work.
" and if it doesn't deliver what was promised take it back and demand the money"where the fuck did that come from?
how is it relate to the discussion?People like you just like to complain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017338</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1264944960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel. It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.</i>
<br> <br>
When did geeks start treating "unfilmable" as some sort of badge of honor, and using it interchangeably with "I liked the book, so I will pooh-pooh any attempt at adaptation"?
<br> <br>
<i>Gravity's Rainbow</i> is (probably) unfilmable, <i>Dhalgren</i> is (very likely) unfilmable, it's a function of <i>how</i> the books are written, not a synonym for "really-really good".  And there is absolutely nothing about Dune that makes it unfilmable.
<br> <br>
Then again I don't get why everyone's dumping on the Lynch version, I thought it was a great film (if a bit cheesy in places).
<br> <br>
Oh, and greatest sci-fi novel of the 20th century? Puh-lease.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dune " is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel .
It is , for better or worse , unfilmable .
When did geeks start treating " unfilmable " as some sort of badge of honor , and using it interchangeably with " I liked the book , so I will pooh-pooh any attempt at adaptation " ?
Gravity 's Rainbow is ( probably ) unfilmable , Dhalgren is ( very likely ) unfilmable , it 's a function of how the books are written , not a synonym for " really-really good " .
And there is absolutely nothing about Dune that makes it unfilmable .
Then again I do n't get why everyone 's dumping on the Lynch version , I thought it was a great film ( if a bit cheesy in places ) .
Oh , and greatest sci-fi novel of the 20th century ?
Puh-lease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel.
It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.
When did geeks start treating "unfilmable" as some sort of badge of honor, and using it interchangeably with "I liked the book, so I will pooh-pooh any attempt at adaptation"?
Gravity's Rainbow is (probably) unfilmable, Dhalgren is (very likely) unfilmable, it's a function of how the books are written, not a synonym for "really-really good".
And there is absolutely nothing about Dune that makes it unfilmable.
Then again I don't get why everyone's dumping on the Lynch version, I thought it was a great film (if a bit cheesy in places).
Oh, and greatest sci-fi novel of the 20th century?
Puh-lease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019590</id>
	<title>Spend the money elsewhere</title>
	<author>qbrick</author>
	<datestamp>1265314680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On welfare for example, and spare me your middle-eastern (surprise! surprise!) toned 3D rip-off of adolescents' literature, please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On welfare for example , and spare me your middle-eastern ( surprise !
surprise ! ) toned 3D rip-off of adolescents ' literature , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On welfare for example, and spare me your middle-eastern (surprise!
surprise!) toned 3D rip-off of adolescents' literature, please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015828</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me that the Lynch film was a closer representation than the SyFy version, which could not even get the hair color of lead characters right.</p><p>Then again, perhaps because of who was on staff for the film.</p><p>I love how all these directors want to fix/do it right/etc... instead of doing the story AS IS.</p><p>Yeah, I think the lynch version was the best by far, though I would prefer the following books more than doing the first again.  Though I suppose our modern day sensibilities are not ready for Chapterhouse</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that the Lynch film was a closer representation than the SyFy version , which could not even get the hair color of lead characters right.Then again , perhaps because of who was on staff for the film.I love how all these directors want to fix/do it right/etc... instead of doing the story AS IS.Yeah , I think the lynch version was the best by far , though I would prefer the following books more than doing the first again .
Though I suppose our modern day sensibilities are not ready for Chapterhouse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that the Lynch film was a closer representation than the SyFy version, which could not even get the hair color of lead characters right.Then again, perhaps because of who was on staff for the film.I love how all these directors want to fix/do it right/etc... instead of doing the story AS IS.Yeah, I think the lynch version was the best by far, though I would prefer the following books more than doing the first again.
Though I suppose our modern day sensibilities are not ready for Chapterhouse</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023844</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265306400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, in this case, the hair color was a key point into one of the more significant plot points to the book, that being Jessica's parentage;  She had the same hair as her father, which was in stark contrast to the clan she married into.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , in this case , the hair color was a key point into one of the more significant plot points to the book , that being Jessica 's parentage ; She had the same hair as her father , which was in stark contrast to the clan she married into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, in this case, the hair color was a key point into one of the more significant plot points to the book, that being Jessica's parentage;  She had the same hair as her father, which was in stark contrast to the clan she married into.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021718</id>
	<title>As a fan</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1265296080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is the books are more of a political thriller then a sciFi film.</p><p>I would state these:<br>Dune is more "Patriot Games" then "Star Trek"<br>Dune is more "The Manchurian Canidate" then "Blade Runner"</p><p>As a Herbert fan Dune has been from my view a political and social narrative about where politics and religion collide under feudalism. The future setting was really incidental to the story. You could have just as easily swapped Spice for Oil and Arrakis for Arabia... The SciFi elements are not the point, they were mearly tools.</p><p>The Spice was the perfect drug\commodity just as Soma was for Aldus Huxley's Brave New World, the ecological cost of Spice was the real story in regards to the Spice. The dependencies, politically, religiously, economically were also undercurrents in the plot but the larger story was how, as a result of the Spice, and how it factored into society, left man kind stagnant (The Fremen specifically) and how Paul's kin would "stir the pot" and break the universe out of it's stagnant state (the Golden Path) and get the ball rolling again getting back to the uncertainty of life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the books are more of a political thriller then a sciFi film.I would state these : Dune is more " Patriot Games " then " Star Trek " Dune is more " The Manchurian Canidate " then " Blade Runner " As a Herbert fan Dune has been from my view a political and social narrative about where politics and religion collide under feudalism .
The future setting was really incidental to the story .
You could have just as easily swapped Spice for Oil and Arrakis for Arabia... The SciFi elements are not the point , they were mearly tools.The Spice was the perfect drug \ commodity just as Soma was for Aldus Huxley 's Brave New World , the ecological cost of Spice was the real story in regards to the Spice .
The dependencies , politically , religiously , economically were also undercurrents in the plot but the larger story was how , as a result of the Spice , and how it factored into society , left man kind stagnant ( The Fremen specifically ) and how Paul 's kin would " stir the pot " and break the universe out of it 's stagnant state ( the Golden Path ) and get the ball rolling again getting back to the uncertainty of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the books are more of a political thriller then a sciFi film.I would state these:Dune is more "Patriot Games" then "Star Trek"Dune is more "The Manchurian Canidate" then "Blade Runner"As a Herbert fan Dune has been from my view a political and social narrative about where politics and religion collide under feudalism.
The future setting was really incidental to the story.
You could have just as easily swapped Spice for Oil and Arrakis for Arabia... The SciFi elements are not the point, they were mearly tools.The Spice was the perfect drug\commodity just as Soma was for Aldus Huxley's Brave New World, the ecological cost of Spice was the real story in regards to the Spice.
The dependencies, politically, religiously, economically were also undercurrents in the plot but the larger story was how, as a result of the Spice, and how it factored into society, left man kind stagnant (The Fremen specifically) and how Paul's kin would "stir the pot" and break the universe out of it's stagnant state (the Golden Path) and get the ball rolling again getting back to the uncertainty of life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015532</id>
	<title>I liked the 1984 version!</title>
	<author>scotts13</author>
	<datestamp>1264935600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least compared to the made-for-TV siffy channel version. While not accurate to the book, the visual design was quite impressive, as were the 1980's vintage special effects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least compared to the made-for-TV siffy channel version .
While not accurate to the book , the visual design was quite impressive , as were the 1980 's vintage special effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least compared to the made-for-TV siffy channel version.
While not accurate to the book, the visual design was quite impressive, as were the 1980's vintage special effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018366</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Alcoholist</author>
	<datestamp>1264953240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh... Doorstop Earth.  I ain't getting those hours back.  I hear the movie sucked too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh... Doorstop Earth .
I ai n't getting those hours back .
I hear the movie sucked too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh... Doorstop Earth.
I ain't getting those hours back.
I hear the movie sucked too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015804</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, right. That's what they said about Watchmen!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right .
That 's what they said about Watchmen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right.
That's what they said about Watchmen!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31024184</id>
	<title>Not necessary</title>
	<author>d34dluk3</author>
	<datestamp>1265307960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness.</p></div><p>At least for my share of the public consciousness - I was born in '85.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch 's 1984 version of Dune from the public 's consciousness.At least for my share of the public consciousness - I was born in '85 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness.At least for my share of the public consciousness - I was born in '85.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015994</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Nukenbar</author>
	<datestamp>1264937520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know.  I think I just watched it, but in a jungle.  It was called Avatar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .
I think I just watched it , but in a jungle .
It was called Avatar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know.
I think I just watched it, but in a jungle.
It was called Avatar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023984</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265307060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>welcome our new Sandworm riding Kwisatz Haderach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>welcome our new Sandworm riding Kwisatz Haderach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>welcome our new Sandworm riding Kwisatz Haderach.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015872</id>
	<title>3D Sandworms?</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1264936980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd settle for a 3D script and characters...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd settle for a 3D script and characters.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd settle for a 3D script and characters...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31024410</id>
	<title>Not a video game?</title>
	<author>r\_jensen11</author>
	<datestamp>1265308860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far, my only exposure to Dune is the 1992 computer game.  Here I was hoping to be able to play it again....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , my only exposure to Dune is the 1992 computer game .
Here I was hoping to be able to play it again... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, my only exposure to Dune is the 1992 computer game.
Here I was hoping to be able to play it again....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016944</id>
	<title>Dune as modern Islamist parable</title>
	<author>strangelovian</author>
	<datestamp>1264942500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn&rsquo;t Dune an interesting parable for our time &ndash; religious, desert-dwelling tribesmen rebel against an Empire that is extracting their precious resources, and are led in their jihad by the Mahdi.  Will Hollywood really want to make a movie in which al Qaeda are the good guys?  Granted, Avatar painted all of industrial civilization as the bad guy, but this still might be a bit of a stretch</htmltext>
<tokenext>Isn    t Dune an interesting parable for our time    religious , desert-dwelling tribesmen rebel against an Empire that is extracting their precious resources , and are led in their jihad by the Mahdi .
Will Hollywood really want to make a movie in which al Qaeda are the good guys ?
Granted , Avatar painted all of industrial civilization as the bad guy , but this still might be a bit of a stretch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn’t Dune an interesting parable for our time – religious, desert-dwelling tribesmen rebel against an Empire that is extracting their precious resources, and are led in their jihad by the Mahdi.
Will Hollywood really want to make a movie in which al Qaeda are the good guys?
Granted, Avatar painted all of industrial civilization as the bad guy, but this still might be a bit of a stretch</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020298</id>
	<title>Re:Is anyone else sick to the back teeth...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265281680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I won't see it if it's in 3D. 3D works by picking the focus of the scene and rendering it so that if you are focusing on that exact same point, the whole world around you looks face-meltingly pretty. <br> <br> <b>I don't stare at the centre of the screen when watching movies.</b> <br> <br>When I went to see Avatar <i> <b>IN 3D!11112331qwes</b> </i> I came out with a headache I've not experienced since the morning after my 21st birthday party. In almost every scene there was a piece of wildlife or technology that looked damn pretty or impressive, and I wanted to look at it. My own depth perception kicks in, and I spend the next 10 secondswaiting for my right eye to stop spasming. That didn't make the outing particularly enjoyable for me.<br> <br>In short, I'm sure it's lovely but it doesn't work for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't see it if it 's in 3D .
3D works by picking the focus of the scene and rendering it so that if you are focusing on that exact same point , the whole world around you looks face-meltingly pretty .
I do n't stare at the centre of the screen when watching movies .
When I went to see Avatar IN 3D ! 11112331qwes I came out with a headache I 've not experienced since the morning after my 21st birthday party .
In almost every scene there was a piece of wildlife or technology that looked damn pretty or impressive , and I wanted to look at it .
My own depth perception kicks in , and I spend the next 10 secondswaiting for my right eye to stop spasming .
That did n't make the outing particularly enjoyable for me .
In short , I 'm sure it 's lovely but it does n't work for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't see it if it's in 3D.
3D works by picking the focus of the scene and rendering it so that if you are focusing on that exact same point, the whole world around you looks face-meltingly pretty.
I don't stare at the centre of the screen when watching movies.
When I went to see Avatar  IN 3D!11112331qwes  I came out with a headache I've not experienced since the morning after my 21st birthday party.
In almost every scene there was a piece of wildlife or technology that looked damn pretty or impressive, and I wanted to look at it.
My own depth perception kicks in, and I spend the next 10 secondswaiting for my right eye to stop spasming.
That didn't make the outing particularly enjoyable for me.
In short, I'm sure it's lovely but it doesn't work for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019414</id>
	<title>WORM SIGN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WARNING WORM SIGNS DETECTED<br>Aww shit, i need to move my harvester to rocky ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WARNING WORM SIGNS DETECTEDAww shit , i need to move my harvester to rocky ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WARNING WORM SIGNS DETECTEDAww shit, i need to move my harvester to rocky ground.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023922</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265306820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah that's BS.</p><p>I tell this to everyone who has need the movie. The book isn't half bad.</p><p>How great do you think the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (all 683min and 285$ million) would be if you compressed it into 118 minutes and 44million bucks.</p><p>I'll tell you: Not good.</p><p>Because they are about equal in length. When I read battlefield earth the book was over 1200 pages long.</p><p>Part of the reason why many things didn't make any sense at all, or were unbelievable is because most of it was missing. Now the movie wasn't really made all that well either, I am just saying that it was broken before they started.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and yes I get you are really just making fun of the book, I am just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah that 's BS.I tell this to everyone who has need the movie .
The book is n't half bad.How great do you think the Lord of the Rings Trilogy ( all 683min and 285 $ million ) would be if you compressed it into 118 minutes and 44million bucks.I 'll tell you : Not good.Because they are about equal in length .
When I read battlefield earth the book was over 1200 pages long.Part of the reason why many things did n't make any sense at all , or were unbelievable is because most of it was missing .
Now the movie was n't really made all that well either , I am just saying that it was broken before they started .
...and yes I get you are really just making fun of the book , I am just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah that's BS.I tell this to everyone who has need the movie.
The book isn't half bad.How great do you think the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (all 683min and 285$ million) would be if you compressed it into 118 minutes and 44million bucks.I'll tell you: Not good.Because they are about equal in length.
When I read battlefield earth the book was over 1200 pages long.Part of the reason why many things didn't make any sense at all, or were unbelievable is because most of it was missing.
Now the movie wasn't really made all that well either, I am just saying that it was broken before they started.
...and yes I get you are really just making fun of the book, I am just sayin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016920</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>SpryGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1264942380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish someone would try to film "Snowcrash".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish someone would try to film " Snowcrash " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish someone would try to film "Snowcrash".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015852</id>
	<title>Need a full series, not another movie</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1264936920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all the books that Frank Herbert wrote about Dune, combined with all those written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson, there should be enough material to last for quite a while.

As a bonus, all the summarization that would normally happen at the continuation of a series is already built into the Brian Herbert/Kevin J Anderson stuff.  Hated it in the books, because I read them straight through.  I would appreciate the mid-series summaries if spaced out by a week, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the books that Frank Herbert wrote about Dune , combined with all those written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson , there should be enough material to last for quite a while .
As a bonus , all the summarization that would normally happen at the continuation of a series is already built into the Brian Herbert/Kevin J Anderson stuff .
Hated it in the books , because I read them straight through .
I would appreciate the mid-series summaries if spaced out by a week , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the books that Frank Herbert wrote about Dune, combined with all those written by Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson, there should be enough material to last for quite a while.
As a bonus, all the summarization that would normally happen at the continuation of a series is already built into the Brian Herbert/Kevin J Anderson stuff.
Hated it in the books, because I read them straight through.
