|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 22:01:08 +0200 From: Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> To: tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E8771229538C@EXDB3.ug.kth.se> Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org ja' SuStel: > "We should have done a better job of not being gratuitous in our > representation of a barely clothed actress." > > That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. "Oops! Still being a > little gratuitous. Let's try a little harder to show her in her > underwear for a GOOD REASON." Yes, the scene was indeed ABSOLUTELY not related to the story. Nothing at all. It was just like, "let's add some naked skin". In the previous movie, there was at least a funny bed-scene that gave a reason to have a barely clothed actress... who was green, btw. lut bopbe'qu' lut 'ay'Homvetlh. Hutlhqu' meq. Qublaw' chenmoHwI' <DaH DIr wIcheljaj, jISaHbe'.> 2009 much DabuSDI', loQ potlh 'ej tlhaQ tuQbe'bogh 'ay'Hom. pa' nga'chuqlaw' ghotpu'... 'ej SuDqu' wa' be'. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher _______________________________________________ Tlhingan-hol mailing list Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |