Comments on: Stardust (2007) https://thegoodsreviews.com/stardust-2007/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=stardust-2007 Watching and asking: Is It Good? Sun, 29 Sep 2024 13:42:06 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3 By: Dan Stalcup https://thegoodsreviews.com/stardust-2007/#comment-2663 Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:08:16 +0000 https://thegoodsreviews.com/?p=11283#comment-2663 In reply to Hunter Allen.

LMAO I just looked up the definition, and I’m not sure what word I was thinking of. Thanks. Updated the “deus ex machinas” too.

I’ve read American Gods and quite liked it, but never read Sandman, which probably explains it.

]]> By: Hunter Allen https://thegoodsreviews.com/stardust-2007/#comment-2662 Sat, 10 Feb 2024 06:54:10 +0000 https://thegoodsreviews.com/?p=11283#comment-2662 All I really remember from either the novella or the movie is that they were unmemorable, though in the former case the illustrated version had Charles Vess drawings, which are cool; it was about where I became convinced that maybe Gaiman only had the one great tale in him (namely Sandman), which is fine–Sandman is amazing, one of the very top-tier comics. I know he’s still quite popular, but nothing I’ve seen of e.g., American Gods (admittedly just the show, but which confirmed how much it was retreading Sandman concepts), has really made me want to change my mind on it.

Oh, and I hope you know that I would not usually nitpick word choice or grammar (if I wanted to do that, “dei ex machina,” or “dei ex machinis” if you wanted to justify the terrible decision to spend the last ten minutes figuring out what case and declension “machina” was in); however, as I’m 100% sure that you think “swarthiness” means something besides what it actually means, I believe it’s worth pointing out. -_- (Feel free to delete this, of course.)

]]>