I would appreciate the mid-series summaries if spaced out by a week, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016016</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!</title>
	<author>Trebawa</author>
	<datestamp>1264937640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad; just that people should try to forget their preconceived notions of how everything should look.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't necessarily mean it 's bad ; just that people should try to forget their preconceived notions of how everything should look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad; just that people should try to forget their preconceived notions of how everything should look.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023090</id>
	<title>Oh, please.</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1265302800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first movie incarnation of Dune, in the theaters, is one of three movies I have ever walked out on. The other two being Barton Fink (omfg what a piece of crap) and 1984 (with Richard Burton). Now, of course, 1984 was just gruesome as a story, but the way the movie was put together was just too painful to stomach for me.</p><p>Sure, 3D sand worms might be nice, but if the rest of the movie isn't thoughtfully put together, complete with actors/actresses that can act, etc., then it will be yet another crap movie with 3D "something" in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first movie incarnation of Dune , in the theaters , is one of three movies I have ever walked out on .
The other two being Barton Fink ( omfg what a piece of crap ) and 1984 ( with Richard Burton ) .
Now , of course , 1984 was just gruesome as a story , but the way the movie was put together was just too painful to stomach for me.Sure , 3D sand worms might be nice , but if the rest of the movie is n't thoughtfully put together , complete with actors/actresses that can act , etc. , then it will be yet another crap movie with 3D " something " in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first movie incarnation of Dune, in the theaters, is one of three movies I have ever walked out on.
The other two being Barton Fink (omfg what a piece of crap) and 1984 (with Richard Burton).
Now, of course, 1984 was just gruesome as a story, but the way the movie was put together was just too painful to stomach for me.Sure, 3D sand worms might be nice, but if the rest of the movie isn't thoughtfully put together, complete with actors/actresses that can act, etc., then it will be yet another crap movie with 3D "something" in it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015942</id>
	<title>In Treatment</title>
	<author>xactuary</author>
	<datestamp>1264937280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.  Shoot the film from the perspective of the Shaddam's throne and characterize the freemen as your basic extremist/Jihadist types. The neocons will eat it up right up until the "evildoers" win, and then again claim Hollywood is anti-'merican.

2.  Shoot the movie from the Bene Gesserit perspective and get funding in Israel. Invite Joe Lieberman to the premier gala.

3.  Shoot the movie from the Shai Haluud perspective in an Disney-esque animated children's classic called "Sandworm Come Home".

4.  Shoot the movie from the Guild space-folding perspective as a road movie.

Any of the above will suck just as much as anything we're likely to see. Unless Frank "Old Blue Eyes" Sinatra sings the soundtrack, of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Shoot the film from the perspective of the Shaddam 's throne and characterize the freemen as your basic extremist/Jihadist types .
The neocons will eat it up right up until the " evildoers " win , and then again claim Hollywood is anti-'merican .
2. Shoot the movie from the Bene Gesserit perspective and get funding in Israel .
Invite Joe Lieberman to the premier gala .
3. Shoot the movie from the Shai Haluud perspective in an Disney-esque animated children 's classic called " Sandworm Come Home " .
4. Shoot the movie from the Guild space-folding perspective as a road movie .
Any of the above will suck just as much as anything we 're likely to see .
Unless Frank " Old Blue Eyes " Sinatra sings the soundtrack , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Shoot the film from the perspective of the Shaddam's throne and characterize the freemen as your basic extremist/Jihadist types.
The neocons will eat it up right up until the "evildoers" win, and then again claim Hollywood is anti-'merican.
2.  Shoot the movie from the Bene Gesserit perspective and get funding in Israel.
Invite Joe Lieberman to the premier gala.
3.  Shoot the movie from the Shai Haluud perspective in an Disney-esque animated children's classic called "Sandworm Come Home".
4.  Shoot the movie from the Guild space-folding perspective as a road movie.
Any of the above will suck just as much as anything we're likely to see.
Unless Frank "Old Blue Eyes" Sinatra sings the soundtrack, of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016934</id>
	<title>This is a job for Peter Jackson.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1264942500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't trust anyone else do it right.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't trust anyone else do it right.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't trust anyone else do it right.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016188</id>
	<title>History repeats itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I foresee something to the effect of Dune Nukem 3D<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I foresee something to the effect of Dune Nukem 3D ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I foresee something to the effect of Dune Nukem 3D ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017886</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264949220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As originally planned, why not just give it back to Ridley Scott, with a reasonable budget and a team of iconoclastic digital filmmakers with something to prove, and let him - again - hire H.R. Giger to do the Harkonnen industrial design.</p><p>For casting, try:</p><p>Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Paul</p><p>Joaquin Phoenix as Duke Leto</p><p>Laura Harring as Jessica</p><p>Philip Seymour Hoffman as the Baron Harkonnen</p><p>Peter Fonda as Piter De Vries</p><p>Russell Crowe as Gurney Halleck</p><p>Jude Law as Duncan Idaho</p><p>Martin Donovan as Thufir Hawat</p><p>Sigourney Weaver as the Reverend Mother Mohaim</p><p>Eric Bana as Stilgar</p><p>Claire Danes as Chani</p><p>Ben Chaplin as Dr Wellington Yueh</p><p>Make it an anti-messiah film, and help people see how they are led astray by charismatic leaders, in-line with Herbert's logic.</p><p>And, during the orbital shot of Salusa Secundus, let it reveal the familiar outlines of the Atlantic ocean, bordered by recognisable land-masses...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As originally planned , why not just give it back to Ridley Scott , with a reasonable budget and a team of iconoclastic digital filmmakers with something to prove , and let him - again - hire H.R .
Giger to do the Harkonnen industrial design.For casting , try : Jonathan Rhys Meyers as PaulJoaquin Phoenix as Duke LetoLaura Harring as JessicaPhilip Seymour Hoffman as the Baron HarkonnenPeter Fonda as Piter De VriesRussell Crowe as Gurney HalleckJude Law as Duncan IdahoMartin Donovan as Thufir HawatSigourney Weaver as the Reverend Mother MohaimEric Bana as StilgarClaire Danes as ChaniBen Chaplin as Dr Wellington YuehMake it an anti-messiah film , and help people see how they are led astray by charismatic leaders , in-line with Herbert 's logic.And , during the orbital shot of Salusa Secundus , let it reveal the familiar outlines of the Atlantic ocean , bordered by recognisable land-masses.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As originally planned, why not just give it back to Ridley Scott, with a reasonable budget and a team of iconoclastic digital filmmakers with something to prove, and let him - again - hire H.R.
Giger to do the Harkonnen industrial design.For casting, try:Jonathan Rhys Meyers as PaulJoaquin Phoenix as Duke LetoLaura Harring as JessicaPhilip Seymour Hoffman as the Baron HarkonnenPeter Fonda as Piter De VriesRussell Crowe as Gurney HalleckJude Law as Duncan IdahoMartin Donovan as Thufir HawatSigourney Weaver as the Reverend Mother MohaimEric Bana as StilgarClaire Danes as ChaniBen Chaplin as Dr Wellington YuehMake it an anti-messiah film, and help people see how they are led astray by charismatic leaders, in-line with Herbert's logic.And, during the orbital shot of Salusa Secundus, let it reveal the familiar outlines of the Atlantic ocean, bordered by recognisable land-masses...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018180</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>sincewhen</author>
	<datestamp>1264951740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it would have been funnier if you mis-named it as "Johnny Pneumonic".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it would have been funnier if you mis-named it as " Johnny Pneumonic " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it would have been funnier if you mis-named it as "Johnny Pneumonic".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021308</id>
	<title>Re:How many remakes have their been?</title>
	<author>ZOmegaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265293500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Baron Harkonen? Is that you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Baron Harkonen ?
Is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baron Harkonen?
