[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Day of the Roses"
- Subject: Re: "Day of the Roses"
- From: johnparker20@hotmail.com
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 11:10:36 GMT
- Newsgroups: aus.rail, aus.tv
- Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
- References: <362AE59E.4872E00B@hermes.net.au> <01bdfb40$6dbb1da0$0d9c0ccb@jen-s-computer> <01bdfb47$63de3a40$409c6ccb@bits-n-pc-s> <362B33BD.CC5BBCFE@ozemail.com.au> <70fe4k$o9k$1@izvestia.its.unimelb.edu.au> <362B47CB.EFA98F11@ozemail.com.au> <362f82d0.13901322@news.accsoft.com.au> <362C8818.30B45827@ozemail.com.au> <362E19B9.17CAA9EA@bigpond.com>
- Xref: news.mel.aone.net.au aus.rail:34225 aus.tv:68044
> > Shane wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a minimum time where there shouldn't be anything made?
> > > Will there be a Martin Bryant story (for example)? Should there be?
> >
> > I would say there should never be a Port Arthur movie made. I don't think
there
> > should be a Princess Diana movie made either. I disagree with companies
making a
> > profit out of other people's loss.
You're not a little bit worried that your attitude might tend to restrict
topic suitable for dramatisation? If everyone agreed with you, think of the
very good movies which would never have been made:
Schindler's List
Titanic
Braveheart
Any movie involving either world war, etc, etc.
regards John
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own