Re: The near future
- From: usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (sarah)
- Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:20:47 +0000
Malcolm <Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <1h8e09w.1ernbuektzewgN%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sarah
> <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >Malcolm <Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[-]
> >> The film was OK, but not as good as I had hoped.
> >
> >I would have preferred less concentrated artistry and more factual
> >information, with perhaps a picture of the dedicated counters :-)
>
> Yes, but it obviously wasn't meant to be a purely factual film, just a
> 10-min arty filler, complete with one glaring (to me) error and some
> (artistic licence) exaggeration. For example, I don't think more than a
> handful of the shots of flying geese were of actually migrating birds,
> as was implied, they were flying as they do when just moving between
> roost and feeding grounds.
Easier to get those shots. Many (of the shots they screened) seemed to
be taken on one day when the light and cloud was 'right'. What was the
glaring error?
regards
sarah
--
Think of it as evolution in action.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The near future
- From: Malcolm
- Re: The near future
- References:
- The near future
- From: Charles Francis
- Re: The near future
- From: Hamish
- Re: The near future
- From: Charles Francis
- Re: The near future
- From: Hamish
- Re: The near future
- From: sarah
- Re: The near future
- From: Malcolm
- Re: The near future
- From: sarah
- The near future
- Prev by Date: Re: The near future
- Next by Date: Re: The near future
- Previous by thread: Re: The near future
- Next by thread: Re: The near future
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|