Is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016258</id>
	<title>Do we really need another Dune?</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1264938600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Ok, so Lynch's Dune took huge, I say I say, HUGE liberties with the source material.  (There is a legend that Herbert endorsed Lynch's version as true to the source material, which to me means either Herbert had the novel ghosted and never read the drafts, or he was on crack.)  And the version on siffie or whatever they're calling themselves these days was deadly dull.
</p><p>
Does that necessarily mean we need yet another version of Dune?  Couldn't the producers pick a novel that <i>hadn't been done yet</i> and mess with, er, make that instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so Lynch 's Dune took huge , I say I say , HUGE liberties with the source material .
( There is a legend that Herbert endorsed Lynch 's version as true to the source material , which to me means either Herbert had the novel ghosted and never read the drafts , or he was on crack .
) And the version on siffie or whatever they 're calling themselves these days was deadly dull .
Does that necessarily mean we need yet another version of Dune ?
Could n't the producers pick a novel that had n't been done yet and mess with , er , make that instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ok, so Lynch's Dune took huge, I say I say, HUGE liberties with the source material.
(There is a legend that Herbert endorsed Lynch's version as true to the source material, which to me means either Herbert had the novel ghosted and never read the drafts, or he was on crack.
)  And the version on siffie or whatever they're calling themselves these days was deadly dull.
Does that necessarily mean we need yet another version of Dune?
Couldn't the producers pick a novel that hadn't been done yet and mess with, er, make that instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018206</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Johnno74</author>
	<datestamp>1264951920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel.  It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.</p></div><p>Maybe Peter Jackson should have a crack.  They said LOTR was "unfilmable" too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dune " is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel .
It is , for better or worse , unfilmable.Maybe Peter Jackson should have a crack .
They said LOTR was " unfilmable " too : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dune" is probably the greatest 20th-century science fiction novel.
It is, for better or worse, unfilmable.Maybe Peter Jackson should have a crack.
They said LOTR was "unfilmable" too :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021860</id>
	<title>Re:"Dune" is militarily obsolete</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1265296860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The basic problem with "Dune" today is that it predates the Gulf War.  We know what "desert power" looks like now - M1A2 Abrams tanks and A10 Warthogs.  There were worries back in 1991 that mechanized armies couldn't operate in the desert.<br>Wrong.  You go through more air filters.  Some spare parts get used up.  The tanks keep rolling.<br>Remember those Iraqi solders in the first Gulf War who were all dug in, armed, and ready to fight?  THe US sent in a line of tanks equipped with bulldozer blades, rolled over them, and buried them alive in sand.  Being out in the open desert against a modern army is death.  I don't care how good your knife fighters are.</p><p>And a giant sandworm with a big open mouth looks like a good RPG target.</p><p>There are insurgency tactics that work, but they depend on having a friendly population to hide in.  They also require an opposition that doesn't consider extermination of the entire population in the area an option.</p></div><p>Actually if you read the books it isn't an issue. The whole shield technology they developed made even a simple shielded human into a portable nuclear bomb. The shields rendered conventional ballistics useless but energy weapons hitting it made the shield go "giga-boom". Unlike desert storm Arrakis is pure sandy nothingness. Not bed-rock or compressed earth. Even an Abrams tank in that situation could litterally bury itself in the sand (Think sahara not the badlands. Dunes and sandbases that are at least as deep as a sand worm is tall.)</p><p>The worms themselves are pretty durable apparently and conventional ballistics had been long abandoned due to shield technology. What is left are energy weapons and the skin of the worms might be able to endure quite a bit of heat energy and with all that silica acting as refractory sufraces radiation may not be an issue.</p><p>The political aspect wasn't lost on Herbert. The Fremen were in control of Arrakis in reality with leverage against the Spacing Guild. The Emperor or any would-be house would suddenly find it hard to transport a real full army to Arrakis to wipe out the Fremen. Only after Paul rallied the Fremen did it appear that the Spacing Guild would allow a real full contingent of troops to arrive.</p><p>The books were more about politics rather then military or traditional SciFi.</p><p>Paul is a fictional icon that the BG held in reserve to "whip out" when needed. Paul was an abberation that fit the messiah template. Paul and his mother exploited it and the BG lost control of that cultural element. With access to the inner oracle (genetic memory) Paul with the messiah template was nearly unstoppable from a political standpoint due to the religious leverage he held.</p><p>That is the brilliance of the story is the complexity of the political, social, and religious interplay. Something Lynch completely ignored.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic problem with " Dune " today is that it predates the Gulf War .
We know what " desert power " looks like now - M1A2 Abrams tanks and A10 Warthogs .
There were worries back in 1991 that mechanized armies could n't operate in the desert.Wrong .
You go through more air filters .
Some spare parts get used up .
The tanks keep rolling.Remember those Iraqi solders in the first Gulf War who were all dug in , armed , and ready to fight ?
THe US sent in a line of tanks equipped with bulldozer blades , rolled over them , and buried them alive in sand .
Being out in the open desert against a modern army is death .
I do n't care how good your knife fighters are.And a giant sandworm with a big open mouth looks like a good RPG target.There are insurgency tactics that work , but they depend on having a friendly population to hide in .
They also require an opposition that does n't consider extermination of the entire population in the area an option.Actually if you read the books it is n't an issue .
The whole shield technology they developed made even a simple shielded human into a portable nuclear bomb .
The shields rendered conventional ballistics useless but energy weapons hitting it made the shield go " giga-boom " .
Unlike desert storm Arrakis is pure sandy nothingness .
Not bed-rock or compressed earth .
Even an Abrams tank in that situation could litterally bury itself in the sand ( Think sahara not the badlands .
Dunes and sandbases that are at least as deep as a sand worm is tall .
) The worms themselves are pretty durable apparently and conventional ballistics had been long abandoned due to shield technology .
What is left are energy weapons and the skin of the worms might be able to endure quite a bit of heat energy and with all that silica acting as refractory sufraces radiation may not be an issue.The political aspect was n't lost on Herbert .
The Fremen were in control of Arrakis in reality with leverage against the Spacing Guild .
The Emperor or any would-be house would suddenly find it hard to transport a real full army to Arrakis to wipe out the Fremen .
Only after Paul rallied the Fremen did it appear that the Spacing Guild would allow a real full contingent of troops to arrive.The books were more about politics rather then military or traditional SciFi.Paul is a fictional icon that the BG held in reserve to " whip out " when needed .
Paul was an abberation that fit the messiah template .
Paul and his mother exploited it and the BG lost control of that cultural element .
With access to the inner oracle ( genetic memory ) Paul with the messiah template was nearly unstoppable from a political standpoint due to the religious leverage he held.That is the brilliance of the story is the complexity of the political , social , and religious interplay .
Something Lynch completely ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The basic problem with "Dune" today is that it predates the Gulf War.
We know what "desert power" looks like now - M1A2 Abrams tanks and A10 Warthogs.
There were worries back in 1991 that mechanized armies couldn't operate in the desert.Wrong.
You go through more air filters.
Some spare parts get used up.
The tanks keep rolling.Remember those Iraqi solders in the first Gulf War who were all dug in, armed, and ready to fight?
THe US sent in a line of tanks equipped with bulldozer blades, rolled over them, and buried them alive in sand.
Being out in the open desert against a modern army is death.
I don't care how good your knife fighters are.And a giant sandworm with a big open mouth looks like a good RPG target.There are insurgency tactics that work, but they depend on having a friendly population to hide in.
They also require an opposition that doesn't consider extermination of the entire population in the area an option.Actually if you read the books it isn't an issue.
The whole shield technology they developed made even a simple shielded human into a portable nuclear bomb.
The shields rendered conventional ballistics useless but energy weapons hitting it made the shield go "giga-boom".
Unlike desert storm Arrakis is pure sandy nothingness.
Not bed-rock or compressed earth.
Even an Abrams tank in that situation could litterally bury itself in the sand (Think sahara not the badlands.
Dunes and sandbases that are at least as deep as a sand worm is tall.
)The worms themselves are pretty durable apparently and conventional ballistics had been long abandoned due to shield technology.
What is left are energy weapons and the skin of the worms might be able to endure quite a bit of heat energy and with all that silica acting as refractory sufraces radiation may not be an issue.The political aspect wasn't lost on Herbert.
The Fremen were in control of Arrakis in reality with leverage against the Spacing Guild.
The Emperor or any would-be house would suddenly find it hard to transport a real full army to Arrakis to wipe out the Fremen.
Only after Paul rallied the Fremen did it appear that the Spacing Guild would allow a real full contingent of troops to arrive.The books were more about politics rather then military or traditional SciFi.Paul is a fictional icon that the BG held in reserve to "whip out" when needed.
Paul was an abberation that fit the messiah template.
Paul and his mother exploited it and the BG lost control of that cultural element.
With access to the inner oracle (genetic memory) Paul with the messiah template was nearly unstoppable from a political standpoint due to the religious leverage he held.That is the brilliance of the story is the complexity of the political, social, and religious interplay.
Something Lynch completely ignored.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31022620</id>
	<title>does that mean</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1265300520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i have to see Sting in his blue bird speedo in 3D? no thanks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i have to see Sting in his blue bird speedo in 3D ?
no thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i have to see Sting in his blue bird speedo in 3D?
no thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017060</id>
	<title>Re:delete the images???</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1264943220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness

Hell, erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory?</p></div><p>There's nothing to erase - according to my one boss, in her 40's, who claims that the 1984 movie doesn't exist (despite me telling her that it does exist and that I own a copy of it).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch 's 1984 version of Dune from the public 's consciousness Hell , erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory ? There 's nothing to erase - according to my one boss , in her 40 's , who claims that the 1984 movie does n't exist ( despite me telling her that it does exist and that I own a copy of it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness

Hell, erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory?There's nothing to erase - according to my one boss, in her 40's, who claims that the 1984 movie doesn't exist (despite me telling her that it does exist and that I own a copy of it).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017526</id>
	<title>Not another remake, sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264946280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, instead of endlessly remaking one novel, how about trying to film one of the many, many other great sci fi stories that haven't been done yet? How about "The Mote in God's Eye"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , instead of endlessly remaking one novel , how about trying to film one of the many , many other great sci fi stories that have n't been done yet ?
How about " The Mote in God 's Eye " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, instead of endlessly remaking one novel, how about trying to film one of the many, many other great sci fi stories that haven't been done yet?
How about "The Mote in God's Eye"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016394</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1264939380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The score was mostly TOTO; Eno (and a few others) did the Prophecy Theme, but that's all.</p><p>The worst of the problems affecting the Lynch version - that he took his name off - was the studio interference: his first major film with a proper budget and he was young and didn't stand up to them. They screwed with his artistic vision and the result was a waste of his talent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The score was mostly TOTO ; Eno ( and a few others ) did the Prophecy Theme , but that 's all.The worst of the problems affecting the Lynch version - that he took his name off - was the studio interference : his first major film with a proper budget and he was young and did n't stand up to them .
They screwed with his artistic vision and the result was a waste of his talent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The score was mostly TOTO; Eno (and a few others) did the Prophecy Theme, but that's all.The worst of the problems affecting the Lynch version - that he took his name off - was the studio interference: his first major film with a proper budget and he was young and didn't stand up to them.
They screwed with his artistic vision and the result was a waste of his talent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020320</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265281920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Need I say more?</p></div><p>Whooa!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Need I say more ? Whooa !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Need I say more?Whooa!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017016</id>
	<title>Re:Do we need another</title>
	<author>Swampash</author>
	<datestamp>1264942920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Do we really need another attempt to re-make 'Dune'? Yes, David Lynch's 1984 film version was really, really bad. Unwatchable, even.</i><br>I thought it was BEAUTIFUL. Set design, art, cinematography, locations, cast, it's all right on the fucking money. When I read the book now I see the locations and actors from the movie in my head.</p><p>The script and story? Umm.... not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need another attempt to re-make 'Dune ' ?
Yes , David Lynch 's 1984 film version was really , really bad .
Unwatchable , even.I thought it was BEAUTIFUL .
Set design , art , cinematography , locations , cast , it 's all right on the fucking money .
When I read the book now I see the locations and actors from the movie in my head.The script and story ?
Umm.... not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need another attempt to re-make 'Dune'?
Yes, David Lynch's 1984 film version was really, really bad.
Unwatchable, even.I thought it was BEAUTIFUL.
Set design, art, cinematography, locations, cast, it's all right on the fucking money.
When I read the book now I see the locations and actors from the movie in my head.The script and story?
Umm.... not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016808</id>
	<title>Other SciFi needs to be done...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264941720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whats up with the Dune fetish...?</p><p>There are so many other great SciFi stories that could be incredible films.  Larry Niven alone could supply amazing stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats up with the Dune fetish... ? There are so many other great SciFi stories that could be incredible films .
Larry Niven alone could supply amazing stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats up with the Dune fetish...?There are so many other great SciFi stories that could be incredible films.
Larry Niven alone could supply amazing stories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017932</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>visualight</author>
	<datestamp>1264949580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always wanted to see "The Jesus Incident", I liked it better than Dune.  Or, the one after that, forget the name now, but when Avatar first came out I thought it was the third in that series (the one after Jesus Incident).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wanted to see " The Jesus Incident " , I liked it better than Dune .
Or , the one after that , forget the name now , but when Avatar first came out I thought it was the third in that series ( the one after Jesus Incident ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wanted to see "The Jesus Incident", I liked it better than Dune.
Or, the one after that, forget the name now, but when Avatar first came out I thought it was the third in that series (the one after Jesus Incident).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016038</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>duanco</author>
	<datestamp>1264937760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not sure about that myself and believe me,  I am a Dune fan ( went to a book signing once...NOT wearing a disguise...), even like the series put forth by his son Brian and Kevin Anderson....can it be filmed, absolutely, enough plot lines to provide 20 films (give or take of course). Is encouraging in that sick twisted way that they at least keep trying to get it off the ground. Here's to hoping.</htmltext>
<tokenext>not sure about that myself and believe me , I am a Dune fan ( went to a book signing once...NOT wearing a disguise... ) , even like the series put forth by his son Brian and Kevin Anderson....can it be filmed , absolutely , enough plot lines to provide 20 films ( give or take of course ) .
Is encouraging in that sick twisted way that they at least keep trying to get it off the ground .
Here 's to hoping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not sure about that myself and believe me,  I am a Dune fan ( went to a book signing once...NOT wearing a disguise...), even like the series put forth by his son Brian and Kevin Anderson....can it be filmed, absolutely, enough plot lines to provide 20 films (give or take of course).
Is encouraging in that sick twisted way that they at least keep trying to get it off the ground.
Here's to hoping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017578</id>
	<title>Re:delete the images???</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1264946700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness</i>


Hell, erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory?</p>
 </div><p>I'm certainly in agreement that <i>some</i> images from Lynch's film need deleting.  Like that one of Sting in his skiddies - Yecchh!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch 's 1984 version of Dune from the public 's consciousness Hell , erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory ?
I 'm certainly in agreement that some images from Lynch 's film need deleting .
Like that one of Sting in his skiddies - Yecchh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness


Hell, erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory?
I'm certainly in agreement that some images from Lynch's film need deleting.
Like that one of Sting in his skiddies - Yecchh!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017190</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264944000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bene Gesserit Hollywood Witch:  "Many have tried to make a great movie of Dune."</p><p>Director: "They tried and failed?"</p><p>BG Hollywood Witch: "No, they tried and died."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bene Gesserit Hollywood Witch : " Many have tried to make a great movie of Dune .
" Director : " They tried and failed ?
" BG Hollywood Witch : " No , they tried and died .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bene Gesserit Hollywood Witch:  "Many have tried to make a great movie of Dune.
"Director: "They tried and failed?
"BG Hollywood Witch: "No, they tried and died.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016238</id>
	<title>Not another Dune RTS?</title>
	<author>cf18</author>
	<datestamp>1264938540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was hopping for another Dune RTS remake in 3D.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was hopping for another Dune RTS remake in 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was hopping for another Dune RTS remake in 3D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016596</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264940580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck Ring World.  Want to make a Niven novel into a visual feast for the senses, go for the Integral Trees!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Ring World .
Want to make a Niven novel into a visual feast for the senses , go for the Integral Trees !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Ring World.
Want to make a Niven novel into a visual feast for the senses, go for the Integral Trees!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016160</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1264938300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about Neromancer? or 13 or Singularity skies? There are a ton of sci-fi movies completely NOT Film-able. I agree Dune is one of the best, but Singularity Skies? "Ears back and teeth bared the rabbit leveled his machine gun" (or something like that) Best line in a book I have ever read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Neromancer ?
or 13 or Singularity skies ?
There are a ton of sci-fi movies completely NOT Film-able .
I agree Dune is one of the best , but Singularity Skies ?
" Ears back and teeth bared the rabbit leveled his machine gun " ( or something like that ) Best line in a book I have ever read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Neromancer?
or 13 or Singularity skies?
There are a ton of sci-fi movies completely NOT Film-able.
I agree Dune is one of the best, but Singularity Skies?
"Ears back and teeth bared the rabbit leveled his machine gun" (or something like that) Best line in a book I have ever read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018694</id>
	<title>Re:Is anyone else sick to the back teeth...</title>
	<author>scotts13</author>
	<datestamp>1264956900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right out of the gate, they lose about 8-10\% of their audience with 3D. That's the percentage of the population with eye conditions that keep them from seeing the effect. I'm one of them; last 3D film I went to was 90 minutes of holding a hand over one eye, a dim, blurry screen, and a headache.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right out of the gate , they lose about 8-10 \ % of their audience with 3D .
That 's the percentage of the population with eye conditions that keep them from seeing the effect .
I 'm one of them ; last 3D film I went to was 90 minutes of holding a hand over one eye , a dim , blurry screen , and a headache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right out of the gate, they lose about 8-10\% of their audience with 3D.
That's the percentage of the population with eye conditions that keep them from seeing the effect.
I'm one of them; last 3D film I went to was 90 minutes of holding a hand over one eye, a dim, blurry screen, and a headache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019392</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264965720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I used to think that about the Lord of the Rings though, and somehow that managed to become one of the most successful set of movies ever.</p></div><p>I'm still perplexed. Sat through the premier of the first because I was with someone else, walked out on the premier of the second and turned down tickets to the premier of the third. I haven't read the Dune books but how Dune could possibly be a worse script and interpretation than LOTR is beyond me. And that made so much money we'll definitely be seeing more horrible book interpretations in the future.</p><p>It doesn't have to be true to anything. When films with senseless story lines make 200 million, not only does it not have to be true to the books it doesn't even need to make sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think that about the Lord of the Rings though , and somehow that managed to become one of the most successful set of movies ever.I 'm still perplexed .
Sat through the premier of the first because I was with someone else , walked out on the premier of the second and turned down tickets to the premier of the third .
I have n't read the Dune books but how Dune could possibly be a worse script and interpretation than LOTR is beyond me .
And that made so much money we 'll definitely be seeing more horrible book interpretations in the future.It does n't have to be true to anything .
When films with senseless story lines make 200 million , not only does it not have to be true to the books it does n't even need to make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think that about the Lord of the Rings though, and somehow that managed to become one of the most successful set of movies ever.I'm still perplexed.
Sat through the premier of the first because I was with someone else, walked out on the premier of the second and turned down tickets to the premier of the third.
I haven't read the Dune books but how Dune could possibly be a worse script and interpretation than LOTR is beyond me.
And that made so much money we'll definitely be seeing more horrible book interpretations in the future.It doesn't have to be true to anything.
When films with senseless story lines make 200 million, not only does it not have to be true to the books it doesn't even need to make sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016462</id>
	<title>What?! Dune film is ace!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264939740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder the modern world is so bad. Dune is utterly great. If the general consensus is that it's crap, then I now see what is wrong with the world. All you people are wrong! Wrong wrong wrong!</p><p>Seriously, if you want to remake Dune and not make it like Dune, you will fail. I say this as someone who has read all the books. Repeatedly. And discussed them at length with my wife.</p><p>The David Lynch Dune film is gospel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder the modern world is so bad .
Dune is utterly great .
If the general consensus is that it 's crap , then I now see what is wrong with the world .
All you people are wrong !
Wrong wrong wrong ! Seriously , if you want to remake Dune and not make it like Dune , you will fail .
I say this as someone who has read all the books .
Repeatedly. And discussed them at length with my wife.The David Lynch Dune film is gospel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder the modern world is so bad.
Dune is utterly great.
If the general consensus is that it's crap, then I now see what is wrong with the world.
All you people are wrong!
Wrong wrong wrong!Seriously, if you want to remake Dune and not make it like Dune, you will fail.
I say this as someone who has read all the books.
Repeatedly. And discussed them at length with my wife.The David Lynch Dune film is gospel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016126</id>
	<title>All I can think is...</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1264938180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I can think is "I <i>will</i> kill him!"  I had the Paul and Sting knife fighting action figures stuck in the light over the kitchen table for about a decade looking down on everyone with their knives at the ready; no one noticed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can think is " I will kill him !
" I had the Paul and Sting knife fighting action figures stuck in the light over the kitchen table for about a decade looking down on everyone with their knives at the ready ; no one noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can think is "I will kill him!
"  I had the Paul and Sting knife fighting action figures stuck in the light over the kitchen table for about a decade looking down on everyone with their knives at the ready; no one noticed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018738</id>
	<title>Saw the movie, read the books, saw the movie again</title>
	<author>JakFrost</author>
	<datestamp>1264957440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>First Movie As a Kid</b></p><p>I saw the movie first as a kid and didn't understand it except for the basic plot of sand, worms, spice, good guys vs bad buys, emperor, Bene Gesserit, the Guild, a lot of scheming, but loved the dark visuals and the gritty feel of the movie.  I had to watch it again once or twice to try and understand it more but still couldn't grasp the details of the whole story, there was just too much missing from the movie.</p><p><b>Then The Whole Book Series</b></p><p>Then a few years later I decided to read the whole series from front to back and the movie really helped me wrap my head around the look of the Dune universe and how things should look.  However the picture that the series drew in my mind was a bit different than what the movie portrayed and some of the style and look from the movie did not fit.  I felt like the book series starts centered around Paul's life, then the series widens up to his sister and family, then broadens the horizons towards the Jihad and the expanse of the known universe, until the God Emperor comes and overshadows all, and then starts to collapses again back towards Duncan's experience.  The movie helped me put some faces to the characters for the first few books and get a start on the story but detail in the books quickly built up that the movie just became overshadowed.</p><p>I saw the movie a once or twice after finishing the series and I just wasn't so thrilled by it anymore as I was before.  The dreamlike hold of the movie was lost on me since I found the background story between the shifts of power in the universe in the book series a lot more interesting than the personal adventures of Paul and his friends.</p><p><b>Old Movie, PC Game, and Miniseries</b></p><p>I liked the books very much and I like the original movie because the look and feel were almost right and were great on their own.  The movie was a bit different than the story but it was faithful to idea in the books.  I also played the original Dune game on the PC so I got to play through the story of the movie and liked that very much, even though even the game was a bit off the movie.  I also loved the original Dune 2 real time strategy game since it was the first tank warfare game before Command &amp; Conquer and World of Warcraft showed up on the scene.</p><p>I did not like the SciFi Dune miniseries at all since I felt that even with the better acting I could not associate the actors and the characters they played with the people in the books.  They all just felt very wrong and no matter how much prettier and more colorful the miniseries was it made me feel that the miniseries looked more like a theatrical production than a TV series.</p><p><b>New Movie</b></p><p>As for new Dune movie with 3D worms, I say good luck to them and let's see what'll happen with that.  I won't hold my breath though since I don't believe that these are the times in which a good rendition of the Dune series can be made.  There's just too much Wow! factor required in today's movies and even though I liked Avatar 3D and saw it twice, I can't say much for the predictable story.  I predict that this Dune movie will be similar, great visuals and an entertaining movie but just a snip of the real story without much depth.</p><p><i>I say good luck to them and show us something entertaining!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First Movie As a KidI saw the movie first as a kid and did n't understand it except for the basic plot of sand , worms , spice , good guys vs bad buys , emperor , Bene Gesserit , the Guild , a lot of scheming , but loved the dark visuals and the gritty feel of the movie .
I had to watch it again once or twice to try and understand it more but still could n't grasp the details of the whole story , there was just too much missing from the movie.Then The Whole Book SeriesThen a few years later I decided to read the whole series from front to back and the movie really helped me wrap my head around the look of the Dune universe and how things should look .
However the picture that the series drew in my mind was a bit different than what the movie portrayed and some of the style and look from the movie did not fit .
I felt like the book series starts centered around Paul 's life , then the series widens up to his sister and family , then broadens the horizons towards the Jihad and the expanse of the known universe , until the God Emperor comes and overshadows all , and then starts to collapses again back towards Duncan 's experience .
The movie helped me put some faces to the characters for the first few books and get a start on the story but detail in the books quickly built up that the movie just became overshadowed.I saw the movie a once or twice after finishing the series and I just was n't so thrilled by it anymore as I was before .
The dreamlike hold of the movie was lost on me since I found the background story between the shifts of power in the universe in the book series a lot more interesting than the personal adventures of Paul and his friends.Old Movie , PC Game , and MiniseriesI liked the books very much and I like the original movie because the look and feel were almost right and were great on their own .
The movie was a bit different than the story but it was faithful to idea in the books .
I also played the original Dune game on the PC so I got to play through the story of the movie and liked that very much , even though even the game was a bit off the movie .
I also loved the original Dune 2 real time strategy game since it was the first tank warfare game before Command &amp; Conquer and World of Warcraft showed up on the scene.I did not like the SciFi Dune miniseries at all since I felt that even with the better acting I could not associate the actors and the characters they played with the people in the books .
They all just felt very wrong and no matter how much prettier and more colorful the miniseries was it made me feel that the miniseries looked more like a theatrical production than a TV series.New MovieAs for new Dune movie with 3D worms , I say good luck to them and let 's see what 'll happen with that .
I wo n't hold my breath though since I do n't believe that these are the times in which a good rendition of the Dune series can be made .
There 's just too much Wow !
factor required in today 's movies and even though I liked Avatar 3D and saw it twice , I ca n't say much for the predictable story .
I predict that this Dune movie will be similar , great visuals and an entertaining movie but just a snip of the real story without much depth.I say good luck to them and show us something entertaining !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Movie As a KidI saw the movie first as a kid and didn't understand it except for the basic plot of sand, worms, spice, good guys vs bad buys, emperor, Bene Gesserit, the Guild, a lot of scheming, but loved the dark visuals and the gritty feel of the movie.
I had to watch it again once or twice to try and understand it more but still couldn't grasp the details of the whole story, there was just too much missing from the movie.Then The Whole Book SeriesThen a few years later I decided to read the whole series from front to back and the movie really helped me wrap my head around the look of the Dune universe and how things should look.
However the picture that the series drew in my mind was a bit different than what the movie portrayed and some of the style and look from the movie did not fit.
I felt like the book series starts centered around Paul's life, then the series widens up to his sister and family, then broadens the horizons towards the Jihad and the expanse of the known universe, until the God Emperor comes and overshadows all, and then starts to collapses again back towards Duncan's experience.
The movie helped me put some faces to the characters for the first few books and get a start on the story but detail in the books quickly built up that the movie just became overshadowed.I saw the movie a once or twice after finishing the series and I just wasn't so thrilled by it anymore as I was before.
The dreamlike hold of the movie was lost on me since I found the background story between the shifts of power in the universe in the book series a lot more interesting than the personal adventures of Paul and his friends.Old Movie, PC Game, and MiniseriesI liked the books very much and I like the original movie because the look and feel were almost right and were great on their own.
The movie was a bit different than the story but it was faithful to idea in the books.
I also played the original Dune game on the PC so I got to play through the story of the movie and liked that very much, even though even the game was a bit off the movie.
I also loved the original Dune 2 real time strategy game since it was the first tank warfare game before Command &amp; Conquer and World of Warcraft showed up on the scene.I did not like the SciFi Dune miniseries at all since I felt that even with the better acting I could not associate the actors and the characters they played with the people in the books.
They all just felt very wrong and no matter how much prettier and more colorful the miniseries was it made me feel that the miniseries looked more like a theatrical production than a TV series.New MovieAs for new Dune movie with 3D worms, I say good luck to them and let's see what'll happen with that.
I won't hold my breath though since I don't believe that these are the times in which a good rendition of the Dune series can be made.
There's just too much Wow!
factor required in today's movies and even though I liked Avatar 3D and saw it twice, I can't say much for the predictable story.
I predict that this Dune movie will be similar, great visuals and an entertaining movie but just a snip of the real story without much depth.I say good luck to them and show us something entertaining!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018700</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, Hubris!...or Hair!</title>
	<author>sep0209</author>
	<datestamp>1264956900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should have heard the whining in ~82 when Conan had brown hair instead of black hair...Gygax (I think it was him) even complained about it in a Dragon magazine column.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should have heard the whining in ~ 82 when Conan had brown hair instead of black hair...Gygax ( I think it was him ) even complained about it in a Dragon magazine column .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should have heard the whining in ~82 when Conan had brown hair instead of black hair...Gygax (I think it was him) even complained about it in a Dragon magazine column.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015430</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264935300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't thinking remaking the movie in 3D would make the plot any less confusing.  (To someone who never read the books, that is.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't thinking remaking the movie in 3D would make the plot any less confusing .
( To someone who never read the books , that is .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't thinking remaking the movie in 3D would make the plot any less confusing.
(To someone who never read the books, that is.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016098</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Battlefield Earth all but proved that great sci-fi books are often unfilmable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Battlefield Earth all but proved that great sci-fi books are often unfilmable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battlefield Earth all but proved that great sci-fi books are often unfilmable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015602</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>mxpengin</author>
	<datestamp>1264935960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I said the same about the lord of the rings. It kinda s#&amp;ks in some aspects but I like it.(/me still prefers the books ).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I said the same about the lord of the rings .
It kinda s # &amp;ks in some aspects but I like it .
( /me still prefers the books ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I said the same about the lord of the rings.
It kinda s#&amp;ks in some aspects but I like it.
(/me still prefers the books ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018878</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1264959000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'm what you would call a Sci-Fi geek, at the Lynch movie was bad.  It looked great, and, like I said, felt like Dune, but a lot of the elements, like the Weirding Modules, were so moronic that to anyone who enjoyed the book, the movie was like a sick joke.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm what you would call a Sci-Fi geek , at the Lynch movie was bad .
It looked great , and , like I said , felt like Dune , but a lot of the elements , like the Weirding Modules , were so moronic that to anyone who enjoyed the book , the movie was like a sick joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm what you would call a Sci-Fi geek, at the Lynch movie was bad.
It looked great, and, like I said, felt like Dune, but a lot of the elements, like the Weirding Modules, were so moronic that to anyone who enjoyed the book, the movie was like a sick joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018440</id>
	<title>I parse that as duke Remake could be 3d</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264954020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I parse that as duke Remake could be 3d<br>For a brief moment I was overwhelm by joy and confusion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I parse that as duke Remake could be 3dFor a brief moment I was overwhelm by joy and confusion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I parse that as duke Remake could be 3dFor a brief moment I was overwhelm by joy and confusion</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015892</id>
	<title>delete the images???</title>
	<author>l3v1</author>
	<datestamp>1264937100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness</i> <br> <br>
Hell, erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory?<br> <br>
<i>kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D</i> <br> <br>
Has the scope? Geez, the world is 3D, genius, and everything in it has the scope to be 3D.<br> <br>
I've had my fair share of avatar movies for this decade thankyouverymuch.<br> <br>
Anyway, it seems we just should rest this "movie" thing for a few decades, since it seems they either just make movies that are crap or they think creating new ideas is uncool and just keep remaking worse and worse versions of previous movies.<br> <br>
It is an industry alright. So we should treat it as such: pay, watch, and if it doesn't deliver what was promised take it back and demand the money. Or do you keep a mower if it doesn't cut the freaking grass?</htmltext>
<tokenext>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch 's 1984 version of Dune from the public 's consciousness Hell , erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory ?
kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D Has the scope ?
Geez , the world is 3D , genius , and everything in it has the scope to be 3D .
I 've had my fair share of avatar movies for this decade thankyouverymuch .
Anyway , it seems we just should rest this " movie " thing for a few decades , since it seems they either just make movies that are crap or they think creating new ideas is uncool and just keep remaking worse and worse versions of previous movies .
It is an industry alright .
So we should treat it as such : pay , watch , and if it does n't deliver what was promised take it back and demand the money .
Or do you keep a mower if it does n't cut the freaking grass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>recognises that he must try to delete the images associated with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune from the public's consciousness  
Hell, erase the memories of a fantastic adaptation by a fantastic director and replace it by a freaking 3D toystory?
kind of movie that has the scope to be 3D  
Has the scope?
Geez, the world is 3D, genius, and everything in it has the scope to be 3D.
I've had my fair share of avatar movies for this decade thankyouverymuch.
Anyway, it seems we just should rest this "movie" thing for a few decades, since it seems they either just make movies that are crap or they think creating new ideas is uncool and just keep remaking worse and worse versions of previous movies.
It is an industry alright.
So we should treat it as such: pay, watch, and if it doesn't deliver what was promised take it back and demand the money.
Or do you keep a mower if it doesn't cut the freaking grass?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017324</id>
	<title>Re:Do we need another</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1264944900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember the scene where Alia practices with spinning flying knives things and then takes her clothes off to talk to her brother. Whereas the book version made sense (she was taking a bath, became frustrated and restless, and decided to do some practice), when interpreted like it was in the movie, it was completely gratuitous and nonsensical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the scene where Alia practices with spinning flying knives things and then takes her clothes off to talk to her brother .
Whereas the book version made sense ( she was taking a bath , became frustrated and restless , and decided to do some practice ) , when interpreted like it was in the movie , it was completely gratuitous and nonsensical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the scene where Alia practices with spinning flying knives things and then takes her clothes off to talk to her brother.
Whereas the book version made sense (she was taking a bath, became frustrated and restless, and decided to do some practice), when interpreted like it was in the movie, it was completely gratuitous and nonsensical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017136</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Ranzear</author>
	<datestamp>1264943640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By your mention of 'unfilmable' I could pose that Watchmen was considered unfilmable on the same virtues of complexity and such. The Watchmen movie gets the same treatment now as the 1984 Dune movie; the visuals are perfect, but the acting and script fail to convey the entirety of the source material.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By your mention of 'unfilmable ' I could pose that Watchmen was considered unfilmable on the same virtues of complexity and such .
The Watchmen movie gets the same treatment now as the 1984 Dune movie ; the visuals are perfect , but the acting and script fail to convey the entirety of the source material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By your mention of 'unfilmable' I could pose that Watchmen was considered unfilmable on the same virtues of complexity and such.
The Watchmen movie gets the same treatment now as the 1984 Dune movie; the visuals are perfect, but the acting and script fail to convey the entirety of the source material.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016392</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1264939380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Supposedly they <i>are</i> making a Neuromancer movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Supposedly they are making a Neuromancer movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supposedly they are making a Neuromancer movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017628</id>
	<title>Dune is about "humanity"; full 2D is unnecessary</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1264947060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dune is about humans who've rebelled against computers and machines and pushed their human talents to the limits.  You need F/X for the worms and spaceships, but not for most of the story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dune is about humans who 've rebelled against computers and machines and pushed their human talents to the limits .
You need F/X for the worms and spaceships , but not for most of the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dune is about humans who've rebelled against computers and machines and pushed their human talents to the limits.
You need F/X for the worms and spaceships, but not for most of the story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31027018</id>
	<title>Re:Still gonna suck.</title>
	<author>Agripa</author>
	<datestamp>1265278080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Today you could do the whole thing with CGI. Ringworld has a big backdrop, but it is actualy about the characters not the place. Characters are easy.</p></div></blockquote><p>The characters are the problem unless you plan on just filming the first book.  At a minimum Speaker's restraint in the restaurant and later on the Ringworld needs contrast.  He is not a cuddly Klingon who smells like ginger and cinnamon (Except at Louis' lawn party).  Do not call him "cute".  Ever.  As soon as you move beyond Ringworld, you have to deal with the relationship between humans and Pak, whether breeding for luck actually worked, and a whole host of other aspects of the Known Space universe.  A lot of the last a knowledgeable script writer can ignore as irrelevant but are there any?  Besides Niven himself, how many people could write a script who know Known Space well enough?</p><p>The only big problem to solve in my view is homo habilis although I have thought of at least one good way to handle it such that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, maybe.</p><p>At least Star Trek is good for something this time.  It has created an expectation of rishathra that will not completely shock a north American audience.</p><p>"When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage will suffice. You scream and you leap." - Speaker-to-Animals</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Today you could do the whole thing with CGI .
Ringworld has a big backdrop , but it is actualy about the characters not the place .
Characters are easy.The characters are the problem unless you plan on just filming the first book .
At a minimum Speaker 's restraint in the restaurant and later on the Ringworld needs contrast .
He is not a cuddly Klingon who smells like ginger and cinnamon ( Except at Louis ' lawn party ) .
Do not call him " cute " .
Ever. As soon as you move beyond Ringworld , you have to deal with the relationship between humans and Pak , whether breeding for luck actually worked , and a whole host of other aspects of the Known Space universe .
A lot of the last a knowledgeable script writer can ignore as irrelevant but are there any ?
Besides Niven himself , how many people could write a script who know Known Space well enough ? The only big problem to solve in my view is homo habilis although I have thought of at least one good way to handle it such that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny , maybe.At least Star Trek is good for something this time .
It has created an expectation of rishathra that will not completely shock a north American audience .
" When challenging a Kzin , a simple scream of rage will suffice .
You scream and you leap .
" - Speaker-to-Animals</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today you could do the whole thing with CGI.
Ringworld has a big backdrop, but it is actualy about the characters not the place.
Characters are easy.The characters are the problem unless you plan on just filming the first book.
At a minimum Speaker's restraint in the restaurant and later on the Ringworld needs contrast.
He is not a cuddly Klingon who smells like ginger and cinnamon (Except at Louis' lawn party).
Do not call him "cute".
Ever.  As soon as you move beyond Ringworld, you have to deal with the relationship between humans and Pak, whether breeding for luck actually worked, and a whole host of other aspects of the Known Space universe.
A lot of the last a knowledgeable script writer can ignore as irrelevant but are there any?
Besides Niven himself, how many people could write a script who know Known Space well enough?The only big problem to solve in my view is homo habilis although I have thought of at least one good way to handle it such that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, maybe.At least Star Trek is good for something this time.
It has created an expectation of rishathra that will not completely shock a north American audience.
"When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage will suffice.
You scream and you leap.
" - Speaker-to-Animals
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016138</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31029198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31022360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31027180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31026544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31027018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31034974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_210228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016000
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016146
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31026544
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017300
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016452
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020320
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018180
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017838
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016138
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016596
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018310
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31027180
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31029198
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31027018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31022360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31034974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31017850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016268
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31023844
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31018700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31015878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31020210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31021474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31019590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_210228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_210228.31016238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
